Colorado Republicans cancel presidential vote at 2016 caucus

[jimnyc]

Colorado will not vote for a Republican candidate for president at its 2016 caucus after party leaders approved a little-noticed shift that may diminish the state's clout in the most open nomination contest in the modern era.

The GOP executive committee has voted to cancel the traditional presidential preference poll after the national party changed its rules to require a state's delegates to support the candidate who wins the caucus vote.

The move makes Colorado the only state so far to forfeit a role in the early nomination process, according to political experts, but other caucus states are still considering how to adapt to the new rule.

"It takes Colorado completely off the map" in the primary season, said Ryan Call, a former state GOP chairman.

http://www.denverpost.com/news/ci_28700919/

[jimnyc]

Entire state doesn't even vote, Cruz gets all the delegates. I guess they should just eliminate all the people from voting going forward, what's the point. 1 million voters have no say at all, none.

[Bilgerat]

Entire state doesn't even vote, Cruz gets all the delegates. I guess they should just eliminate all the people from voting going forward, what's the point. 1 million voters have no say at all, none.



http://www.debatepolicy.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=8717&stc=1

[jimnyc]

I always thought the primaries were for the party deciding who they will send forth to try and get elected in the general election. I just misunderstood "THE party" is all.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

I always thought the primaries were for the party deciding who they will send forth to try and get elected in the general election. I just misunderstood "THE party" is all.

ALL THIS SHOWS THAT WE HAVE BOTH A DICTATORIAL GOVERNMENT AND DICTATORIAL POLITICAL PARTY SYSTEM TOO!
The hallmark stamp for this nation's coming demise was set when the outright traitor obama won("stole") a second term, IMHO.
All this corruption in order to eliminate Trump reveals that the people have not had a real say since bamboy came into power.
I suspect now, that its all being done to insure Hillary gets to be the next puppet dictator , used by the globalists.
They win without fighting a revolution. They--the socialist/globalist alliance. -Tyr

[Gunny]

I always thought the primaries were for the party deciding who they will send forth to try and get elected in the general election. I just misunderstood "THE party" is all.

Voting is a joke. Our stance has been no taxation without representation. Yeah. When you get rid of the electoral college send me the memo. If "the party" is dripping with as much disgust as when I say it, I agree.

Where we disagree is I don't think something worse is the solution. We've had 8 years of totalitarian dictatorship. I don't want any more of the same.

[tailfins]

It's telling that Trump figures this out AFTER he loses.

[Kathianne]

From original link:


EDITOR'S NOTE: This story was first published on Tuesday, Aug. 25, 2015 at 2:06 p.m.

This is the type of thing that Lewandowski either didn't understand, didn't know, or thought unimportant.

[fj1200]

From original link:

This is the type of thing that Lewandowski either didn't understand, didn't know, or thought unimportant.

Indeed.

The more recent story:


Instead, Republicans selected national delegates through the caucus process, a move that put the election of national delegates in the hands of party insiders and activists — leaving roughly 90 percent of the more than 1 million Republican voters on the sidelines.The decision sparked significant controversy at the time (http://blogs.denverpost.com/thespot/2015/08/28/colorado-gop-faces-questions-on-canceled-presidential-vote-at-2016-caucus/122764/) and removed Colorado from the Republican primary map in the early stages of the campaign. But Cruz supporters worked quietly behind the scenes to build an organization to get like-minded Republicans to the March 1 precinct caucuses and capitalized on the Trump campaign's failure to adapt to the system.
Trump's campaign didn't put a visible paid staffer on the ground in Colorado until last week, when it hired Patrick Davis, a Colorado Springs political consultant, to organize national delegate candidates at the 7th Congressional District convention in Arvada. By then, Cruz had won the first six delegates (http://www.denverpost.com/election/ci_29724525/ted-cruz-is-favorite-win-colorado-gop-presidential).
http://www.denverpost.com/news/ci_29750206/angry-donald-trump-blasts-colorado-gop-results-totally

[Kathianne]

