Posted on 04/18/2016 2:51:08 AM PDT by markomalley
Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump told reporters at a press conference Sunday in Staten Island that the Republican primary nomination process is “rigged” against him and he refuses to play by the rules established by GOP state party committees he deems unfair.
“I don’t want to play the rule game, because I’ll tell you what, we live in a democracy and it’s all about getting the bosses out. The bosses are picking. Now I’m winning, you will say. I’m wining by 200 delegates. I’m winning, more importantly in my opinion, I’m winning by 2 million votes. In other words I’ve gotten more than 2 million votes,” Trump said, when asked why he does not work within the rules different state contests have.
Texas Sen. Ted Cruz swept up all of Wyoming’s available delegates at the state’s GOP convention Saturday night. Although Wyoming Republican voters caucused on March 12 at local conventions to begin the delegate election process, Trump and his supporters called it a voter-less primary.
A similar situation occurred in Colorado where Cruz delegates won all the open slots to go to the convention through a process that began at local caucuses on March 1.
RNC Chairman Reince Priebus fired back at Trump this week for accusing the party of having a rigged system.
New York Republican Rep. Peter King told Fox News earlier on Sunday that the “system is what it is.” Ohio Gov. John Kasich as well as Cruz could call the New York primary unfair too, should Trump win at least 50 percent of the GOP vote statewide and receive at least 50 percent of the Republican votes in most or all of the Empire State’s congressional districts.
“He may get 53 or 54 percent of the vote, but if he gets 100 percent of the delegates, now, Cruz or Kasich could say, ‘That’s unfair.’ The very nature of a nominating process is always — Iowa has caucuses. Some have open primaries. Others just have local conventions. That’s just the way it’s been and it’s not meant to be easy. Whatever it is, I don’t see it as an attempt to stop Donald Trump,” King said. “These rules have been in effect in one way or another, with their idiosyncracies, for one hundred years. And in some cases, others get changed every few years, but that’s part of running for president. you have to learn how to navigate the minefields,” he added.
>Why doesn’t Cruz mock him for this ignorance about our system of government?
Mock? Why, I’ve heard (this past Friday?) a soundbite with him stating the same!
I wouldn’t cast aspirations on him of being ‘ignorant’ on the point, but I do have to wonder if it’s a ‘red meat’ (Republic) statement for the base vs. another for the masses (Democracy).
I can’t give ‘Mr. Constitutional’ the benefit of the doubt re: ‘slip of the tongue’; but if it is as I suspect above, that’s quite a few pegs DOWN in my book.
>the problem is is that some of us haven’t figured out that republic and democracy aren’t mutually exclusive. Quite the opposite in fact, the two things normally go hand-in-hand. We’re a constitutional republic. That means our constitution is the supreme law of the land, not a monarch (or dictator). Our constitutional republic is also a representative democracy (as opposed to a direct democracy). That means we the people elect representatives and they are supposed to then represent our interests.
Close, but one glaring omission, and, IMO, the most salient point: As a a constitutional Republic, those elected representatives are bound by said constitution (what they can and, more-so, CANNOT do/touch)...’majority’ be damned.
In what part of the Constitution is democracy written and discussed? My search came up empty (kinda like your argument....).
Try doing a little reading before responding to this post: It is important to keep in mind the difference between a Democracy and a Republic, as dissimilar forms of government. Understanding the difference is essential to comprehension of the fundamentals involved.
So you admit that in Florda, Trump won less than 50% of the vote, but received 100% of the delegates, thus poaching delegates that do not belong to him. Thanks for clarifying that for us.
What makes this even more amusing, dear Cruzbot, Rubio was the instigator of making “the rules”. LOL! You establishment suckers amuse me so! ; )
http://wlrn.org/post/how-rubio-made-florida-winner-take-all-state
The winner-take-all strategy on the Republican side was done by design and Marco Rubio can be credited for setting it all in motion.
Exactly! And Cruz won Colorado and Wyoming by following the rules. So why are you in favor of the rules when they benefit Trump, but oppose them when they don't? Sounds pretty hypocritical to me.
“we’re a constitutional republic.”
Exactly.
That’s my point.
If you claim that we’re a democracy, then by the same logic you have to say we’re an anarchy. Which is ridiculous. We are a constitutional republic.
We have not been a constitutional republic for years, GET REAL!!!
These rules were set up by the establishment to deceive the regular American Joe that is not a political junkie!!!! They the establishment feel they know what is better for us than WE do!!! You may be a little correct that Trump should have hired people to do this crap, however I look at it as WHY IN TNE HELL should someone HAVE to be a LAWYER to figure this out!!! I KEEP going back to the fact that our FOUNDERS (remember them) wanted everyday business people and citizens to run this nation!! The DAMNED ESTABLISHMENT lawyers and insiders have made the process impossible for this to EVER happen!!! Most Americans do NOT understand this corrupt biased system and it SHOULD NOT be this way!!! Trump is AWAKENING America and for that I am VERY GREATFUL!!!
