Replies

Wet lunch? Where is anything in the first quote unconstitutional? How does wanting to hold party unity become unconstitutional? Where does it say in the constitution that political parties must allow non-party members to switch their affiliation for the sole purpose of influencing that party's vote? Where?

Nowhere, and that's not the point. The point under discussion is PlainOleAmerican's screaming claim that, "NO TRUE 'CONSTITUTIONALIST' WOULD EVER USE SUCH TACTICS TO MANIPULATE A REPRESENTATIVE REPUBLIC!". Regardless of what PlainOleAmerican seems to think, people voting for a candidate they like in accordance with laws passed by their elected representatives is not a nefarious undermining of the process. It is the process. The fact that they may be voting for a candidate you guys don't personally like doesn't change that.

You are as evasive as they come. They ARE NOT voting for a candidate they like. They are voting for a candidate because it insinuates their non-Republican, non-conservative beliefs into primary, trying to swing the vote of that primary to the candidate most objectionable to the majority of Republicans.

You can dissimulate all you want. We know what you’re doing, we know why you’re doing it. We know it’s shameful, and we will oppose and make it known to everyone. It’s disgusting.

“The fact that they may be voting for a candidate you guys don’t personally like doesn’t change that.”

You’re bordering on outright lying now...

This statement has NOTHING to do with the discussion. NOBODY is saying that people can’t “vote” for anyone they want (in the general election). We’re talking about corrupting the primary process of a political party.

I’m saying that it is unethical at best, and at odds with the constitutional process to manipulate the results of a political party nomination by switching parties solely for that purpose, without adopting the belief systems of that party.

It’s a SCAM, pure and simple.

Now, you either know that and choose to applaud it, or you are ignorant of it and refuse to become informed. No matter which it is, you are dangerous, as is anyone like you willing to make up the rules of the game as you go.

I would NOT endorse “spamming” the DNC either. So it has nothing to do with who the unethical behavior benefits. It’s unethical, and it scews the system, no matter who it benefits.

Get it? If not, we all know why...

Libertarians do NOT have the numbers to swing the “conservative” party in any direction. 2-3% at best...

So they need the help of liberal socialist Democrats to do it. That’s hijacking a Party in broad daylight. That’s what we object to.