Trump has the worst negatives of just about any candidate in modern history.

[Cecilie1200]

Colorado experiment is a joke.............It flushes down the toilet on our Constitutional principles for the people selecting the candidates and the President of the United States..............

To say that it was fair and by the rules is nothing more than political BS.............the delegates for that state should have been assigned by Presidential Candidate............................Instead........the people voted for delegates who are basically unknown..............and only 10% of the registered Republicans showed up to vote in the farce of a SO CALLED ELECTION..................

For the Record: The Colorado experiment

Blah blah blah de blah "Lofty bullshit that has nothing to do with reality but tries to make something noble out of my whining and crying and demanding my way"

 

[Cecilie1200]

Potential delegate for Trump replaced.....and will get out of the Republican party for good.................in his own words from what went down in Colorado...........

Enjoy.


or this one..........Nickleback.........Standing on the edge of a Revolution.

From what I've heard about that drama queen, we're better off without him.

Glad we can have some "incisive, thoughtful political commentary" from music videos. Next, you'll be telling us about the deep philosophical wisdom you learned from TV commercial jingles.

 

[eagle1462010]

Potential delegate for Trump replaced.....and will get out of the Republican party for good.................in his own words from what went down in Colorado...........

Enjoy.


or this one..........Nickleback.........Standing on the edge of a Revolution.

From what I've heard about that drama queen, we're better off without him.

Glad we can have some "incisive, thoughtful political commentary" from music videos. Next, you'll be telling us about the deep philosophical wisdom you learned from TV commercial jingles.

Keep pushing the rules and STFU.................Everyone knows they are rigging the game and the game has been rigged for a long time................In Colorado they are just more bold about it than others...............There was only 1 music video........the other was supposed to be a delegate for Trump who wasn't even allowed to the game...................

The GAME..............Never thought elections were a game before.............Thought they were and expression of WE THE PEOPLE................We The People GOT FUCKED in Colorado................

But you go on saying how fair it is and how they had their voices heard.................Which is all BS and the people are finally seeing the men behind the curtain from the Wizard of Oz..................

We'll see where it leads................Hopefully to another party that tells the GOP and Dems both to go Fuck themselves............couldn't happen to better people.

 

[MarcATL]

lets just have the vote and move on. Hillary is a terrible candidate and may be under indictment by the time of the election.

Her negatives are huge and growing, once the FBI releases its findings her negatives will go through the roof. So, bring it on. Trump vs. Clinton. Do it!

Hillary will NOT be under indictment. There is nothing to indict her for. It's just Republicans trying to make her unelectable. It's not working. Cruz is even scarier than Trump, in some regards, not because he's a buffoon, but because he's not. He's a theocrat.

Hillary is the best qualified candidate out there, but 30+ years of Republicans lying about her have tarnished her image among the Republican faithful who accept without question, the Republican lies.

He is not a "Theocrat".

By calling him "Theocrat" you are panic mongering.

This is an attempt to appeal to irrational impulses, and thus it is demagoguery.

Much like you libs whine about Trump supposedly doing.

lets just have the vote and move on. Hillary is a terrible candidate and may be under indictment by the time of the election.

Her negatives are huge and growing, once the FBI releases its findings her negatives will go through the roof. So, bring it on. Trump vs. Clinton. Do it!

Hillary will NOT be under indictment. There is nothing to indict her for. It's just Republicans trying to make her unelectable. It's not working. Cruz is even scarier than Trump, in some regards, not because he's a buffoon, but because he's not. He's a theocrat.

Hillary is the best qualified candidate out there, but 30+ years of Republicans lying about her have tarnished her image among the Republican faithful who accept without question, the Republican lies.

He is not a "Theocrat".

By calling him "Theocrat" you are panic mongering.

This is an attempt to appeal to irrational impulses, and thus it is demagoguery.

Much like you libs whine about Trump supposedly doing.

Cruz is most definitely a theocrat. Look at the people who he is surrounding himself with.

His damn father is giving sermons at political events for goodness sakes!

Sent from my SM-N910T using Tapatalk

 

[Correll]

Changing the rules half way though a game is cheating.

When you're the entity who's writing the rules ----- you get to use 'em how you like.

If your employer decides that next week you're laid off ---- are they "cheating"?

Changing the rules in the middle of a contest, because you don't like how it is going is unethical.

That they are working hard to deny one faction the same fair chance of winning the contest as other factions have had, is unfair and a betrayal of their fellow members.

Using your power (to write the rules) to advance YOUR interests instead of serving the interest of the organization as a whole, is an ABUSE of power.

 

[Correll]

I did not claim that base is static. Nor that the parties are static.

The Party is the whole of the membership.

A party leadership without a large membership is just a bunch of guys giving themselves fancy titles in their parent's garage.

The primary system that has developed is a democratic system of picking the Party Candidate,

That at this point the GOP leadership is trying to subvert because they don't like the way the Party membership is voting.

I'm not sure what you mean about the difference between a primary and a general election. What difference am I supposedly missing?

Why do you think I keep bringing up 1912?

Who won -- easily -- the vast majority of Republican primaries that year? Teddy Roosevelt. Won 9 of the last 10 primaries, by decisive margins.
Who won the Republican nomination? William Howard Taft.

The party, not the people, chooses the candidate. Usually those run in tandem but ---- not necessarily. Nor is there any law, or part of the Constitution, that requires that they must.

If the RNC had openly set up rules that they decide the candidate behind closed doors, then the people that joined the party, would have no justification to complain when they did so.

BUT for generations now, the process has been a mostly and increasingly so, democratic process of actual mini elections.

That has been the rules that this Team has been operating under for all of my life and well before.

Openly working and plotting to undermine our own rules, in order to deny one faction of the Team it's fair shot at winning the primary contest is morally wrong.

You keep misrepresenting my complain as "feeling the world owes me something".

It is not the World that owes me anything.

The GOP owes me and my fellows the same treatment and support we gave them when they won the primary fair and square.

Dude, they DID set up rules that didn't involve a standard primary/caucus in Colorado. That's why they didn't have one.

The fact that THIS way is the way you're used to and have come to expect doesn't mean anyone's obligated to do it that way forever.

And the truth is, much of what you expected and thought was the standard way of doing things wasn't really the way things were at all.

Most of the primaries are min-elections.

If the Party Leadership wanted to change the rules, they should have done so well before the primaries were underway.

