Posted on 04/18/2016 6:45:56 AM PDT by COUNTrecount
(Nick Bernabe via ANTIMEDIA) Denver, CO — The 2016 election has been a wild ride, with two insurgent grassroots campaigns literally giving the political establishment a run for its money. But as the events of this presidential primary season play out, it’s becoming clear the U.S. election — and even more so, the presidential race — is a big scam being perpetrated on the American people.
Events from the last week have exposed the system as an illusion of choice and a farce. They have reinforced at least one study showing the U.S. is an oligarchy rather than a democratic republic.
The Wyoming democratic caucus took place on Saturday, purportedly to allow voters to have their voices heard in the race between Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton. Sanders lost the Wyoming caucus by winning it with a 12 percent margin.
(Excerpt) Read more at theconservativetreehouse.com ...
Good grief.
You defend people who risk their lives to not have a vote and then equate it to the elks club about voting.
get a grip..
So Lincoln and Jefferson and Adams were all elected by unAmerican means?
Do you go to the Elks club and demand a vote in their proceedings?
People are smoking some of our funny weed if they think that all “republican” voters could have even attended these so called caucus meetings.
Here is reality, caucuses were a popularity contest for people to go to county, and so on.
And to determine if I want to vote on a delegate in a 10 second speech.
Dirty, dirty, dirty.
You can keep saying private as many times as you want, regardless of what username you use, but the fact is that because the establishment makes the rules to suit themselves doe snot make it right to the people who risk their lives.
Well in your mind it does it seems, I take it abortion is alright with you too as that is the rule?
if you know anything about Lincoln then you would know he stuffed that room with his own people while his opponent was locked out with his.
Are you nuts or something ,k you are equating the elks club and voting in their club to the voting of our President and candidate by those who risk their lives for this country and you to spout utter B/S on here.
Oh and no I don’t even care for an elks club either
There used to be a time when FR wasn’t full of people who didn’t understand the difference between public and private.
I don’t care where you served or what you faced. You do not have a right to crash a private association. In fact one of the freedoms that the military defends is the right of free association.
Stuff the piece of paper in a box after that speech and let arty insiders pick those boxes up.
It gets me how one person ion here defends the right to deny active , serving, combat people based over seas risking their lives their right to vote.
Do you get made that you can’t vote for the Libertarian or Communist Party USA candidate, too?
N o you don’t care about those serving do you , that part is pretty obvious, yet you enjoy the fruits of their freedom.
Maybe you should serve and see pals blown up and then be told they cannot vote for the candidate they want because they were fighting a war t keep you safe .
Do I get made, HUH. What are you smoking?
Call yourself a conservative and you state you don;t care about those in the military risking their lives, you sound more like a liberal with tat comment or a party hack, oopss you are a party hack.
Go back to your smoky room and twirl that brandy with them and tell each other how the peasants should never vote as you lot know more than us peasants.
Then tell them we don’t need to vote for the establishment pick either.
Don’t put words in my mouth. I never said I don’t care about the military.
I just stated the completely non-controversial fact that no one has a “right” to vote in a party primary or caucus.
If the party chooses to hold such a thing, they can’t discriminate or do other things that obviously violate law. But if they have a rule that caucuses are for people who show up, then caucuses are for people who show up.
The sooner you realize that you have no right to vote in a primary, the sooner you will understand at least one thing.
-PJ
OK then you don’t think military members should vote if they are overseas and yet you stated much earlier today that people were allowed to vote, but for delegates and it appears you were wrong as not everyone was allowed to vote.
For your information yes I do think those people should be allowed to vote and so should everyone in a closed or open primary if that is what the state chooses.
Take the power away from the two parties and let the government be for, by and of the people.
Do you agree or do you want to stay with your rules talking points or should the rules be changed, not that it would ever be under the corruption of the establishment.
Imagine what happens next time, under your rules. We have 5 candidates who get votes and delegates and we have to automatically nominate the guy with 22% of the votes.
I’m not going to even try to say that I am an expert on delegates, or exactly how to do the whole system to make it fair. However, a system that is done to confuse is not on the up and up, and we all know it.
People who showed up to the caucuses could vote. Simple idea to understand.
I think it stinks of sore loserdom to complain about the rules every time you lose. Petulant and whiny is not presidential.
If people want to have a serious conversation about the process at some time before the next cycle, I am open to that.
That process would begin with a whole bunch of truth and education. Cause the accusations of stealing and cheating are misinformed and unhelpful.
It’s a simple question. Do you believe that the person with “the most” delegates (earned through primaries and caucuses) should automatically get the nomination?
Do you still support that if a candidate “wins” next time with 22% of the vote?
There is little all that confusing about the principle that I am talking about. A winner needs a majority of the delegates. More than 50%.
Do you agree in principle with a majority or is simply “the most” the winner in all cases?
If all but one candidate is mathematically eliminated from getting to 50% then the last one standing should be the nominee.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.