Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Unlock unbeatable offers today. Shop here: https://amzn.to/4cEkqYs 🎁
"The people are not choosing who gets the delegates in North Dakota , 11 state party leaders are~"
And?
The GOP is a private entity at liberty to decide its delegates as it sees fit, separate and apart from ‘the people.’
The primary process is a bizarre blend of public and private sectors, where state elections laws administer the voting process, but no political party is required to abide by the election results.
The states should remove themselves from the process entirely. It's a private matter concerning a private organization.
Since it does ultimately involve an election, there are apparently laws and regulations that must be abided by and which therefore require monitoring.
Of course the states should be involved in elections for political office. However they should not involve themselves or devote government resources to the operation of private organizations.
You wouldn't have a problem with this if trump had won.
Study up on how a republic works
The last I heard in an election it is the PEOPLE who vote. The Representative only votes for the PEOPLE AFTER they have been elected.
Yeah, but primaries aren't really elections. They're kinda more like polls. I believe most of the smaller parties don't even hold primaries at all. Their governing committee simply appoints a candidate, and that's that.
So, what you're saying is the PARTY puts forth a candidate, that you have no say in who the candidates are, and you are stuck with the choice they gave. Is that what you're stating?
"The people are not choosing who gets the delegates in North Dakota , 11 state party leaders are~"
And?
The GOP is a private entity at liberty to decide its delegates as it sees fit, separate and apart from ‘the people.’
The primary process is a bizarre blend of public and private sectors, where state elections laws administer the voting process, but no political party is required to abide by the election results.
The states should remove themselves from the process entirely. It's a private matter concerning a private organization.
Since it does ultimately involve an election, there are apparently laws and regulations that must be abided by and which therefore require monitoring.
Of course the states should be involved in elections for political office. However they should not involve themselves or devote government resources to the operation of private organizations.
Well, like it or not, the presentation of candidates for an election entails laws and regulations the government feels are necessary. If the government is going to impose restrictions, then the government gets to fund the effort.
"The people are not choosing who gets the delegates in North Dakota , 11 state party leaders are~"
And?
The GOP is a private entity at liberty to decide its delegates as it sees fit, separate and apart from ‘the people.’
The primary process is a bizarre blend of public and private sectors, where state elections laws administer the voting process, but no political party is required to abide by the election results.
The states should remove themselves from the process entirely. It's a private matter concerning a private organization.
Since it does ultimately involve an election, there are apparently laws and regulations that must be abided by and which therefore require monitoring.
Of course the states should be involved in elections for political office. However they should not involve themselves or devote government resources to the operation of private organizations.
Well, like it or not, the presentation of candidates for an election entails laws and regulations the government feels are necessary. If the government is going to impose restrictions, then the government gets to fund the effort.
You miss my point. The government has no business imposing restrictions on a private organization telling them how to run their organization. It's ludicrous. What's next? Is the government going to dictate the process for the NY Times choosing the candidates they endorse as well?
You wouldn't have a problem with this if trump had won.
Study up on how a republic works
The last I heard in an election it is the PEOPLE who vote. The Representative only votes for the PEOPLE AFTER they have been elected.
Yeah, but primaries aren't really elections. They're kinda more like polls. I believe most of the smaller parties don't even hold primaries at all. Their governing committee simply appoints a candidate, and that's that.
So, what you're saying is the PARTY puts forth a candidate, that you have no say in who the candidates are, and you are stuck with the choice they gave. Is that what you're stating?
How much say rank-and-file party members have in which candidate the party officially backs depends on the party. But yes, the party itself decides that question, and has every right to do so. For my part, if I do not like the extent to which a certain party pays attention to its rank-and-file members, I have the options of becoming more involved with an eye toward changing it, or withholding my support from that party.
Freedom of association is a wonderful thing, which too many people today do not appreciate.
You wouldn't have a problem with this if trump had won.