Changing the rules half way though a game is cheating.

The Trump Faction of the GOP deserves to get to play by the same rules as everyone else.

As we respected the rules when they won, they owe us the same courtesy.

A) You can call primaries any damned thing you want, and believe they're whatever you want. Won't change what they are, and won't stop you from being angry and frustrated when reality refuses to match your perceptions and delusions.

B) The party leadership hasn't changed any rules mid-game, whatever you might think. YOU and your fellow Trumpettes and your cult leader are the ones demanding that they do so because you just now found out what the rules were and don't like them and think we should be "fair", by which you ACTUALLY appear to mean just giving you what you want and renouncing any right to oppose you.

C) At what point has Trump EVER respected the rules, or the winners? Trump doesn't respect anything but his own reflection. If the so-called "respect" you're referring to is another attempt to infer a quid pro quo because you've voted for candidates you didn't like in the past, and now someone somewhere has an "obligation" to give you what you want, we've already addressed that.

a. Candidates campaign, issues are discussed, people vote, votes are counted and a winner announced. This isn't about me calling it an election, it is an election.

b. If Jeb Bush was winning the votes fair and square, I wouldn't be happy, but I would respect the process. In that, I am a better person than the Republican Leadership.

c. A party is an organization who's purpose is to win elections. In attacking their own front runner, the leadership is betraying that purpose and their fellow members. And yes, part of being a team is supporting the TEAM. Even if you don't get to be Team Captain. Which I have done so in the past, and it is now their turn.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Why do you think I keep bringing up 1912?

Who won -- easily -- the vast majority of Republican primaries that year? Teddy Roosevelt. Won 9 of the last 10 primaries, by decisive margins.
Who won the Republican nomination? William Howard Taft.

The party, not the people, chooses the candidate. Usually those run in tandem but ---- not necessarily. Nor is there any law, or part of the Constitution, that requires that they must.

If the RNC had openly set up rules that they decide the candidate behind closed doors, then the people that joined the party, would have no justification to complain when they did so.

BUT for generations now, the process has been a mostly and increasingly so, democratic process of actual mini elections.

That has been the rules that this Team has been operating under for all of my life and well before.

Openly working and plotting to undermine our own rules, in order to deny one faction of the Team it's fair shot at winning the primary contest is morally wrong.

You keep misrepresenting my complain as "feeling the world owes me something".

It is not the World that owes me anything.

The GOP owes me and my fellows the same treatment and support we gave them when they won the primary fair and square.

Dude, they DID set up rules that didn't involve a standard primary/caucus in Colorado. That's why they didn't have one.

The fact that THIS way is the way you're used to and have come to expect doesn't mean anyone's obligated to do it that way forever.

And the truth is, much of what you expected and thought was the standard way of doing things wasn't really the way things were at all.

Most of the primaries are min-elections.

If the Party Leadership wanted to change the rules, they should have done so well before the primaries were underway.

Changing the rules half way though a game is cheating.

The Trump Faction of the GOP deserves to get to play by the same rules as everyone else.

As we respected the rules when they won, they owe us the same courtesy.

A) You can call primaries any damned thing you want, and believe they're whatever you want. Won't change what they are, and won't stop you from being angry and frustrated when reality refuses to match your perceptions and delusions.

B) The party leadership hasn't changed any rules mid-game, whatever you might think. YOU and your fellow Trumpettes and your cult leader are the ones demanding that they do so because you just now found out what the rules were and don't like them and think we should be "fair", by which you ACTUALLY appear to mean just giving you what you want and renouncing any right to oppose you.

C) At what point has Trump EVER respected the rules, or the winners? Trump doesn't respect anything but his own reflection. If the so-called "respect" you're referring to is another attempt to infer a quid pro quo because you've voted for candidates you didn't like in the past, and now someone somewhere has an "obligation" to give you what you want, we've already addressed that.

a. Candidates campaign, issues are discussed, people vote, votes are counted and a winner announced. This isn't about me calling it an election, it is an election.

b. If Jeb Bush was winning the votes fair and square, I wouldn't be happy, but I would respect the process. In that, I am a better person than the Republican Leadership.

c. A party is an organization who's purpose is to win elections. In attacking their own front runner, the leadership is betraying that purpose and their fellow members. And yes, part of being a team is supporting the TEAM. Even if you don't get to be Team Captain. Which I have done so in the past, and it is now their turn.

Yeah, but it's NOT an election. It's not an official government function, and has been pointed out, the party itself decides how binding the opinions expressed actually are. It's a poll. In fact, some states even come right out and call it that.

The Republican leadership IS respecting the process. It's the people who just noticed the process and are demanding that it be changed mid-stream to suit them that aren't.

A party has more purposes than just winning elections, which is why sometimes, they're willing to accept losing. Their primary purpose, rightly or wrongly, is to advance their own power and goals. This is not different from any other political party. Only the goals change.

All this twaddle about being obligated to accept a frontrunner who is no more or less than a hostile takeover of the party with an avowed goal - at least among its supporters - of smashing the party is nothing but the same old "you must give up and let me have my way, how DARE you oppose me and fight for your own aims!" The party leaders didn't give up the same right that the Trumpettes have to fight for THEIR candidate choice, simply because they became party leaders. Indeed, more effective fighting for their own candidates and goals is the reason WHY they worked so hard for that position.

Donald Trump isn't part of the "team". Much of the entire point of his candidacy is that he isn't, and hostility and negative intent toward the party.

 

[Correll]

If the RNC had openly set up rules that they decide the candidate behind closed doors, then the people that joined the party, would have no justification to complain when they did so.

BUT for generations now, the process has been a mostly and increasingly so, democratic process of actual mini elections.

That has been the rules that this Team has been operating under for all of my life and well before.

Openly working and plotting to undermine our own rules, in order to deny one faction of the Team it's fair shot at winning the primary contest is morally wrong.

You keep misrepresenting my complain as "feeling the world owes me something".

It is not the World that owes me anything.

The GOP owes me and my fellows the same treatment and support we gave them when they won the primary fair and square.

Dude, they DID set up rules that didn't involve a standard primary/caucus in Colorado. That's why they didn't have one.

The fact that THIS way is the way you're used to and have come to expect doesn't mean anyone's obligated to do it that way forever.

And the truth is, much of what you expected and thought was the standard way of doing things wasn't really the way things were at all.

Most of the primaries are min-elections.