Now what should Trump and his 'wonderful staff have done? Perhaps the same as Cruz, as the following points out, the 'changes' were made as much for Cruz as for Trump:

http://hotair.com/archives/2016/04/11/trump-i-was-cheated-in-colorado-by-failing-to-follow-rules-that-were-clear-to-everyone-months-ago/


Trump: I was cheated in Colorado by failing to follow rules that were clear to everyone months agoPOSTED AT 2:01 PM ON APRIL 11, 2016 BY ALLAHPUNDIT
The funniest part of this is when he says the rules in Colorado were changed to help “a guy like Cruz.” In reality the rules were changed to block guys like Cruz. Colorado used to award its delegates via a caucus, but that backfired in 2012 when Rick Santorum upset Mitt Romney there. That’s how it tends to go with caucuses — unlike a statewide primary, they benefit well-organized candidates with a passionate grassroots following, both of which are hallmarks of Cruz’s campaign. When the rules were altered last August (http://www.denverpost.com/news/ci_28700919/), decoupling the caucus from the process of awarding delegates, it was done with the intent of preventing another victory by an outsider — not just Trump but Cruz, Rand Paul, Ben Carson, and so on. The hope, I’m sure, was that an establishment champion would emerge this year and would, by dint of his greater campaign resources and “insider” support,” be able to out-organize all of the insurgent candidates in electing delegates directly. Trump’s not wrong, in other words, to believe that the system was “rigged,” but it was rigged to try to hurt Cruz as much as to hurt him. So what happened? Cruz adapted and Trump didn’t. As the establishment candidates crumbled, Cruz got organized to target delegates at the state and district level while Trump glided on with his media-saturation campaign strategy. If Trump had been paying attention, he’d have brought Paul Manafort into the campaign the day after Colorado changed its rules, knowing that delegate-wrangling could end up playing a key role in claiming the nomination. He didn’t.


Which, says Ben Domenech (http://thefederalist.com/2016/04/11/make-donald-trumps-delegate-team-great-again/), raises the question: If Trump can’t anticipate his opponents’ moves in a straightforward game like this, where the rules are written down and publicly available, how’s he going to do with foreign policy?



There have been plenty of examples of Ted Cruz being a savvy tactician during the 2016 cycle, but this Colorado disaster for Trump was not one of them, any more than Trump irritating everyone on the abortion issue was Cruz’s fault, or Trump driving up his negatives with women to “you will never get this rose” territory was Cruz’s fault. This is another own-goal where America’s king of the deal seems uninterested in doing the actual work to make the deal happen. Even a modicum of preparation could’ve landed Trump several delegates from Colorado – instead, he and his team appear uninterested in doing the work everyone has been reporting for weeks that they need to do in order to win.


For their part, the Trump team is vowing to win a delegate majority before the convention. But they have now experienced serious setbacks in South Carolina, Iowa, Indiana, North Dakota, North Carolina, Tennessee, Louisiana, South Dakota, and Georgia. In each of these cases, Trump’s setbacks would not have been as significant if he had simply paid attention to how the delegate process works.

“[T]wo key Trump claims have fallen apart thanks to his inability to fight for delegates properly, writes Ben Shapiro (http://www.dailywire.com/news/4824/trump-whines-about-being-cheated-he-was-only-ben-shapiro#pq=XxJyE8): “[H]e’s not a great dealmaker, and he doesn’t hire all the very best people.” Pay attention to the clip below, in fact, and you’ll find Trump complaining at one point about the process of wooing delegates, “They offer him trips, they offer him all sorts of things, and you’re allowed to do that.” That’s the second-funniest moment here. The billionaire who wrote “The Art of the Deal,” who’s bragged for months about how shrewd he was in buying influence with pols like Hillary Clinton by cutting them big checks for donations, is now whining that it’s unfair to dangle goodies in front of political actors to get them to do your bidding.


