Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: Beautiful_Gracious_Skies
Ok well some naive people, such as myself, have this weird notion that when we go into a voting booth, and we don't see the names of delegates but see names like "Donald Trump" or "Ted Cruz", that the one that we put a check mark to should in aggregate effect the loyalty of the delegates sent to the convention in Cleveland.

As a matter of fact, in early March Ted Cruz asserted this was the only way to win. To win with the voters. (Recall he said it in the context of encouraging others to drop out and let him be the only alternative to compete directly with Trump--but he was explicit in saying it was the only way to beat Trump).

Now we have his supporters and him in a very awkward moral dilemma. They can either stand by the almost universally accepted principle that delegates ought be faithful to the voter's choice, just as we expect electors to vote faithfully in the general election, or they can continue to offer rationalizations for why this principle does not apply, and even make out that it a sign of virtue, of competence and a "good ground game" and "taking advantage of the rules" to undermine this principle.

But the moral position they take is one that nobody takes except for the special purposes of supporting a losing candidate. One can talk till they are blue in the face, but they are talking against common sense. To switch out delegate loyalty is to cheat the voters. Period. No refutation can be valid. If one loses touch with a moral principle so obvious as this, one ought not to claim they are a principled conservative. Its embarrassing to see.

78 posted on 04/16/2016 2:18:01 PM PDT by AndyTheBear
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 68 | View Replies ]


To: AndyTheBear

That’s an excellent an non argumentative way of explaining what has occurred and how Ted is so duplicitous. The more I learn about him, the less I like. I think that based on all the expensive internal polling that he has hired, that he has always known that he would have a remote chance of winning.

I note that he was not intently campaigning in The South and stayed out of Florida for the most part. His plan has been to target small caucus states and manipulate the vote. The state parties that are corrupted would have been assisting Jeb, then Rubio, now by default Cruz. Actually there is no way they will allow him the nomination. Why risk having an unqualified candidate on the ballot when it is guaranteed your opponent will attack and eliminate him.

He’s not likable and will lose all the battleground states that are essential. Cruz has no path to victory, he’s merely the candidate elect saboteur.


79 posted on 04/16/2016 2:37:22 PM PDT by Beautiful_Gracious_Skies
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 78 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson