No, The Primary System Is Not Rigged

American Thinker ^ | 04/26/2016 | George W. Ford

[taxcontrol]

My comments in this thread have only been directed to show those WHY the Colorado system is the way it is and what we are fighting. I have pointed out that the Democrats in our state are pushing for an open primary system controlled by the state instead of the current system controlled by the parties.

Since I have not mentioned either Trump or Cruz or any other candidate, I am thinking that you have me confused with someone else.

[kjam22]

LOL

[21twelve]

I participated in my state’s caucuses. Precinct, then County, and will be going to the State convention to vote once again for delegates to represent me at the National Convention.

Everything was easy and cheap for the precinct and county caucuses. Going to the state will set me back a few hundred dollars with the entrance fee, hotel and travel. But - I figure I’ll probably come out way ahead what with the bribes and all!

[Oldeconomybuyer]

>> Let’s look back at our nomination process clear back to Reagan’s day. <<

I remember 1980 as you do but the comparison between Reagan and Trump is thin. Remember that Reagan ran against a sitting president in 1976, was a 2-term governor, and spent 30 years campaigning for conservative causes, and fought union bosses as president of the SAG. There was a clear public record on Reagan unlike the “blank slate” that Trump presents the voter.

>> This year they encouraged as many people as they could to run. <<

Agree 100%, and that is THE REASON why no candidate may reach the 1237 delegate count on the first ballot.

>> You don’t get most states voting for Trump in primaries, and caucus states only voting for Ted. <<

Primaries are popular voters, caucus’ are grass roots party members who are serious GOP supporters. You and I may not like it, but that’s the reason voters went Trump and caucus’ went Cruz.

>> What you don’t seem to have put together for yourself, is that the nomination process has not been your friend. <<

Perhaps. But my beef has been with the GOP congress since Gingrich. Aside from Obama congress is the heart of our constitutional republic.

>> I don’t want another career politician, a Washington insider, as the nominee. Trump may not be perfect, but by heaven he’s the first non-GOPe ordained person to get the nod since Reagan. <<

I don’t either. But the Reagan comparison remains thin. I could argue that Trump is the consummate insider because of his campaign contributions that were all over the place. Chuck Shuemer, Mitch McConnell, Nancy Pelosi, Clinton Foundation, I could go on. I know he’s a businessman, but his donations gave him “insider access”.

>> If you don’t think he is a liar, his stated platform has plenty of Conservative Meat on those bones. <<

I do not think he is a liar, I think he is a dealmaker with few core value - unlike Reagan. And this is why ethanol sticks in my craw. In Iowa with the caucus only a few days away Trump awkwardly read a statement to EXPAND ethanol. Clearly it was to get Iowa Gov. Brandstats endorsement and political capital in the state. To me it signaled he’s not serious about cutting government, because you’re right — it’s near dead last on anyone’s priority list but Trump chose to pander to crony capitalists in Iowa. He has said the main role for the federal government is Education, Defense, and Healthcare. Really? I get Defense, but education? Shouldn’t the states take that back (common core)? Healthcare defined by Trump as “people dying in the streets”? Really? Is he serious about repealing Obamacare? I just don’t have enough confidence in a blank slate.

>> Manafort rebuffed every one of his attacks.

He also said Trump was “evolving”. A horrible thing for a campaign chair to say. But that’s small potatoes.

>> If you think Cruz was solid on this [border], you’re wrong. <<

Nobody has been solid on this going back to Reagan’s amnesty, and this is my #1 priority including ending sanctuary cities, anchor babies, VISA overstays, e-Verify, the whole nine yards. My fear is that when Trump is faced with a filibuster by Schemer he will default to “The Art of the Deal” and go full ethanol on us.

>> You could sit there and write the same type of things about Ted too, but it wouldn’t make you feel better. So you do it about Trump. He is going to do things you want. <<

Cruz cannot win so I’m in full Trump support mode. You may find this hard to believe based on some of my FR posts. But there are so many Trumpeters on FR that refuse any critique about him that it concerns me. I’m trying to get them off the talking points, Kool-Aid induced, lying’ this, rigged that crapola. We on FR should be vetting candidates and holding their feet to the fire when they leave the constitutional republic reservation. Trump’s recent comments on raising taxes on the rich, the whole perverted bathroom thing, planned parenthood, etc. should raise eyebrows on FR. But some of his supporters are like zombies and they write everything off on Lyin’ Ted. It reminds me of “it’s Bush’s fault”.