Study up on how a republic works
The last I heard in an election it is the PEOPLE who vote. The Representative only votes for the PEOPLE AFTER they have been elected.
Yeah, but primaries aren't really elections. They're kinda more like polls. I believe most of the smaller parties don't even hold primaries at all. Their governing committee simply appoints a candidate, and that's that.
So, what you're saying is the PARTY puts forth a candidate, that you have no say in who the candidates are, and you are stuck with the choice they gave. Is that what you're stating?
How much say rank-and-file party members have in which candidate the party officially backs depends on the party. But yes, the party itself decides that question, and has every right to do so. For my part, if I do not like the extent to which a certain party pays attention to its rank-and-file members, I have the options of becoming more involved with an eye toward changing it, or withholding my support from that party.
Freedom of association is a wonderful thing, which too many people today do not appreciate.
What you are describing, and seemingly supporting is an oligarchy that is run by the elite. The ONLY people who would benefit in a system that you describe are the moneyed class. They have the money to pay someone to represent them at the meetings. Or they have the time to spend representing themselves because they don't need to work for their support.
Either way, what you describe is a system that is entrenched and ONLY works for the elite.
Not the sort of country our Founders ever envisioned.
The last I heard in an election it is the PEOPLE who vote. The Representative only votes for the PEOPLE AFTER they have been elected.
Yeah, but primaries aren't really elections. They're kinda more like polls. I believe most of the smaller parties don't even hold primaries at all. Their governing committee simply appoints a candidate, and that's that.
So, what you're saying is the PARTY puts forth a candidate, that you have no say in who the candidates are, and you are stuck with the choice they gave. Is that what you're stating?
How much say rank-and-file party members have in which candidate the party officially backs depends on the party. But yes, the party itself decides that question, and has every right to do so. For my part, if I do not like the extent to which a certain party pays attention to its rank-and-file members, I have the options of becoming more involved with an eye toward changing it, or withholding my support from that party.
Freedom of association is a wonderful thing, which too many people today do not appreciate.
What you are describing, and seemingly supporting is an oligarchy that is run by the elite. The ONLY people who would benefit in a system that you describe are the moneyed class. They have the money to pay someone to represent them at the meetings. Or they have the time to spend representing themselves because they don't need to work for their support.
Either way, what you describe is a system that is entrenched and ONLY works for the elite.
Not the sort of country our Founders ever envisioned.
May I venture to say that you wouldn't know an "oligarchy" if one bit you on the ass? People with money are always going to have an easier time in life. That's just the way it is, and I'm not willing to go the way of the French and Bolshevik Revolutions in an attempt to inflict personal envy on them because I'm not one.
That being said, you are as free to start a political party of your own, or simply run as a candidate without a party, as anyone else. That you do not have the ability to garner enough attention and support to get anywhere does not justify your idea that your personal enmity for reality entitles you to impose your will on others via government control.
Simply put, the Republican Party is a private entity. They have every right to choose the candidate they back in any way they wish, and being wealthy does not negate that right. Rich Americans are citizens, too.
Our Founders, by the way, barely lasted one election before they formed political parties of their own. Human nature is a bitch.
"The people are not choosing who gets the delegates in North Dakota , 11 state party leaders are~"
And?
The GOP is a private entity at liberty to decide its delegates as it sees fit, separate and apart from ‘the people.’
The primary process is a bizarre blend of public and private sectors, where state elections laws administer the voting process, but no political party is required to abide by the election results.
The states should remove themselves from the process entirely. It's a private matter concerning a private organization.
Since it does ultimately involve an election, there are apparently laws and regulations that must be abided by and which therefore require monitoring.
Of course the states should be involved in elections for political office. However they should not involve themselves or devote government resources to the operation of private organizations.
Well, like it or not, the presentation of candidates for an election entails laws and regulations the government feels are necessary. If the government is going to impose restrictions, then the government gets to fund the effort.
