Posted on 03/19/2016 4:57:54 PM PDT by BlackFemaleArmyColonel
As election season progresses… The scrutiny over a potentially brokered GOP convention is escalating.
One America News examines one rule that would have to be changed in order for the presidential candidate pool to expand… And what it means for “Donald Trump and the future of the Republican party.
(Excerpt) Read more at oann.com ...
“If voting mattered, they wouldn’t let us do it.”
Ted Cruz can't get 8 States
Ted has 4
I just listened to Roger Stone being interviewed, and he stated that the GOPe will not hesitate to change 40B to a required number of states that Trump does not have, like 12 or 14.
Donald Trump is a Nationalist, not a Globalist, and the Republican establishment can not buy him.
I believe Trump will get the delegates he needs before the convention, but if not, he will make a deal with someone for their votes to get there. That’s what Trump does. He will win to be the Republican in the contest, then beat whoever they put up against him.
Get use to saying, “President Trump”.
I think Cruz has a decent shot to win four of those five. But the rest all look to be Trump states.
BTW, I hate caucuses! I never paid much attention to them before and didn't realize so many states were caucus states.
What this article says is that rule 40 might be changed to allow anyone with at least 1 delegate to be placed in nomination, or even changed so that names can be placed in nomination that have not even taken part in the primary season, such as Romney or Ryan. This is probably why Jeb always said that there was no way that Trump would be the nominee, and he was always confident he would be the nominee.
“BTW, I hate caucuses”
I do to. Easier for the GOPe to play games.
Rule 40(b) is the Rubicon. If the GOPe changes it so that neither Trump nor Cruz gets the nomination, there will rightfully be a schism. Trump will make an independent run, Cruz might also. The GOPe would be in charge of a rump party, with Trump and Cruz forming a new party or new parties. Of course, and worst of all, the Wicked Witch would glide to the Presidency.
From the referenced video …
"Political parties choose the nominee, not the general public."
FR: Never Accept the Premise of Your Opponents Argument
Patriots, regardless that the corrupt GOPe is singling out a convention rule, please consider that modern political party presidential nomination conventions do not respect the constitutionally enumerated process for electing the POTUS.
”Article II, Section 1, Clause 2: Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector.…
12th Amendment: The Electors shall meet in their respective states, and vote by ballot for President and Vice-President, one of whom, at least, shall not be an inhabitant of the same state with themselves; ..."
Concerning made-for-TV political nomination conventions, all that the corrupt Washington cartel is interested in, imo, is holding onto 10th Amendment-protected state powers that the corrupt feds have been stealing from the states since after the Civil War.
You then cite two Constitutional provision dealing with the Electoral College. Are you suggesting that the Electors on their own decide who becomes the new President and new Vice President?
Just for review, here’s how the Grand Old Party was born.
The Slavery issue, however, marked the death knell of the Whigs as a Major Party: the Compromise of 1850 (which first adapted the concept of “squatter sovereignty” to the problem of the extension of Slavery to the territories) was lost in the battle over the Kansas-Nebraska Act of 1854 (which first extended this principle north of the northernmost limit of Slavery under the Missouri Compromise of 1820).
In the wake of the resultant political fallout, Free Soilers and so-called “Conscience” Whigs joined forces with so-called “Free” Democrats and even denizens of the nativist American (known colloquially as the “Know-Nothing”) Party to sow the seeds of a new Major Party: one soon enough to become more generally known as the Republicans, the name of this Major Party to this day. Meanwhile, other Whigs (primarily in the South) joined the Democrats, while a core of so-called “old” Whigs (principally in the Border South) vainly attempted to hold what was, by now, an “anti-Free Soil yet pro-Union” faction together as the winds of Secession and Civil War began to intensify and the end of the 1850s drew nigh (this last remnant of the Whigs would become the core of a short-lived Constitutional Union Party by the 1860 Presidential Election).
The 34th Congress [1855-1857], thus, can be seen as a more or less transitional period in which the final decay and decline of the Whigs was becoming offset by the shifting sands of the contemporary antebellum political landscape swiftly producing a new “Democrats versus Republicans” Major Party alignment: one that, at least insofar as the Parties’ names are concerned, continues to this very day.
Look at it this way Repeal 16-17. If patriots exercised their voting muscle to “force” the corrupt feds to surrender the 10th Amendment-protected state powers that they have been stealing from the states back to the states, then probably nobody would want to be president.
After all, since one of the very few powers that the states have actually delegated to the feds, expressly via the Constitution, to decide an aspect of domestic policy is to manage the U.S. Mail Service (1.8.7), the key question is how many political parties does it take to run the U.S. Mail Service?
I say none.
Being president would be a way to honor retired generals who wouldn’t mind negotiating trade agreements and treaties for the county.
uh....NONE!
It will be revised for 2016.
Rule changes will require the approval of a majority of convention delegates, just like the winning candidate.
Claiming there is some secret way to change rules is ridiculous. If some unknown rule is ‘discovered’, a majority of convention delegates can change it to what they thought they were getting.
Looking at likely delegate totals, the Establishment has no place to get the votes for shenanigans.
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.