Anyway, its dinner time but thank you for the thoughtful dialogue. FRegards, Olde.

[niki]

http://www.hannity.com/articles/hanpr-election-493995/here-is-the-gop-ballot-vs-14647116/

Here Is The GOP Ballot VS. The Democratic Ballot In Pennsylvania—Notice Anything Strange?

[JoSixChip]

We don’t have primaries in Colorado, we have caucuses.

Not anymore. I really wish you people would just stop posting about crap you know nothing about. It pisses me off.

[trisham]

Legislation to restore a presidential primary in Colorado passed its first committee hurdle Monday, as lawmakers race to get it done by the end of the session May 11.
House Bill 1454 would allow every voter — even those registered as unaffiliated with a party — to cast a mail ballot in a presidential primary in 2020. Coloradans would have their first presidential primary since 2000, before the state returned to the caucus system in 2004.

http://www.denverpost.com/election/ci_29810898/bill-restore-colorado-presidential-primary-is-before-lawmakers

[JoSixChip]

. Coloradans would have their first presidential primary since 2000, before the state returned to the caucus system in 2004.

It's a done deal.

[chris37]

No, I don’t have you confused, but you are right about not saying anything about Cruz.

If you are not a Cruz supporter, then I’m sorry for assuming that you are.

If you are a Cruz supporter, then my post stands.

[taxcontrol]

So you seem to believe that the caucus system in Colorado has been replaced. Please show where and when this has happened. You see this is governed by the laws of the State of Colorado and the GOP party rules. Neither of which have changed since the holding of the Caucus.

So if you have a URL or source that can show where the state has changed from caucuses, please share.

[taxcontrol]

You DO understand that is a BILL (proposed law) that is before the legislature, has not been either pass nor signed ... right?

[JoSixChip]

So you seem to believe that the caucus system in Colorado has been replaced.

It is being replaced. After the fiasco cruz and the gopE just put Colorado through, both the democrats and republicans in Colorado are behind it. Add to that, they are probably going to have to redo the selection for the 2016 delegates because the process you are defending was so botched and corrupted people are now afraid of being prosecuted. The good news is that it signaled the beginning of the end of both cruz's career and the gopE stranglehold on the republican party.

[JoSixChip]

You DO understand that is a BILL (proposed law) that is before the legislature, has not been either pass nor signed ... right?

Stop being a disingenuous ass hole, both the democrats and republicans are behind it and the governor has said he'll sign it.

[taxcontrol]

So you KNOW that the fact is that the legislation is PROPOSED, and has not become law. Yet you are intentionally representing as already passed and signed into law. Allow me to introduce you to the appropriate word:

lie
noun
1.
a false statement made with deliberate intent to deceive; an intentional untruth; a falsehood.

So you intentionally lie in your post, get called on it, are forced to acknowledge that fact, and yet somehow you believe that I am the one who is worthy of being called a “disingenuous ass hole”. This is known as psychological projection.

Good day to you sir.

[bootless]

Really?

Do you find any logical fallacy in making that comparison?

[bootless]

That would be a disaster. Here is California, some little clutch of SJWs decided that our primary system wasn’t fair, or something.

So now, all parties in the state - and there are a ton - elbow each other out of the way in what’s basically a runoff among all the parties.

In California, that means that our top two choices are .... Democrats. In my CD, I had two Dems to choose from. Fantastic. Which is why I’m leaving the state I’ve lived in for more than 30 years. My church, my neighborhood. Ammo’s about to be the next target of the regime. I’d like to leave while the getting’s good.

[bootless]

That makes sense, and I’d like to see the Electoral College go proportional too.

Here in California, we’re pretty much hosed. If the EVs were proportional, we could actually make a difference in the EV total.

[bootless]

The fact is that the state parties get to decide how they will determine their delegate distributions. If they want to draw names from a hat, that’s their prerogative.

If the party members in the state don’t like the choice, it is up to them to take action in their state party and change it, BEFORE the next election.

And there you go. You can't change the rules in the middle of the game because you suddenly decide they don't favor you. Al Gore tried that, and we got 40 days of chaos.

[stocksthatgoup]

7our answer is national review? Lol