If anything, in fact, the delegate-wrangling process should be a godsend for Trump. It moves the race out of the ballot box, where he’s vulnerable to a surge of #NeverTrump votes as the primaries near their conclusion, to the backroom, where he can work his fatcat dealmaking magic. In practice, Cruz is beating the pants off of him, something that should never happen per the mystique that surrounds Trump of being a master negotiator. Noah Rothman claimed this morning that the fact that two of Trump’s kids failed to register in New York as Republicans in time to vote in this year’s primary (http://www.politico.com/blogs/2016-gop-primary-live-updates-and-results/2016/04/trump-children-register-vote-221790) is a microcosm of Trump’s disorganization generally, which is fair enough. But I’d add to that that him getting consistently beaten by Cruz at the delegate level is a microcosm of how Trump’s image as wheeler-dealer extraordinaire is oversold. An ingenious salesman should not be at this sort of chronic disadvantage against a guy who’s not very personally likable, whose methods are loathed by the establishmentarians who “rigged” the system, and who’s operating at a financial handicap compared to Trump. But he is. How come?


And one more thing. Why doesn’t Trump ever talk about the ways in which the system has been “rigged” to benefit him (http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2016-election/despite-complaints-delegate-system-has-given-trump-22-percent-bonus-n553801)?



Trump now leads the Republican field with 756 delegates — or 45 percent of all delegates awarded to date. Yet he has won about 37 percent of all votes in the primaries, according to the NBC analysis, meaning Trump’s delegate support is greater than his actual support from voters.


For each percentage point of total primary votes that Trump has won, he has been awarded 1.22 percent of the total delegates…


By contrast, Cruz has been awarded about 1.14 percent of the delegates for each percentage point of votes he has won — a delegate bonus of 14 percent above his raw support…


Taken together, the data show Trump has been awarded 8 percent more delegates than Cruz for the same rate of voter support.

Trump’s delegate lead over Cruz, in other words, is bigger proportionally than his actual vote lead over Cruz thanks to the “bonus” delegates he’s won by winning more states than Cruz has. If you’re an advocate of strict, straightforward democracy, where every vote counts the same, then Trump’s lead is bigger than it “should be” and the size of his delegate lead is “unfair” to Cruz. But it’s ridiculous to object to that, of course, for the simple reason that those rules were clear from the beginning. Delegate bonuses for statewide winners were always part of the process. If Cruz has failed to claim them, well, that’s his problem for failing to execute. Same goes for Trump at the delegate level. He could have built the best, biggest, classiest delegate-wrangling outfit in the field but he neglected to do so, thinking that he’d stomp Cruz at the ballot box and render all of that irrelevant. He failed to execute, most notably in Wisconsin. That, I think, is the ultimate objection to Trump on democratic grounds: Why are we even talking about delegates now? Why, if he has this unstoppable movement, is he still struggling to break 40 percent in many states when the only alternatives are unlikable Ted Cruz and, um, John Kasich? A brokered convention can’t happen unless every candidate — every candidate — fails to notch a critical level of support. Trump hasn’t failed yet. But he probably will.

[Gunny]

Indeed.

The more recent story:


http://www.denverpost.com/news/ci_29750206/angry-donald-trump-blasts-colorado-gop-results-totally

While I don't agree with caucusing, Trump needs to quit whining. He lost. Regroup and buck up. And if he doesn't STFU about this New York values sh*t he's run into the ground, I'll stay the f*ck home. I'm sick of listening to his sh*t.

[Gunny]

While I don't agree with caucusing, Trump needs to quit whining. He lost. Regroup and buck up. And if he doesn't STFU about this New York values sh*t he's run into the ground, I'll stay the f*ck home. I'm sick of listening to his sh*t.

Montel Williams just hammered Trump and for once, I agree with everything he said. You want to brag in your book about skating the draft THEN be Commander in Chief? Ummm ... NO?

[Elessar]

Entire state doesn't even vote, Cruz gets all the delegates. I guess they should just eliminate all the people from voting going forward, what's the point. 1 million voters have no say at all, none.

Bottom line is...What about the will of The People?

The 'party' in Colorado is sinking their own canoe, handing
this process over to the Lib Democrats.

It's total bullshit.

[Kathianne]

Montel Williams just hammered Trump and for once, I agree with everything he said. You want to brag in your book about skating the draft THEN be Commander in Chief? Ummm ... NO?