If the Party Leadership wanted to change the rules, they should have done so well before the primaries were underway.

Changing the rules half way though a game is cheating.

The Trump Faction of the GOP deserves to get to play by the same rules as everyone else.

As we respected the rules when they won, they owe us the same courtesy.

A) You can call primaries any damned thing you want, and believe they're whatever you want. Won't change what they are, and won't stop you from being angry and frustrated when reality refuses to match your perceptions and delusions.

B) The party leadership hasn't changed any rules mid-game, whatever you might think. YOU and your fellow Trumpettes and your cult leader are the ones demanding that they do so because you just now found out what the rules were and don't like them and think we should be "fair", by which you ACTUALLY appear to mean just giving you what you want and renouncing any right to oppose you.

C) At what point has Trump EVER respected the rules, or the winners? Trump doesn't respect anything but his own reflection. If the so-called "respect" you're referring to is another attempt to infer a quid pro quo because you've voted for candidates you didn't like in the past, and now someone somewhere has an "obligation" to give you what you want, we've already addressed that.

a. Candidates campaign, issues are discussed, people vote, votes are counted and a winner announced. This isn't about me calling it an election, it is an election.

b. If Jeb Bush was winning the votes fair and square, I wouldn't be happy, but I would respect the process. In that, I am a better person than the Republican Leadership.

c. A party is an organization who's purpose is to win elections. In attacking their own front runner, the leadership is betraying that purpose and their fellow members. And yes, part of being a team is supporting the TEAM. Even if you don't get to be Team Captain. Which I have done so in the past, and it is now their turn.

Yeah, but it's NOT an election. It's not an official government function, and has been pointed out, the party itself decides how binding the opinions expressed actually are. It's a poll. In fact, some states even come right out and call it that.

The Republican leadership IS respecting the process. It's the people who just noticed the process and are demanding that it be changed mid-stream to suit them that aren't.

A party has more purposes than just winning elections, which is why sometimes, they're willing to accept losing. Their primary purpose, rightly or wrongly, is to advance their own power and goals. This is not different from any other political party. Only the goals change.

All this twaddle about being obligated to accept a frontrunner who is no more or less than a hostile takeover of the party with an avowed goal - at least among its supporters - of smashing the party is nothing but the same old "you must give up and let me have my way, how DARE you oppose me and fight for your own aims!" The party leaders didn't give up the same right that the Trumpettes have to fight for THEIR candidate choice, simply because they became party leaders. Indeed, more effective fighting for their own candidates and goals is the reason WHY they worked so hard for that position.

Donald Trump isn't part of the "team". Much of the entire point of his candidacy is that he isn't, and hostility and negative intent toward the party.

Definition of the word Primary from the Cambridge Advanced Learners Dictionary and Thesaurus.


primary Meaning in the Cambridge English Dictionary


"in the US, an election in which people choose who will represent a particular party in an election for political office"


When people start arguing against the well known meanings of words, that's when you know that they are deep in a state of irrational denial.


The Republican Party Leadership is NOT respecting the process. They think that they have the right to choose the nominee despite who wins the primaries, as you have been arguing.

They are wrong.

Definition of Political Party, again from Cambridge.

party Definition in the Cambridge English Dictionary

"a political group with particular beliefs and aims and which supports members who are trying to get elected to public office:"


Trump might be a recent convert to the Republican Party.

I am not. My father in law is even older, and he is also a Trump supporter.

This is not a hostile takeover.

Trump did not bring his "faction" of supporters into the GOP, we have been waiting here all along.

And as long standing Republicans we deserve an equal and fair opportunity to participate in the primary ELECTION and try to win.

AND if we win, fair and square, we deserve to have the Party to stand with us in the General Election.

 

[Pogo]

Dude, they DID set up rules that didn't involve a standard primary/caucus in Colorado. That's why they didn't have one.

The fact that THIS way is the way you're used to and have come to expect doesn't mean anyone's obligated to do it that way forever.

And the truth is, much of what you expected and thought was the standard way of doing things wasn't really the way things were at all.

Most of the primaries are min-elections.

If the Party Leadership wanted to change the rules, they should have done so well before the primaries were underway.

Changing the rules half way though a game is cheating.

The Trump Faction of the GOP deserves to get to play by the same rules as everyone else.

As we respected the rules when they won, they owe us the same courtesy.

A) You can call primaries any damned thing you want, and believe they're whatever you want. Won't change what they are, and won't stop you from being angry and frustrated when reality refuses to match your perceptions and delusions.

B) The party leadership hasn't changed any rules mid-game, whatever you might think. YOU and your fellow Trumpettes and your cult leader are the ones demanding that they do so because you just now found out what the rules were and don't like them and think we should be "fair", by which you ACTUALLY appear to mean just giving you what you want and renouncing any right to oppose you.

C) At what point has Trump EVER respected the rules, or the winners? Trump doesn't respect anything but his own reflection. If the so-called "respect" you're referring to is another attempt to infer a quid pro quo because you've voted for candidates you didn't like in the past, and now someone somewhere has an "obligation" to give you what you want, we've already addressed that.

a. Candidates campaign, issues are discussed, people vote, votes are counted and a winner announced. This isn't about me calling it an election, it is an election.

b. If Jeb Bush was winning the votes fair and square, I wouldn't be happy, but I would respect the process. In that, I am a better person than the Republican Leadership.

c. A party is an organization who's purpose is to win elections. In attacking their own front runner, the leadership is betraying that purpose and their fellow members. And yes, part of being a team is supporting the TEAM. Even if you don't get to be Team Captain. Which I have done so in the past, and it is now their turn.

Yeah, but it's NOT an election. It's not an official government function, and has been pointed out, the party itself decides how binding the opinions expressed actually are. It's a poll. In fact, some states even come right out and call it that.

The Republican leadership IS respecting the process. It's the people who just noticed the process and are demanding that it be changed mid-stream to suit them that aren't.

A party has more purposes than just winning elections, which is why sometimes, they're willing to accept losing. Their primary purpose, rightly or wrongly, is to advance their own power and goals. This is not different from any other political party. Only the goals change.

All this twaddle about being obligated to accept a frontrunner who is no more or less than a hostile takeover of the party with an avowed goal - at least among its supporters - of smashing the party is nothing but the same old "you must give up and let me have my way, how DARE you oppose me and fight for your own aims!" The party leaders didn't give up the same right that the Trumpettes have to fight for THEIR candidate choice, simply because they became party leaders. Indeed, more effective fighting for their own candidates and goals is the reason WHY they worked so hard for that position.