Yea, the dictionary definition of a republic allows this country to be called a republic, given a reasonable amount of leeway for the specifics. It’s a democratic republic, but the adjective “democratic” is not the noun which names what this country is: a republic, and Federalist 39 gets further intonthe weeds and calls it a “compound republic”, (which is so right).
I believe that a certain Albert Arnold “Al” Gore Jr. received about 500,000 more votes than his opponent, in the 2000 US general election. His opponent became President, in spite of AlGore recieving more votes. My question, Mr. Trump is, ‘was that fair’? And for those who feel that Mr. Trump was ‘cheated’, do you also believe that AlGore was ‘cheated’? Obviously, very few to none on FR believe that AlGore was cheated, yet many feel Trump was cheated. (Before the ad hominem attacks begin, I do not feel AlGore was cheated. The US Electoral College (EC) system is what it is, so George Bush won. Even the process of EC votes is not identical for all States. In 48 States, the winner takes all the State’s Electors whereas in Maine and Nebraska, the Electors may be split, based on Senators and Districts.)
Each jurisdiction that can be called ‘democratic’ or ‘free’, be it a ‘Country’, ‘State’, ‘District’ or ‘Province’, has its own rules of election, hopefully best suited to its people. No ‘democratic,’ system is perfect, be it an ‘indirect election’ system (the US system), a ‘direct election’ system (France), a ‘Westminster’ system (Canada), the several forms of ‘proportional representation’ systems, or a multitude of combinations thereof. There is no, one ‘perfect’ democratic election system. Each has its pros and cons, but again, hopefully best suited to its people.
As I understand it, in the US, each State’s political organisation has the right to set up their ‘primaries’ as they see fit, obviously subject to all State and Federal laws. It is up to the rank and file to correct the leadership of the State political organisation, if they feel there is an issue with how the leaders lead, including how they choose to handle their ‘primary’. That ‘correction’ can include anything up to and including impeachment of an official, I suppose. In any event, such officials are elected by registered members of the party and can be tossed out at re-election time.
Mr. Trump is a reasonably bright man, having amassed a large fortune from a small fortune, and having investments in multiple jurisdictions in the US and world-wide. One would hope that before he invested in these different markets, part of his ‘due dilligence’ would be the investigation of the laws governing such enterprises in the particular jurisdiction.
One would think that before running for office, he would have done the same sort of ‘due dilligence’ by investigating the ‘primary’ process in each State, before he chose to run. If it was the oversight of his campaign team, then a shuffling of, or firing of some of his team sounds appropriate. (He was well known for, “You’re fired!” on TV.) If it was an oversight on his part, not hiring a team who have or can gain such knowledge, then he should accept it gracefully and move on. The ‘test’ of ‘how fair’ the primary process is, will be if he litigates against said State organisation(s).
IF you are going to ‘reform’ a monolithic organisation (like a government and political system) from within, you had better understand the ‘workings’ of such a system, so that you gain power and change it. That often takes a lot of time. (The socialists have done a masterful job of this unfortunately, within the Dhimmicatic Party, though it has taken decades. Many of the ‘old’ Democrats had to die off first.) IF Mr. Trump was unwilling to learn such ‘workings’ before attempting to reform the organization, a ‘third party’ run might be more effective, a ‘revolution’ in US politics. Generally, a ‘revolution’ is a much faster process than a ‘reformation’.
Doesn't it bother you, just a little bit, the intellectual, logical, and factual contortions you have to exercise to try and justify your candidate?
No, they were convention states, and the candidates had to fight for each delegate. Cruz did, Trump didn't.
Democrats have been wanting that for years.
A theocracy is not a monarchy so it must be a democracy?
The Founders never intended for the common citizen to have any direct participation in the presidential elections at at all. The system was originally set up so that it was completely run by "the establishment". The members of the Electoral College were chosen by the state legislatures, and they were the ones who voted for President.
One word: Florida
Most American have a pretty blurry picture of the democracy vs. republic question.
Saying we are a democracy is obviously oversimplified, but Trump's point is that party bosses making decisions about delegate selection is anti-democratic, and democratically selecting candidates is not what the founders feared when they warned against democracy.
The founders were worried about arbitrary law, not trying to foil the will of the People in their choice of candidates.
Thus, the bleating from the "we're a republic crowd" is disingenuous at best, because the Fouinders woiuld clearly be appalled at the spirit of faction (party) which has come to dominate modern politics.
So let's be honest and agree that this whole party boss bullshit is both anti-democratic AND anti-republican...
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.