You miss my point. The government has no business imposing restrictions on a private organization telling them how to run their organization. It's ludicrous. What's next? Is the government going to dictate the process for the NY Times choosing the candidates they endorse as well?
The states should remove themselves from the process entirely. It's a private matter concerning a private organization.
Since it does ultimately involve an election, there are apparently laws and regulations that must be abided by and which therefore require monitoring.
Of course the states should be involved in elections for political office. However they should not involve themselves or devote government resources to the operation of private organizations.
Well, like it or not, the presentation of candidates for an election entails laws and regulations the government feels are necessary. If the government is going to impose restrictions, then the government gets to fund the effort.
You miss my point. The government has no business imposing restrictions on a private organization telling them how to run their organization. It's ludicrous. What's next? Is the government going to dictate the process for the NY Times choosing the candidates they endorse as well?
There's a big difference between endorsing someone and presenting them as a candidate.
And you miss MY point. I'm not the one who decided any of this. The government did. I'm just explaining how it works and why.
The states should remove themselves from the process entirely. It's a private matter concerning a private organization.
Since it does ultimately involve an election, there are apparently laws and regulations that must be abided by and which therefore require monitoring.
Of course the states should be involved in elections for political office. However they should not involve themselves or devote government resources to the operation of private organizations.
Well, like it or not, the presentation of candidates for an election entails laws and regulations the government feels are necessary. If the government is going to impose restrictions, then the government gets to fund the effort.
You miss my point. The government has no business imposing restrictions on a private organization telling them how to run their organization. It's ludicrous. What's next? Is the government going to dictate the process for the NY Times choosing the candidates they endorse as well?
Private ? What about all the taxpayer money they get ? The tax exemption status ?
You wanna be private , pay for all that shit yourself !
Yeah, but primaries aren't really elections. They're kinda more like polls. I believe most of the smaller parties don't even hold primaries at all. Their governing committee simply appoints a candidate, and that's that.
So, what you're saying is the PARTY puts forth a candidate, that you have no say in who the candidates are, and you are stuck with the choice they gave. Is that what you're stating?
How much say rank-and-file party members have in which candidate the party officially backs depends on the party. But yes, the party itself decides that question, and has every right to do so. For my part, if I do not like the extent to which a certain party pays attention to its rank-and-file members, I have the options of becoming more involved with an eye toward changing it, or withholding my support from that party.
Freedom of association is a wonderful thing, which too many people today do not appreciate.
What you are describing, and seemingly supporting is an oligarchy that is run by the elite. The ONLY people who would benefit in a system that you describe are the moneyed class. They have the money to pay someone to represent them at the meetings. Or they have the time to spend representing themselves because they don't need to work for their support.
Either way, what you describe is a system that is entrenched and ONLY works for the elite.
Not the sort of country our Founders ever envisioned.
May I venture to say that you wouldn't know an "oligarchy" if one bit you on the ass? People with money are always going to have an easier time in life. That's just the way it is, and I'm not willing to go the way of the French and Bolshevik Revolutions in an attempt to inflict personal envy on them because I'm not one.
That being said, you are as free to start a political party of your own, or simply run as a candidate without a party, as anyone else. That you do not have the ability to garner enough attention and support to get anywhere does not justify your idea that your personal enmity for reality entitles you to impose your will on others via government control.
Simply put, the Republican Party is a private entity. They have every right to choose the candidate they back in any way they wish, and being wealthy does not negate that right. Rich Americans are citizens, too.
Our Founders, by the way, barely lasted one election before they formed political parties of their own. Human nature is a bitch.
Yes, the wealthy always do. However, the system that the Founders set up took as much of that advantage away as they could. The Founders realized that when society stratifies, as it is now doing, the end of the Republic is not far away. Think Rome about the time of Caesar.
So, what you're saying is the PARTY puts forth a candidate, that you have no say in who the candidates are, and you are stuck with the choice they gave. Is that what you're stating?