Donald Trump isn't part of the "team". Much of the entire point of his candidacy is that he isn't, and hostility and negative intent toward the party.

Definition of the word Primary from the Cambridge Advanced Learners Dictionary and Thesaurus.


primary Meaning in the Cambridge English Dictionary


"in the US, an election in which people choose who will represent a particular party in an election for political office"


When people start arguing against the well known meanings of words, that's when you know that they are deep in a state of irrational denial.


The Republican Party Leadership is NOT respecting the process. They think that they have the right to choose the nominee despite who wins the primaries, as you have been arguing.

They are wrong.

Definition of Political Party, again from Cambridge.

party Definition in the Cambridge English Dictionary

"a political group with particular beliefs and aims and which supports members who are trying to get elected to public office:"


Trump might be a recent convert to the Republican Party.

I am not. My father in law is even older, and he is also a Trump supporter.

This is not a hostile takeover.

Trump did not bring his "faction" of supporters into the GOP, we have been waiting here all along.

And as long standing Republicans we deserve an equal and fair opportunity to participate in the primary ELECTION and try to win.

AND if we win, fair and square, we deserve to have the Party to stand with us in the General Election.

When people have to venture across the Atlantic Ocean for a dictionary to support what they think is a point, that's when you know that they are deeper in a state of irrational denial.

Again, as both of us have been hammering into the density of your skull, this is a party function. The party and the individual states decide how it works. And if at some point they decide to change their own rules............. then they change their own rules. Ain't rocket surgery.

Again --- 1912. Roosevelt won big in the primaries. Nine of the last ten, barely losing Massachusetts. Taft won two states total. And the nominee was.... Taft. Because the party, not the primary, decides who its own candidates are.

The primary is the party's "trial run". It is not an "election".

 

[Correll]

Most of the primaries are min-elections.

If the Party Leadership wanted to change the rules, they should have done so well before the primaries were underway.

Changing the rules half way though a game is cheating.

The Trump Faction of the GOP deserves to get to play by the same rules as everyone else.

As we respected the rules when they won, they owe us the same courtesy.

A) You can call primaries any damned thing you want, and believe they're whatever you want. Won't change what they are, and won't stop you from being angry and frustrated when reality refuses to match your perceptions and delusions.

B) The party leadership hasn't changed any rules mid-game, whatever you might think. YOU and your fellow Trumpettes and your cult leader are the ones demanding that they do so because you just now found out what the rules were and don't like them and think we should be "fair", by which you ACTUALLY appear to mean just giving you what you want and renouncing any right to oppose you.

C) At what point has Trump EVER respected the rules, or the winners? Trump doesn't respect anything but his own reflection. If the so-called "respect" you're referring to is another attempt to infer a quid pro quo because you've voted for candidates you didn't like in the past, and now someone somewhere has an "obligation" to give you what you want, we've already addressed that.

a. Candidates campaign, issues are discussed, people vote, votes are counted and a winner announced. This isn't about me calling it an election, it is an election.

b. If Jeb Bush was winning the votes fair and square, I wouldn't be happy, but I would respect the process. In that, I am a better person than the Republican Leadership.

c. A party is an organization who's purpose is to win elections. In attacking their own front runner, the leadership is betraying that purpose and their fellow members. And yes, part of being a team is supporting the TEAM. Even if you don't get to be Team Captain. Which I have done so in the past, and it is now their turn.

Yeah, but it's NOT an election. It's not an official government function, and has been pointed out, the party itself decides how binding the opinions expressed actually are. It's a poll. In fact, some states even come right out and call it that.

The Republican leadership IS respecting the process. It's the people who just noticed the process and are demanding that it be changed mid-stream to suit them that aren't.

A party has more purposes than just winning elections, which is why sometimes, they're willing to accept losing. Their primary purpose, rightly or wrongly, is to advance their own power and goals. This is not different from any other political party. Only the goals change.

All this twaddle about being obligated to accept a frontrunner who is no more or less than a hostile takeover of the party with an avowed goal - at least among its supporters - of smashing the party is nothing but the same old "you must give up and let me have my way, how DARE you oppose me and fight for your own aims!" The party leaders didn't give up the same right that the Trumpettes have to fight for THEIR candidate choice, simply because they became party leaders. Indeed, more effective fighting for their own candidates and goals is the reason WHY they worked so hard for that position.

Donald Trump isn't part of the "team". Much of the entire point of his candidacy is that he isn't, and hostility and negative intent toward the party.

Definition of the word Primary from the Cambridge Advanced Learners Dictionary and Thesaurus.


primary Meaning in the Cambridge English Dictionary


"in the US, an election in which people choose who will represent a particular party in an election for political office"


When people start arguing against the well known meanings of words, that's when you know that they are deep in a state of irrational denial.


The Republican Party Leadership is NOT respecting the process. They think that they have the right to choose the nominee despite who wins the primaries, as you have been arguing.

They are wrong.

Definition of Political Party, again from Cambridge.

party Definition in the Cambridge English Dictionary

"a political group with particular beliefs and aims and which supports members who are trying to get elected to public office:"


Trump might be a recent convert to the Republican Party.

I am not. My father in law is even older, and he is also a Trump supporter.

This is not a hostile takeover.

Trump did not bring his "faction" of supporters into the GOP, we have been waiting here all along.

And as long standing Republicans we deserve an equal and fair opportunity to participate in the primary ELECTION and try to win.

AND if we win, fair and square, we deserve to have the Party to stand with us in the General Election.

When people have to venture across the Atlantic Ocean for a dictionary to support what they think is a point, that's when you know that they are deeper in a state of irrational denial.

Again, as both of us have been hammering into the density of your skull, this is a party function. The party and the individual states decide how it works. And if at some point they decide to change their own rules............. then they change their own rules. Ain't rocket surgery.

Again --- 1912. Roosevelt won big in the primaries. Nine of the last ten, barely losing Massachusetts. Taft won two states total. And the nominee was.... Taft. Because the party, not the primary, decides who its own candidates are.

The primary is the party's "trial run". It is not an "election".

Are you claiming the Cambridge Dictionary is inaccurate with regard to simple English Words?

Please support that claim.

Sure, it's a Party FUnction. And if they run an Election of their members, they are responsible for HOW they run it.

