Posted on 03/31/2016 8:20:36 PM PDT by BagCamAddict
Proof please.
Trump might be able to jump on the libertarian ticket they are on the ballot in 48 states!!!
Oh, please. The people’s vote IS democracy, (in action). It takes democracy in the vote to keep the Republic.
Why then is he winning by millions of voters, you are being completely illogical!!!!
“Still hate it.
What’s moral to the slave master is amoral to the slave
Yes, but to be fair (lol) moral is another word that is abused a lot...as is slave actually. Our perceptions can be based upon positive things or negative things...we choose, and our choice between positive or negative determines in large part the happiness we experience in our lives.
I have several terminal diseases...some mornings I get up and struggle emotionally...but then most times I decide that I will live my remaining life living...rather than live it dying. It is the same thing for negative and positive outlook...it is your choice...choose wisely. My advice is don’t waste time with the negative...or at least as little time as possible. LOL, I am done preaching, and I do apologize, it is just that your post struck my heart in such a sad way Outlaw76...maybe it is just late and I am tired.
Two points to consider regarding this contention.
1. This has not been a two person race. Despite the gap between the two leaders, neither has received a majority of the total votes cast.
2. We lessen our chances of winning the real prize if we discount all of the people who voted for candidates who did not win the nomination but nevertheless had substantial support.
Except his delegates are not necessarily Trump supporters. Part of the shenanigans going on lately.
The only thing they owe him is the first round ballot.
[Those aren’t “shenanigans” - it is the way delegates are selected. ]
You say that like they the two terms are mutually exclusive. They are not. Just because that is the “way” it is currently done doesn’t mean it isn’t “shenanigans”. The “way” should be changed so the candidate selects his own loyal delegates at each level. We are nominating a potential Executive; we should trust his ability to pick the best people to represent his interests at the convention. Those millions of primary voters expected their convention representatives (delegates) to actually represent their support for their candidate, not be party hacks elected through some process they were not involved in.
Pepe keep talking about how Trump will have to “cut deals” with other delegates if he comes up short of 1237. Is that really the way we want our government to function ? Handing out ambassadorships, promises of pork, or whatever to buy delegates ? That sounds like the very vision of lobbyist corruption I want eliminated from government. The fact that it happens on the convention floor rather than in “smokey back rooms” is immaterial.
A government that is as small as possible and does the bare minimum will never exist if the party that supposedly wants that to happen relies on bribery, corruption, and cronyism to decide on its nominee. Don’t we want a candidate who is beholden to no one but the people ?
It would be hard to argue that a majority loses.
Did Bolling write this article?
**********************************
I think he did, because it reflects the histrionics he’s been displaying on The Five and the past two weeks while filling in for O’Reilly. ....Eric has gone so far off the rails over Trump lately that it’s nearly unbearable to watch him. His obvious support for fellow NYr Trump rivals that which Juan Williams has for Hillary.
What I think a lot of us are saying is—keeping in mind the transparent animus of the RNC towards Trump—that if it is clear that they have changed their rules at or about the convention date for the sole purpose of cheating Trump from the nomination, not for an objectively reasonable party purpose ... how to put this: then, we’re going to wear their guts for garters and suspenders.
I doubt there is even 5% of voters who had any idea their primary votes could be dismissed at the whim of a few thousand party hacks. As a GOP voter for over 30 years, I certainly didn’t, and I have followed elections a lot closer than anyone else I know. It may seem normal to you, but to the other 95% of the people it looks shady as all he11.
If the GOPe persists in doing this, those other 95% are going to see how the game is rigged and will leave the party to form a new one where the rules are as I’ve laid out. This is a Republic and we expect to vote directly for our representatives, not have some separate process pick them without regard to our votes.
Aren’t you the one that equated a contested Convention to a run-off election ?
Run-off elections are between the leaders not the distant trailers, and it is the original voters who vote again in the narrowed field.
I would be perfectly comfortable with a contested convention if all delegates were selected by their candidate and the rules were defined before the Primaries had begun. Then a candidate could decide what party he wanted to run for without this last-minute possibility that the rug could be pulled out from under him after millions of voters have had their ONLY chance to vote, sore loser laws had boxed him in, and hundreds of millions of dollars had been spent on a campaign.
It now looks, however, especially because the Rules votes do not require loyalty to their “supposed” candidate, that the Primary voters matter much less than the way party hacks decide on delegates.
Probably the “Rules Committee” (Priebus surrogates).
I don't remember making that argument but I could be wrong. I suppose that in the sense that you would be looking for a consensus candidate from a large group when you have no majority winner it would be similar to a run-off election. Your point about initial voters not having a voice in the final determination is certainly valid.
I guess the counter argument would have to be that we don't have a pure democracy but a representative republic. Just as when we elect Congressmen and Senators and have no control over their actions after election, much the same is with delegates to the convention. For the most part, delegates I have known are not necessarily party hacks but are concerned citizens who, in contrast to myself, are willing to devote the time and effort to participate the the mundane work of keeping the local and state parties operating.
Really, I guess the only perfect system would be the one that yields the result I want. On second thought, that probably would not be good either since in my first sentence I acknowledged that I didn't remember what argument I might have made earlier. The only thing I can say with certainty is that I am not concerned with fairness to any particular candidate. This is not about any individual, it is about the country. I want someone who I can have confidence will follow the constitution and laws as they are, not how they would like them to be. How they deal with the nomination process is one indicator of how they would operate as president. Whatever else can be said, this election has gotten more people interested than any in my memory. We don't all know everything, but we are learning new thing almost daily.
Notice how much fun it is to trim a sentence? Cruz, Levin and a host of MSM plus more than a few freepers do it regularly, in order to misrepresent a statement made by Trump.
It is the only game in town and always has been.
In fact that is exactly how the present rules were adapted at the last convention. Clearly the no's had it but the chair ruled in the affirmative.
Ever try to win in a poker game with professional cheats at the table?
Actually the rules are there to prevent the people from having a real choice.
If voting made any difference they wouldn't let us do it."
Mark Twain -
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.