How much say rank-and-file party members have in which candidate the party officially backs depends on the party. But yes, the party itself decides that question, and has every right to do so. For my part, if I do not like the extent to which a certain party pays attention to its rank-and-file members, I have the options of becoming more involved with an eye toward changing it, or withholding my support from that party.
Freedom of association is a wonderful thing, which too many people today do not appreciate.
What you are describing, and seemingly supporting is an oligarchy that is run by the elite. The ONLY people who would benefit in a system that you describe are the moneyed class. They have the money to pay someone to represent them at the meetings. Or they have the time to spend representing themselves because they don't need to work for their support.
Either way, what you describe is a system that is entrenched and ONLY works for the elite.
Not the sort of country our Founders ever envisioned.
May I venture to say that you wouldn't know an "oligarchy" if one bit you on the ass? People with money are always going to have an easier time in life. That's just the way it is, and I'm not willing to go the way of the French and Bolshevik Revolutions in an attempt to inflict personal envy on them because I'm not one.
That being said, you are as free to start a political party of your own, or simply run as a candidate without a party, as anyone else. That you do not have the ability to garner enough attention and support to get anywhere does not justify your idea that your personal enmity for reality entitles you to impose your will on others via government control.
Simply put, the Republican Party is a private entity. They have every right to choose the candidate they back in any way they wish, and being wealthy does not negate that right. Rich Americans are citizens, too.
Our Founders, by the way, barely lasted one election before they formed political parties of their own. Human nature is a bitch.
Yes, the wealthy always do. However, the system that the Founders set up took as much of that advantage away as they could. The Founders realized that when society stratifies, as it is now doing, the end of the Republic is not far away. Think Rome about the time of Caesar.
Free people get the government they deserve. It is not for you to take away their freedom in order to protect them from not using their freedom in the way you think would be best. It is CERTAINLY not for you to take away people's freedom because you decide they don't deserve it as much as others do, because they have acquired more advantages in life and must be punished for it. That is libthink.
How much say rank-and-file party members have in which candidate the party officially backs depends on the party. But yes, the party itself decides that question, and has every right to do so. For my part, if I do not like the extent to which a certain party pays attention to its rank-and-file members, I have the options of becoming more involved with an eye toward changing it, or withholding my support from that party.
Freedom of association is a wonderful thing, which too many people today do not appreciate.
What you are describing, and seemingly supporting is an oligarchy that is run by the elite. The ONLY people who would benefit in a system that you describe are the moneyed class. They have the money to pay someone to represent them at the meetings. Or they have the time to spend representing themselves because they don't need to work for their support.
Either way, what you describe is a system that is entrenched and ONLY works for the elite.
Not the sort of country our Founders ever envisioned.
May I venture to say that you wouldn't know an "oligarchy" if one bit you on the ass? People with money are always going to have an easier time in life. That's just the way it is, and I'm not willing to go the way of the French and Bolshevik Revolutions in an attempt to inflict personal envy on them because I'm not one.
That being said, you are as free to start a political party of your own, or simply run as a candidate without a party, as anyone else. That you do not have the ability to garner enough attention and support to get anywhere does not justify your idea that your personal enmity for reality entitles you to impose your will on others via government control.
Simply put, the Republican Party is a private entity. They have every right to choose the candidate they back in any way they wish, and being wealthy does not negate that right. Rich Americans are citizens, too.
Our Founders, by the way, barely lasted one election before they formed political parties of their own. Human nature is a bitch.
Yes, the wealthy always do. However, the system that the Founders set up took as much of that advantage away as they could. The Founders realized that when society stratifies, as it is now doing, the end of the Republic is not far away. Think Rome about the time of Caesar.
Free people get the government they deserve. It is not for you to take away their freedom in order to protect them from not using their freedom in the way you think would be best. It is CERTAINLY not for you to take away people's freedom because you decide they don't deserve it as much as others do, because they have acquired more advantages in life and must be punished for it. That is libthink.