If they decide they don't like the outcome and decide to just do what they want, they are responsible for that decision.

That is being unethical.

That, as the Rule maker, they have the power to do that, does not mean that it is right.

The President has the Power to Pardon Criminals.

He could order his flunkies to murder his enemies and then pardon them so they don't serve time.

Just because some one has the power to do something doesn't make it right.

 

[Cecilie1200]

A) You can call primaries any damned thing you want, and believe they're whatever you want. Won't change what they are, and won't stop you from being angry and frustrated when reality refuses to match your perceptions and delusions.

B) The party leadership hasn't changed any rules mid-game, whatever you might think. YOU and your fellow Trumpettes and your cult leader are the ones demanding that they do so because you just now found out what the rules were and don't like them and think we should be "fair", by which you ACTUALLY appear to mean just giving you what you want and renouncing any right to oppose you.

C) At what point has Trump EVER respected the rules, or the winners? Trump doesn't respect anything but his own reflection. If the so-called "respect" you're referring to is another attempt to infer a quid pro quo because you've voted for candidates you didn't like in the past, and now someone somewhere has an "obligation" to give you what you want, we've already addressed that.

a. Candidates campaign, issues are discussed, people vote, votes are counted and a winner announced. This isn't about me calling it an election, it is an election.

b. If Jeb Bush was winning the votes fair and square, I wouldn't be happy, but I would respect the process. In that, I am a better person than the Republican Leadership.

c. A party is an organization who's purpose is to win elections. In attacking their own front runner, the leadership is betraying that purpose and their fellow members. And yes, part of being a team is supporting the TEAM. Even if you don't get to be Team Captain. Which I have done so in the past, and it is now their turn.

Yeah, but it's NOT an election. It's not an official government function, and has been pointed out, the party itself decides how binding the opinions expressed actually are. It's a poll. In fact, some states even come right out and call it that.

The Republican leadership IS respecting the process. It's the people who just noticed the process and are demanding that it be changed mid-stream to suit them that aren't.

A party has more purposes than just winning elections, which is why sometimes, they're willing to accept losing. Their primary purpose, rightly or wrongly, is to advance their own power and goals. This is not different from any other political party. Only the goals change.

All this twaddle about being obligated to accept a frontrunner who is no more or less than a hostile takeover of the party with an avowed goal - at least among its supporters - of smashing the party is nothing but the same old "you must give up and let me have my way, how DARE you oppose me and fight for your own aims!" The party leaders didn't give up the same right that the Trumpettes have to fight for THEIR candidate choice, simply because they became party leaders. Indeed, more effective fighting for their own candidates and goals is the reason WHY they worked so hard for that position.

Donald Trump isn't part of the "team". Much of the entire point of his candidacy is that he isn't, and hostility and negative intent toward the party.

Definition of the word Primary from the Cambridge Advanced Learners Dictionary and Thesaurus.


primary Meaning in the Cambridge English Dictionary


"in the US, an election in which people choose who will represent a particular party in an election for political office"


When people start arguing against the well known meanings of words, that's when you know that they are deep in a state of irrational denial.


The Republican Party Leadership is NOT respecting the process. They think that they have the right to choose the nominee despite who wins the primaries, as you have been arguing.

They are wrong.

Definition of Political Party, again from Cambridge.

party Definition in the Cambridge English Dictionary

"a political group with particular beliefs and aims and which supports members who are trying to get elected to public office:"


Trump might be a recent convert to the Republican Party.

I am not. My father in law is even older, and he is also a Trump supporter.

This is not a hostile takeover.

Trump did not bring his "faction" of supporters into the GOP, we have been waiting here all along.

And as long standing Republicans we deserve an equal and fair opportunity to participate in the primary ELECTION and try to win.

AND if we win, fair and square, we deserve to have the Party to stand with us in the General Election.

When people have to venture across the Atlantic Ocean for a dictionary to support what they think is a point, that's when you know that they are deeper in a state of irrational denial.

Again, as both of us have been hammering into the density of your skull, this is a party function. The party and the individual states decide how it works. And if at some point they decide to change their own rules............. then they change their own rules. Ain't rocket surgery.

Again --- 1912. Roosevelt won big in the primaries. Nine of the last ten, barely losing Massachusetts. Taft won two states total. And the nominee was.... Taft. Because the party, not the primary, decides who its own candidates are.

The primary is the party's "trial run". It is not an "election".

Are you claiming the Cambridge Dictionary is inaccurate with regard to simple English Words?

Please support that claim.

Sure, it's a Party FUnction. And if they run an Election of their members, they are responsible for HOW they run it.

If they decide they don't like the outcome and decide to just do what they want, they are responsible for that decision.

That is being unethical.

That, as the Rule maker, they have the power to do that, does not mean that it is right.

The President has the Power to Pardon Criminals.

He could order his flunkies to murder his enemies and then pardon them so they don't serve time.

Just because some one has the power to do something doesn't make it right.

Actually, yes, dictionaries can be a bit imprecise in their choice of words, especially these days, because they're trying to convey a concept to people who are themselves woefully sloppy about English.

Let's put it another way: some primaries use the same processes as elections, but they are not Elections.

 

[Pogo]

a. Candidates campaign, issues are discussed, people vote, votes are counted and a winner announced. This isn't about me calling it an election, it is an election.

b. If Jeb Bush was winning the votes fair and square, I wouldn't be happy, but I would respect the process. In that, I am a better person than the Republican Leadership.

c. A party is an organization who's purpose is to win elections. In attacking their own front runner, the leadership is betraying that purpose and their fellow members. And yes, part of being a team is supporting the TEAM. Even if you don't get to be Team Captain. Which I have done so in the past, and it is now their turn.

Yeah, but it's NOT an election. It's not an official government function, and has been pointed out, the party itself decides how binding the opinions expressed actually are. It's a poll. In fact, some states even come right out and call it that.

The Republican leadership IS respecting the process. It's the people who just noticed the process and are demanding that it be changed mid-stream to suit them that aren't.

A party has more purposes than just winning elections, which is why sometimes, they're willing to accept losing. Their primary purpose, rightly or wrongly, is to advance their own power and goals. This is not different from any other political party. Only the goals change.

