Posted on 04/18/2016 6:45:56 AM PDT by COUNTrecount
(Nick Bernabe via ANTIMEDIA) Denver, CO — The 2016 election has been a wild ride, with two insurgent grassroots campaigns literally giving the political establishment a run for its money. But as the events of this presidential primary season play out, it’s becoming clear the U.S. election — and even more so, the presidential race — is a big scam being perpetrated on the American people.
Events from the last week have exposed the system as an illusion of choice and a farce. They have reinforced at least one study showing the U.S. is an oligarchy rather than a democratic republic.
The Wyoming democratic caucus took place on Saturday, purportedly to allow voters to have their voices heard in the race between Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton. Sanders lost the Wyoming caucus by winning it with a 12 percent margin.
(Excerpt) Read more at theconservativetreehouse.com ...
least you are off your talking points for now.
You still not have answered, was you against the establishment a few months ago>?
For about the 5th time the voters voted establishment hack, what part of that do you not get compared to CO where voters are not allowed to vote and the rules change by the establishment for the establishment.
How proud they must be off you.
Once again do you think it’s fair that 100% of the delegates go to someone with less than 50% of the vote?
Also what do you not understand about Colorado? They did vote. If not how did they select their delegates? People got into a room and they voted for delegates. How is that not voting?
I understand that argument -- I just don't agree. Pointing out that we do not live in a erfect democracy is not enough for me to overlook everything else a candidate stands for. Or to put it differently, just because someone diagnosis one illness affecting a patient does not necessarily make them the right person to be in charge of that patient overall.
Just to be upfront here, one of my major concerns about Trump is what I see as the anti-intellectual, bottom-feeding tone of his campaign, where he turned the debates into a celebrity roast rather than a discussion of issues. I worry that if our campaigns are going to become what Trump has made them, then we are completely screwed because we will have surrendered on the war of ideas. It'll just be whomever can spew out the most populist mush, and screw principles or ideas.
My biggest hesitancy about voting for him in the general election is that I don't want to endorse the way I think he dragged the campaign into the mud. A vision of the GOP looking like Trump is not something I can support.
I was and still am against the establishment. I’m voting for Cruz.
I think that's the sticking point right there. I'm no fan of the indirect delegate voting process. But if a state makes the decision to go that way, it's their right.
Now here's the problem. In quite a few states (for example PA, I don't know about CO), delegates appear on the ballot unbound and unconnected to any candidate. All the voter to guide him is some pamphlet put out by someone.
So you think you're voting for Candidate A's delegate, when you might really be voting for someone quite willing to go with Candidate B on the first ballot. That stinks.
One could argue that this voter needs to educate himself more. I would disagree with that. Voting should be straightforward, and free of these Byzantine rules.
As for the Florida 100% thing, you do have a point. However, I would point out that most states allocate their Electoral College votes that way. It makes the state more important politically.
So you will vote for Hillary!, I get it.
Don’t be frigging stupid or are you that stupid.
You fail to answer one question put forth and expect ne to address and absurd theory of the establishments that FL is rigged because cruz got no counties, got over half million votes less and you think he should get delegates.
give me a frigging break.
Perhaps when Ted Cruz wins that rigged nomination, Bernie will pick Donnie for his veep.
After all, they’re birds of a feather. I read that right here on FR!
Quote:
“And third, did you know that the Constitution does not even require that those electors vote in accordance with how they are directed to vote, by either the legislator or voters? Under federal law, they can vote however they want.”
Well Mr. Rove, I think that something like 30 states have “faithless electors” laws. Laws meant to address the “smoke-filled back room” political processes of the last century.
But whatever. It’s obvious that many want to continue corrupt, sleazy political practices so their candidate can “win” an election so the “DC Cartel” continues the Gravy Train in perpetuity.
Just won't guarantee that 100%. It will depend a lot on what he says between now and then, because I have never liked populism.
so you are against the establishment ,l but you repeat their talking points and defend a guy who is being helped by the establishment, Romney, Rove, Haley, Graham,
Yep insane. You have no idea what you are voting for, but you know what you are voting against and due to you being stubborn then you will never change your mind , because it means you admit you were wrong and you can’t have that.
Are you in FL, no you have no idea what support is here for him and I will help you, a very small minority.
The two party system is not in the written Constitution but is in the unwritten one. Federal and state election laws are set up to favor the existing two party system. Trying to set up an independent or third party run is hampered by rules that restrict "sore losers" or impose onerous signature requirements. The Democrat or Republican candidates receive the lion's share of contributions, because donors recognize that one of the two candidates will be the winner. Dollars buy access to power. Unless you can self fund, as Perot did, a third party candidate will garner little media attention and have little means to advertise. At best, third party candidates with the Green or Libertarian Parties have taken away enough votes from the Democrat or Republican candidates, respectively, to cause the opponent to win.
Is our two party system better than the multiparty systems in most of the Western democracies? Maybe so. However, there should be uniform rules in the 50 states with respect to primaries. This need not come from the top down, but, like the Uniform Commercial Code, be adopted uniformly by the political parties and state legislatures.
You do understand that Colorado DID vote. We voted for our precinct delegates to the State Convention AS WE HAVE DONE SINCE 2004.
So if Trump doesn’t say what you feel comfortable with you’ll stay home, which is a vote for Hillary!?
Is our two party system better than the multiparty systems in most of the Western democracies? Maybe so. However, there should be uniform rules in the 50 states with respect to primaries. This need not come from the top down, but, like the Uniform Commercial Code, be adopted uniformly by the political parties and state legislatures.
agreed.
Each state should have a primary closed or open , but let the voters have a say, not some back rom deals where even voters do vote only to see their votes ignored.
Nothing is being taken from him. He gets the votes he earned on the first ballot.
He gets the delegates named that he does the work for. He does no work organizing and he loses.
Sad!
was the rules not changed in CO last year, think you will find they were.
huh?
Um...you do realize...that your comment there is what the truly insane always say about 'others' being insane (not themselves, of course...heavens no...never). Just an FYI.
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.