It's the rich who are perverting the system which takes control away from the People. Progressivism is a disease and this is merely the latest iteration of it. And, for the record, you are the one supporting libthink. This is their MO all the way.
What you are describing, and seemingly supporting is an oligarchy that is run by the elite. The ONLY people who would benefit in a system that you describe are the moneyed class. They have the money to pay someone to represent them at the meetings. Or they have the time to spend representing themselves because they don't need to work for their support.
Either way, what you describe is a system that is entrenched and ONLY works for the elite.
Not the sort of country our Founders ever envisioned.
May I venture to say that you wouldn't know an "oligarchy" if one bit you on the ass? People with money are always going to have an easier time in life. That's just the way it is, and I'm not willing to go the way of the French and Bolshevik Revolutions in an attempt to inflict personal envy on them because I'm not one.
That being said, you are as free to start a political party of your own, or simply run as a candidate without a party, as anyone else. That you do not have the ability to garner enough attention and support to get anywhere does not justify your idea that your personal enmity for reality entitles you to impose your will on others via government control.
Simply put, the Republican Party is a private entity. They have every right to choose the candidate they back in any way they wish, and being wealthy does not negate that right. Rich Americans are citizens, too.
Our Founders, by the way, barely lasted one election before they formed political parties of their own. Human nature is a bitch.
Yes, the wealthy always do. However, the system that the Founders set up took as much of that advantage away as they could. The Founders realized that when society stratifies, as it is now doing, the end of the Republic is not far away. Think Rome about the time of Caesar.
Free people get the government they deserve. It is not for you to take away their freedom in order to protect them from not using their freedom in the way you think would be best. It is CERTAINLY not for you to take away people's freedom because you decide they don't deserve it as much as others do, because they have acquired more advantages in life and must be punished for it. That is libthink.
It's the rich who are perverting the system which takes control away from the People. Progressivism is a disease and this is merely the latest iteration of it. And, for the record, you are the one supporting libthink. This is their MO all the way.
What a load of simplistic populist crap masquerading as conservatism. "I'm not liberal! I just want to stick to the rich!"
You got your guillotine already set up in the backyard, Robespierre?
May I venture to say that you wouldn't know an "oligarchy" if one bit you on the ass? People with money are always going to have an easier time in life. That's just the way it is, and I'm not willing to go the way of the French and Bolshevik Revolutions in an attempt to inflict personal envy on them because I'm not one.
That being said, you are as free to start a political party of your own, or simply run as a candidate without a party, as anyone else. That you do not have the ability to garner enough attention and support to get anywhere does not justify your idea that your personal enmity for reality entitles you to impose your will on others via government control.
Simply put, the Republican Party is a private entity. They have every right to choose the candidate they back in any way they wish, and being wealthy does not negate that right. Rich Americans are citizens, too.
Our Founders, by the way, barely lasted one election before they formed political parties of their own. Human nature is a bitch.
Yes, the wealthy always do. However, the system that the Founders set up took as much of that advantage away as they could. The Founders realized that when society stratifies, as it is now doing, the end of the Republic is not far away. Think Rome about the time of Caesar.
Free people get the government they deserve. It is not for you to take away their freedom in order to protect them from not using their freedom in the way you think would be best. It is CERTAINLY not for you to take away people's freedom because you decide they don't deserve it as much as others do, because they have acquired more advantages in life and must be punished for it. That is libthink.
It's the rich who are perverting the system which takes control away from the People. Progressivism is a disease and this is merely the latest iteration of it. And, for the record, you are the one supporting libthink. This is their MO all the way.
What a load of simplistic populist crap masquerading as conservatism. "I'm not liberal! I just want to stick to the rich!"
You got your guillotine already set up in the backyard, Robespierre?
I don't want to take the rich peoples money. Nor do i want to cut their heads off. What I demand is an equal playing field. Something that they are denying us thanks to simpletons such as yourself who are either too blind, or too ignorant to see what they are doing to you so you ignore their violations.