All this twaddle about being obligated to accept a frontrunner who is no more or less than a hostile takeover of the party with an avowed goal - at least among its supporters - of smashing the party is nothing but the same old "you must give up and let me have my way, how DARE you oppose me and fight for your own aims!" The party leaders didn't give up the same right that the Trumpettes have to fight for THEIR candidate choice, simply because they became party leaders. Indeed, more effective fighting for their own candidates and goals is the reason WHY they worked so hard for that position.

Donald Trump isn't part of the "team". Much of the entire point of his candidacy is that he isn't, and hostility and negative intent toward the party.

Definition of the word Primary from the Cambridge Advanced Learners Dictionary and Thesaurus.


primary Meaning in the Cambridge English Dictionary


"in the US, an election in which people choose who will represent a particular party in an election for political office"


When people start arguing against the well known meanings of words, that's when you know that they are deep in a state of irrational denial.


The Republican Party Leadership is NOT respecting the process. They think that they have the right to choose the nominee despite who wins the primaries, as you have been arguing.

They are wrong.

Definition of Political Party, again from Cambridge.

party Definition in the Cambridge English Dictionary

"a political group with particular beliefs and aims and which supports members who are trying to get elected to public office:"


Trump might be a recent convert to the Republican Party.

I am not. My father in law is even older, and he is also a Trump supporter.

This is not a hostile takeover.

Trump did not bring his "faction" of supporters into the GOP, we have been waiting here all along.

And as long standing Republicans we deserve an equal and fair opportunity to participate in the primary ELECTION and try to win.

AND if we win, fair and square, we deserve to have the Party to stand with us in the General Election.

When people have to venture across the Atlantic Ocean for a dictionary to support what they think is a point, that's when you know that they are deeper in a state of irrational denial.

Again, as both of us have been hammering into the density of your skull, this is a party function. The party and the individual states decide how it works. And if at some point they decide to change their own rules............. then they change their own rules. Ain't rocket surgery.

Again --- 1912. Roosevelt won big in the primaries. Nine of the last ten, barely losing Massachusetts. Taft won two states total. And the nominee was.... Taft. Because the party, not the primary, decides who its own candidates are.

The primary is the party's "trial run". It is not an "election".

Are you claiming the Cambridge Dictionary is inaccurate with regard to simple English Words?

Please support that claim.

Sure, it's a Party FUnction. And if they run an Election of their members, they are responsible for HOW they run it.

If they decide they don't like the outcome and decide to just do what they want, they are responsible for that decision.

That is being unethical.

That, as the Rule maker, they have the power to do that, does not mean that it is right.

The President has the Power to Pardon Criminals.

He could order his flunkies to murder his enemies and then pardon them so they don't serve time.

Just because some one has the power to do something doesn't make it right.

Actually, yes, dictionaries can be a bit imprecise in their choice of words, especially these days, because they're trying to convey a concept to people who are themselves woefully sloppy about English.

Let's put it another way: some primaries use the same processes as elections, but they are not Elections.

I love the way he fixates on the first sentence and ignores the inconvenient part -- the rest of the post.

 

[Correll]

a. Candidates campaign, issues are discussed, people vote, votes are counted and a winner announced. This isn't about me calling it an election, it is an election.

b. If Jeb Bush was winning the votes fair and square, I wouldn't be happy, but I would respect the process. In that, I am a better person than the Republican Leadership.

c. A party is an organization who's purpose is to win elections. In attacking their own front runner, the leadership is betraying that purpose and their fellow members. And yes, part of being a team is supporting the TEAM. Even if you don't get to be Team Captain. Which I have done so in the past, and it is now their turn.

Yeah, but it's NOT an election. It's not an official government function, and has been pointed out, the party itself decides how binding the opinions expressed actually are. It's a poll. In fact, some states even come right out and call it that.

The Republican leadership IS respecting the process. It's the people who just noticed the process and are demanding that it be changed mid-stream to suit them that aren't.

A party has more purposes than just winning elections, which is why sometimes, they're willing to accept losing. Their primary purpose, rightly or wrongly, is to advance their own power and goals. This is not different from any other political party. Only the goals change.

All this twaddle about being obligated to accept a frontrunner who is no more or less than a hostile takeover of the party with an avowed goal - at least among its supporters - of smashing the party is nothing but the same old "you must give up and let me have my way, how DARE you oppose me and fight for your own aims!" The party leaders didn't give up the same right that the Trumpettes have to fight for THEIR candidate choice, simply because they became party leaders. Indeed, more effective fighting for their own candidates and goals is the reason WHY they worked so hard for that position.

Donald Trump isn't part of the "team". Much of the entire point of his candidacy is that he isn't, and hostility and negative intent toward the party.

Definition of the word Primary from the Cambridge Advanced Learners Dictionary and Thesaurus.


primary Meaning in the Cambridge English Dictionary


"in the US, an election in which people choose who will represent a particular party in an election for political office"


When people start arguing against the well known meanings of words, that's when you know that they are deep in a state of irrational denial.


The Republican Party Leadership is NOT respecting the process. They think that they have the right to choose the nominee despite who wins the primaries, as you have been arguing.

They are wrong.

Definition of Political Party, again from Cambridge.

party Definition in the Cambridge English Dictionary

"a political group with particular beliefs and aims and which supports members who are trying to get elected to public office:"


Trump might be a recent convert to the Republican Party.

I am not. My father in law is even older, and he is also a Trump supporter.

This is not a hostile takeover.

Trump did not bring his "faction" of supporters into the GOP, we have been waiting here all along.

And as long standing Republicans we deserve an equal and fair opportunity to participate in the primary ELECTION and try to win.

AND if we win, fair and square, we deserve to have the Party to stand with us in the General Election.

When people have to venture across the Atlantic Ocean for a dictionary to support what they think is a point, that's when you know that they are deeper in a state of irrational denial.

Again, as both of us have been hammering into the density of your skull, this is a party function. The party and the individual states decide how it works. And if at some point they decide to change their own rules............. then they change their own rules. Ain't rocket surgery.

Again --- 1912. Roosevelt won big in the primaries. Nine of the last ten, barely losing Massachusetts. Taft won two states total. And the nominee was.... Taft. Because the party, not the primary, decides who its own candidates are.

The primary is the party's "trial run". It is not an "election".

Are you claiming the Cambridge Dictionary is inaccurate with regard to simple English Words?

Please support that claim.

Sure, it's a Party FUnction. And if they run an Election of their members, they are responsible for HOW they run it.

