Posted on 04/17/2016 2:22:05 PM PDT by markomalley
It’s sad when time must be spent explaining the difference between a primary/Caucus and an election....
You expect a certain base level of understanding when debating someone. Of course you don’t always get it, but that’s when you bow out politely.
Really?
Trump isn't a communist and didn't kill anyone. He's a proud and successful "capitalist" who loves his country. He's the exact opposite of the screaming moonbat.
>Trump isn’t a communist and didn’t kill anyone. He’s a proud and successful “capitalist” who loves his country. He’s the exact opposite of the screaming moonbat.
Well said.
I realize what the realistic expectations are. I realize Trump begins a negotiation asking for everything.
For more indications what to expect from Trump i’d direct you to this thread....
I was told yesterday that Trump is a liberal Democrat. My reply:
Posted on April 16, 2016 6:24:54 PM PDT by Jim Robinson
http://freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3421722/posts
Thank you for the thoughtful reply. It’s good to hash some of this stuff out, because it will always help in the long run for those of us on different sides of this debate to at least understand where we’re coming from.
It’s not that there’s no value to conservatism itself at all. It’s that there isn’t any value in saying a politician is ‘a conservative’ anymore, because the word has been so perverted. I know the people I’m complaining about aren’t conservatives, but who the heck is? Some guy comes along and says “Hold on, I’m a TRUE conservative!” We’re all supposed to gush and throw our underwear at him or something.
For many of us, the playing field has moved away from that ‘conservative vs. non-conservative’ game. It had to, because we have been losing that game. We’re getting knifed in the back by our own people and arguing about which one of the ones who stabbed us is the ‘true conservative’ while the left is scoring touchdown after touchdown and our country is dying.
In the absence of something different, I too would have supported Ted Cruz, in spite of several glaring red flags in his record and a resume that I really don’t feel is sufficient for the job he is running for.
But something different did come along. Someone who plays by different rules, carries a bigger microphone than anyone else, and isn’t owned by any of the usual suspects that seem to somehow keep our ‘conservative’ politicians acting against our best interests.
But Trump isn’t a conservative, you say. I think you’re right. He’s not a liberal either though. I don’t think he’s ideological within that paradigm of left and right that we all too often cling to in order to make sense out of our insane political world. To me, the only thing ideological that I see about Trump is that he wants America to come first. America needs that, because America has been teaching it’s own population to hate itself for generations now.
That brings us to Trump’s policy proposals. While Trump may not be an ideological conservative as we have come to know one, Trump’s policy proposals ARE both substantive and conservative. I’m not talking about soundbites you may have heard or things you may have heard that contain a leftist buzz word or two. I’m talking about the actual policy positions on his website:
https://www.donaldjtrump.com/positions
He often uses simplified language and language of the left to sell those proposals, but that’s fine with me, since I want as many people as possible to go along with conservative policies. If he wants to introduce a conservative tax plan (read it, it is) and tell people it’s ‘raising taxes on the rich’ because that’s what they want to hear, who the heck am I to complain? I get the tax plan I want and the people who have been taught (for generations now) to demagogue issues get to think they stuck it to some hedge fund jackass. Everybody wins.
At the end of the day, if we don’t get this election right, we’re finished. There won’t be another chance to stop the left. Demographics and other factors will make it so we are completely powerless.
Trump, even though I think he’s the best (and really only) choice, is still a gamble. We don’t know if he can follow through on his promises. There’s even a possibility he’s blowing smoke about them. (I don’t believe he would have put his life and business on the line like this to just dupe all of us though.) I am also under no illusions that I will approve of 100% of the things that a President Trump would do.
TL;DR: I think a lot of Cruz supporters are playing a game that many of us left behind some time ago. We left it, because it can’t be won. Supporting Trump isn’t about cults, hero worship, or being some kind of bleeding RINO. It’s about changing the game, so we can win, because this is for all the marbles and our children need a USA to grow up in.
There’s more I can write about where conservatism fits into this new game, but it’s late and I felt like I was writing a book already...lol
Well, excuse me for trying to be polite.
And this is why I call them the Cruzulists. Even the politest disagreement with Saint Ted of Calgary is met with screaming and tantrums.
I will not speak more to you, especially since I can expect nothing more than spittle-spewing rage.
Twit.
I wish Cruzers would learn to understand the difference between a caucus with a presidential preference poll and bound delegates and caucuses without presidential preference poll. The first allows the people to pick a presidential candidate. The second lets the corrupt GOP insides pick a presidential candidate. Not all caucuses are equal.
“I know the people I’m complaining about aren’t conservatives, but who the heck is? Some guy comes along and says “Hold on, I’m a TRUE conservative!” We’re all supposed to gush and throw our underwear at him or something.”
It’s interesting you say that considering Trump has claimed that he is a conservative as well. So, no, I don’t, nor do I want, anyone to gush over any candidate. That is why a person’s record is important...Trump has no record. That is why we can only go by what he has said, and he’s said all kinds of different things, to different people, at different times.
Ted Cruz, on the other hand, has a record. He has a very conservative record, and he is THE ONLY candidate that has truly fought the establishment. You ask, who can claim they are a true conservative. Ted Cruz can.