If they decide they don't like the outcome and decide to just do what they want, they are responsible for that decision.

That is being unethical.

That, as the Rule maker, they have the power to do that, does not mean that it is right.

The President has the Power to Pardon Criminals.

He could order his flunkies to murder his enemies and then pardon them so they don't serve time.

Just because some one has the power to do something doesn't make it right.

Actually, yes, dictionaries can be a bit imprecise in their choice of words, especially these days, because they're trying to convey a concept to people who are themselves woefully sloppy about English.

Let's put it another way: some primaries use the same processes as elections, but they are not Elections.

So.

The Cambridge Dictionary states that a primary is an election.

You refuse accept that as authoritative, but have not supported your belief in an alternative definition with a link to a better dictionary.


In these "primaries" there are candidates, and campaigns, and voters who vote and the votes are counted to declare winners, but, they are not elections....

My point stands.

Just because some one has the power to do something doesn't make it right.

 

[Correll]

Yeah, but it's NOT an election. It's not an official government function, and has been pointed out, the party itself decides how binding the opinions expressed actually are. It's a poll. In fact, some states even come right out and call it that.

The Republican leadership IS respecting the process. It's the people who just noticed the process and are demanding that it be changed mid-stream to suit them that aren't.

A party has more purposes than just winning elections, which is why sometimes, they're willing to accept losing. Their primary purpose, rightly or wrongly, is to advance their own power and goals. This is not different from any other political party. Only the goals change.

All this twaddle about being obligated to accept a frontrunner who is no more or less than a hostile takeover of the party with an avowed goal - at least among its supporters - of smashing the party is nothing but the same old "you must give up and let me have my way, how DARE you oppose me and fight for your own aims!" The party leaders didn't give up the same right that the Trumpettes have to fight for THEIR candidate choice, simply because they became party leaders. Indeed, more effective fighting for their own candidates and goals is the reason WHY they worked so hard for that position.

Donald Trump isn't part of the "team". Much of the entire point of his candidacy is that he isn't, and hostility and negative intent toward the party.

Definition of the word Primary from the Cambridge Advanced Learners Dictionary and Thesaurus.


primary Meaning in the Cambridge English Dictionary


"in the US, an election in which people choose who will represent a particular party in an election for political office"


When people start arguing against the well known meanings of words, that's when you know that they are deep in a state of irrational denial.


The Republican Party Leadership is NOT respecting the process. They think that they have the right to choose the nominee despite who wins the primaries, as you have been arguing.

They are wrong.

Definition of Political Party, again from Cambridge.

party Definition in the Cambridge English Dictionary

"a political group with particular beliefs and aims and which supports members who are trying to get elected to public office:"


Trump might be a recent convert to the Republican Party.

I am not. My father in law is even older, and he is also a Trump supporter.

This is not a hostile takeover.

Trump did not bring his "faction" of supporters into the GOP, we have been waiting here all along.

And as long standing Republicans we deserve an equal and fair opportunity to participate in the primary ELECTION and try to win.

AND if we win, fair and square, we deserve to have the Party to stand with us in the General Election.

When people have to venture across the Atlantic Ocean for a dictionary to support what they think is a point, that's when you know that they are deeper in a state of irrational denial.

Again, as both of us have been hammering into the density of your skull, this is a party function. The party and the individual states decide how it works. And if at some point they decide to change their own rules............. then they change their own rules. Ain't rocket surgery.

Again --- 1912. Roosevelt won big in the primaries. Nine of the last ten, barely losing Massachusetts. Taft won two states total. And the nominee was.... Taft. Because the party, not the primary, decides who its own candidates are.

The primary is the party's "trial run". It is not an "election".

Are you claiming the Cambridge Dictionary is inaccurate with regard to simple English Words?

Please support that claim.

Sure, it's a Party FUnction. And if they run an Election of their members, they are responsible for HOW they run it.

If they decide they don't like the outcome and decide to just do what they want, they are responsible for that decision.

That is being unethical.

That, as the Rule maker, they have the power to do that, does not mean that it is right.

The President has the Power to Pardon Criminals.

He could order his flunkies to murder his enemies and then pardon them so they don't serve time.

Just because some one has the power to do something doesn't make it right.

Actually, yes, dictionaries can be a bit imprecise in their choice of words, especially these days, because they're trying to convey a concept to people who are themselves woefully sloppy about English.

Let's put it another way: some primaries use the same processes as elections, but they are not Elections.

I love the way he fixates on the first sentence and ignores the inconvenient part -- the rest of the post.

Except of course, I didn't do that.

 

[Pogo]

Definition of the word Primary from the Cambridge Advanced Learners Dictionary and Thesaurus.


primary Meaning in the Cambridge English Dictionary


"in the US, an election in which people choose who will represent a particular party in an election for political office"


When people start arguing against the well known meanings of words, that's when you know that they are deep in a state of irrational denial.


The Republican Party Leadership is NOT respecting the process. They think that they have the right to choose the nominee despite who wins the primaries, as you have been arguing.

They are wrong.

Definition of Political Party, again from Cambridge.

party Definition in the Cambridge English Dictionary

"a political group with particular beliefs and aims and which supports members who are trying to get elected to public office:"


Trump might be a recent convert to the Republican Party.

I am not. My father in law is even older, and he is also a Trump supporter.

This is not a hostile takeover.

Trump did not bring his "faction" of supporters into the GOP, we have been waiting here all along.

And as long standing Republicans we deserve an equal and fair opportunity to participate in the primary ELECTION and try to win.

AND if we win, fair and square, we deserve to have the Party to stand with us in the General Election.

When people have to venture across the Atlantic Ocean for a dictionary to support what they think is a point, that's when you know that they are deeper in a state of irrational denial.

Again, as both of us have been hammering into the density of your skull, this is a party function. The party and the individual states decide how it works. And if at some point they decide to change their own rules............. then they change their own rules. Ain't rocket surgery.

Again --- 1912. Roosevelt won big in the primaries. Nine of the last ten, barely losing Massachusetts. Taft won two states total. And the nominee was.... Taft. Because the party, not the primary, decides who its own candidates are.

The primary is the party's "trial run". It is not an "election".

Are you claiming the Cambridge Dictionary is inaccurate with regard to simple English Words?

Please support that claim.

Sure, it's a Party FUnction. And if they run an Election of their members, they are responsible for HOW they run it.

If they decide they don't like the outcome and decide to just do what they want, they are responsible for that decision.

That is being unethical.
That, as the Rule maker, they have the power to do that, does not mean that it is right.

The President has the Power to Pardon Criminals.

He could order his flunkies to murder his enemies and then pardon them so they don't serve time.

Just because some one has the power to do something doesn't make it right.

Actually, yes, dictionaries can be a bit imprecise in their choice of words, especially these days, because they're trying to convey a concept to people who are themselves woefully sloppy about English.

Let's put it another way: some primaries use the same processes as elections, but they are not Elections.

I love the way he fixates on the first sentence and ignores the inconvenient part -- the rest of the post.

Except of course, I didn't do that.

And you just did it again.
If a primary is an "election" --- explain 1912.

 

[Correll]

When people have to venture across the Atlantic Ocean for a dictionary to support what they think is a point, that's when you know that they are deeper in a state of irrational denial.

Again, as both of us have been hammering into the density of your skull, this is a party function. The party and the individual states decide how it works. And if at some point they decide to change their own rules............. then they change their own rules. Ain't rocket surgery.

Again --- 1912. Roosevelt won big in the primaries. Nine of the last ten, barely losing Massachusetts. Taft won two states total. And the nominee was.... Taft. Because the party, not the primary, decides who its own candidates are.

The primary is the party's "trial run". It is not an "election".

Are you claiming the Cambridge Dictionary is inaccurate with regard to simple English Words?

Please support that claim.

Sure, it's a Party FUnction. And if they run an Election of their members, they are responsible for HOW they run it.

If they decide they don't like the outcome and decide to just do what they want, they are responsible for that decision.

That is being unethical.
That, as the Rule maker, they have the power to do that, does not mean that it is right.

The President has the Power to Pardon Criminals.

He could order his flunkies to murder his enemies and then pardon them so they don't serve time.

Just because some one has the power to do something doesn't make it right.

Actually, yes, dictionaries can be a bit imprecise in their choice of words, especially these days, because they're trying to convey a concept to people who are themselves woefully sloppy about English.

Let's put it another way: some primaries use the same processes as elections, but they are not Elections.

I love the way he fixates on the first sentence and ignores the inconvenient part -- the rest of the post.

Except of course, I didn't do that.

And you just did it again.
If a primary is an "election" --- explain 1912.

The GOP leadership of the time appears to have over ruled the election and the will of their members, and gave the nomination to someone else.

THat an abuse of power happened in the past does not mean that it was then and/or is not an abuse NOW.

 

[Pogo]

Are you claiming the Cambridge Dictionary is inaccurate with regard to simple English Words?

Please support that claim.

Sure, it's a Party FUnction. And if they run an Election of their members, they are responsible for HOW they run it.

If they decide they don't like the outcome and decide to just do what they want, they are responsible for that decision.

That is being unethical.
That, as the Rule maker, they have the power to do that, does not mean that it is right.

The President has the Power to Pardon Criminals.

He could order his flunkies to murder his enemies and then pardon them so they don't serve time.

Just because some one has the power to do something doesn't make it right.

Actually, yes, dictionaries can be a bit imprecise in their choice of words, especially these days, because they're trying to convey a concept to people who are themselves woefully sloppy about English.

Let's put it another way: some primaries use the same processes as elections, but they are not Elections.

I love the way he fixates on the first sentence and ignores the inconvenient part -- the rest of the post.

Except of course, I didn't do that.

And you just did it again.
If a primary is an "election" --- explain 1912.

The GOP leadership of the time appears to have over ruled the election and the will of their members, and gave the nomination to someone else.

THat an abuse of power happened in the past does not mean that it was then and/or is not an abuse NOW.

:::scrape::: :::scrape:::

Or more correctly... that it played out that way doesn't necessarily mean it was an "abuse of power" EITHER time, because, again, a primary is not an "election".

If it is an "election" --- what's the office they're running for? President of Colorado?

As long as it's Colorado and not North Korea, you can't have an "election" where only one political party is involved.

 

[Correll]

Actually, yes, dictionaries can be a bit imprecise in their choice of words, especially these days, because they're trying to convey a concept to people who are themselves woefully sloppy about English.

Let's put it another way: some primaries use the same processes as elections, but they are not Elections.

I love the way he fixates on the first sentence and ignores the inconvenient part -- the rest of the post.

Except of course, I didn't do that.

And you just did it again.
If a primary is an "election" --- explain 1912.

The GOP leadership of the time appears to have over ruled the election and the will of their members, and gave the nomination to someone else.

THat an abuse of power happened in the past does not mean that it was then and/or is not an abuse NOW.

:::scrape::: :::scrape:::

Or more correctly... that it played out that way doesn't necessarily mean it was an "abuse of power" EITHER time, because, again, a primary is not an "election".

If it is an "election" --- what's the office they're running for? President of Colorado?

As long as it's Colorado and not North Korea, you can't have an "election" where only one political party is involved.

That it played out that way doesn't necessarily mean it WASN'T an abuse of power, which is the argument you seem to have been making.

You already know what they are running for. To be the Party's Nominee.

That the candidates in the primaries do NOT represent formal Parties of their own, does not mean that the primary is not an election.

 

[Pogo]

You already know what they are running for. To be the Party's Nominee.

Correct. And that is not a public office. It's the private business of the party.

That the candidates in the primaries do NOT represent formal Parties of their own, does not mean that the primary is not an election.

The above does.

That it played out that way doesn't necessarily mean it WASN'T an abuse of power, which is the argument you seem to have been making.

The point is that, with apologies to Leslie Gore....
It's their party and they'll do what they want to. Do what they want to. Do what they want to.

 

[Correll]

You already know what they are running for. To be the Party's Nominee.

Correct. And that is not a public office. It's the private business of the party.

That the candidates in the primaries do NOT represent formal Parties of their own, does not mean that the primary is not an election.

The above does.

That it played out that way doesn't necessarily mean it WASN'T an abuse of power, which is the argument you seem to have been making.

The point is that, with apologies to Leslie Gore....
It's their party and they'll do what they want to. Do what they want to. Do what they want to.

1. Doesn't matter that it's a private election. or not for a public office. It's still an election.

2. NO, you kept presenting that historical fact as though the fact that it happened in the past means it is ok. That is not true. The Primary Election/General Election of 1912 does not support your argument.

3. It is not their party. It is OUR party. As in all the Republicans, not just the leadership.