” There’s even a possibility he’s blowing smoke about them. (I don’t believe he would have put his life and business on the line like this to just dupe all of us though.) “
No, not simply to dupe you. The man has a very healthy ego, to put it mildly. All of the candidates must, to even run for the office. Donald Trump wants the power, influence, and prestige that comes with being the leader of the free world. There is nothing wrong with that, but that is why it is crucially important that we choose a proven conservative. That is, if you even care about what conservatism is and means. It doesn’t sound like you hold much admiration for conservatism.
” I think a lot of Cruz supporters are playing a game that many of us left behind some time ago. We left it, because it can’t be won. Supporting Trump isn’t about cults, hero worship, or being some kind of bleeding RINO. It’s about changing the game, so we can win, because this is for all the marbles and our children need a USA to grow up in.”
Thank you for your honesty, and that summation is the perfect example of why I disagree with the Trumpkin movement.
1) If you think Donald Trump is going to ‘change the game’, you are mistaken. The system has been around long before Donald Trump and will be there long after, short of a literal revolution which would be a disaster. You can pretend you left it behind, or that it doesn’t exist, but it will still be there.
2) The system CAN be beaten. Ronald Reagan did it after years of fighting, and after losing closely in a primary with a sitting president. It takes time, effort, and patience. These are all things that the Trumpkin movement seems incapable of. Reagan was a governor, had a proven record of success, and fought the establishment tooth and nail. Trump has none of these qualities.
Screaming and temper tantrums?
I certainly apologize if you FEEL like that.
I merely asked you a question, which I might add, you didn’t answer....
Actually, that is false. The only change to the rules was to eliminate the straw poll. The straw poll had always been non-binding, but rule changes at the RNC would have required the results of the straw poll to be binding had they held it. So to keep the process the same as it had been, they simply eliminated the straw poll.
However, the idea that this change meant that all of the CO delegates would be unbound is false. The people who wanted to be selected as delegates had to file a statement of intent. On that statement of intent, it gave the delegate candidate the option to run as a bound delegate for a specific candidate, or run as an unbound delegate. If they indicated they were pledged to a specific candidate and were selected, they would be bound to that candidate on the first vote. If they ran as unbound and were selected, then they were free agents.
Here is what FrontLoadingHQ said about the process months in advance of the actual process:
"Colorado has been talked about as a state that will send an unbound delegation to the national convention. That would only be the case if all the delegate candidates who file intent to run forms opted to remain unaffiliated with any presidential campaign. If those delegate candidates pledge to a presidential candidate and are ultimately elected to one of the 34 delegate slots (not counting the party/automatic delegates), then they are functionally locked in with that candidate if that candidate is still in the race for the Republican nomination."
Sorry, I don’t talk to cultists.
Awww, c’mon man. We are sacrificing some virgins later for Beelzebub. It’ll be fun!
I've seen exactly that stated in two sources. One of the sources quote the CO GOP chairman saying exactly that. I can't link that source--it's some green website (literally, the background is all green). The other site is the Denver Post. So, if this is false, take it up with the Denver Post: Republicans still will hold precinct caucus meetings in early 2016 to begin the process of selecting delegates for the national convention — but the 37 delegates are not pledged to any specific candidate.
Now, to quote you: "The people who wanted to be selected as delegates had to file a statement of intent. On that statement of intent, it gave the delegate candidate the option to run as a bound delegate for a specific candidate, or run as an unbound delegate."
That is highly problematic. The delegates are a sampling of registered voters. We know that there are Trump supporters in CO (even though they didn't vote), and that their support is probably within the range that we see in other states, 35-55%. Therefore, it is statistically impossible that not a single person filing as a delegate filled out a statement of intent to support Trump. So, what happened?
No one said none of the Trump supporters were running for delegate - just none of them were selected as delegates (although two of them were selected as alternates). They were just outnumbered and outorganized by the Cruz supporters.
Which, I will reiterate, is a highly unlikely statistical result. And when a result is so far from the results one would statistically expect, the assumption is that something happened to skew those results.
Someone has been posting that it is legal to buy the support of delegates. And Cruz is taking special interest money to run his campaign. Hmm.
Not at all. Trump's campaign was not active in helping his supporters navigate the process, knowing when each event was, getting people selected at the first level (which was required for them to participate at later levels), etc. You can't evaluate the results of a caucus system like you would a primary. A caucus requires much more intentional participation.
What happened to skew the results is that Trump's campaign didn't know what they were doing, and so they couldn't help his supporters get chosen.
Someone has been posting that it is legal to buy the support of delegates.
More unsubstantiated allegations, hmmm? Your candidate screwed up, and instead of acknowledging that, you have to believe that someone cheated. Pitiful.
tRump supporters have become just like the DUmmies over at DU. If the Donald loses or screws up, which he does fairly regurlarly, it has to be because somebody cheated. It’s never because the Donald is just to lazy and arrogant to do the real work it takes to become President. The Donald just likes being treated like a rock star by his mentally aged 16 year old girl supporters.
That is what is pitiful.
In other words, there was nothing irregular--it's just that Trump voters are too moronic to figure out how to be decent delegates.
Mhm, got it.
Exactly. That's what happen when you get people who pride themselves on being "outsiders" trying to navigate the complex rules that the insiders are already familiar with.
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.