I don't know if you saw Bill Bennett earlier, but he said that each state party gets to set up primary, caucus, or convention. While that should be obvious to me, he made the point that our system, even at the state level is very confusing by design. Those that will be delegates, regardless of how they've been selected are those that are very involved in the party and their communities. It's a big commitment, indeed I think in CO the cost to 'be nominated as delegate is $2k. That's just to be considered.

Cruz had the folks in CO to get him organized and work the system. Trump didn't, in fact he fired the person that he had in CO a week before the convention. That's insane. Same reports out of LA as far as dismantling the apparatus after the primary, which is how Cruz was able to pick up the delegates. Cruz understands the systems, Trump hasn't.

[Gunny]

I don't know if you saw Bill Bennett earlier, but he said that each state party gets to set up primary, caucus, or convention. While that should be obvious to me, he made the point that our system, even at the state level is very confusing by design. Those that will be delegates, regardless of how they've been selected are those that are very involved in the party and their communities. It's a big commitment, indeed I think in CO the cost to 'be nominated as delegate is $2k. That's just to be considered.

Cruz had the folks in CO to get him organized and work the system. Trump didn't, in fact he fired the person that he had in CO a week before the convention. That's insane. Same reports out of LA as far as dismantling the apparatus after the primary, which is how Cruz was able to pick up the delegates. Cruz understands the systems, Trump hasn't.

I get it. I've lived in a lot of states. I can't stand the way my home state allows that caucusing crap. Trump is a rookie noob and it's more obvious every day.

[DLT]

Colorado will not vote for a Republican candidate for president at its 2016 caucus after party leaders approved a little-noticed shift that may diminish the state's clout in the most open nomination contest in the modern era.

The GOP executive committee has voted to cancel the traditional presidential preference poll after the national party changed its rules to require a state's delegates to support the candidate who wins the caucus vote.

The move makes Colorado the only state so far to forfeit a role in the early nomination process, according to political experts, but other caucus states are still considering how to adapt to the new rule.

"It takes Colorado completely off the map" in the primary season, said Ryan Call, a former state GOP chairman.

http://www.denverpost.com/news/ci_28700919/

Question for you Trump supporters. Be honest now. Would you guys be this upset and pissed off....

if all the delegates had gone to Trump instead of Cruz? Somehow....

I doubt it.

[Kathianne]

I get it. I've lived in a lot of states. I can't stand the way my home state allows that caucusing crap. Trump is a rookie noob and it's more obvious every day.

I liked what Bennett said regarding CO, 'if the people don't like it, they'll let the state GOP know and perhaps some of them will get involved enough to make the changes they want.' THAT is how the system works.

Now the 'conservative' Trump is saying, 'If he's elected, he'll make the system work the way it should-meaning the fed would take over the election system.

The only problem would be the Constitution actually provides for the states broad discretion regarding nearly all aspects of voting and elections:

http://elections.uslegal.com/regulation-of-elections/

[Kathianne]

Question for you Trump supporters. Be honest now. Would you guys be this upset and pissed off....

if all the delegates had gone to Trump instead of Cruz? Somehow....

I doubt it.

I'll even add that if he'd put the money in, had he realized the time, people that would have been necessary, some others might say he was trying to 'buy the election.' That too would have been as wrong as what his supporters are now doing.

[Black Diamond]

Question for you Trump supporters. Be honest now. Would you guys be this upset and pissed off....

if all the delegates had gone to Trump instead of Cruz? Somehow....

I doubt it.
Foul play is foul play (assuming there is any). If I begged you or anyone else to pigeonhole me, it couldn't be done.

[crin63]

I can't say I'm in favor of the way Colorado handled things but all the candidates had the same opportunity. No candidate was cheated.

If the people feel like they were cheated then they need to get involved and change their system. It's just more of Trump's whining to get sympathy votes and protests if he doesn't win the nomination.

Good Lord, I hope he doesn't win! 4 years of how unfair Putin or China are treating him. Threatening to sue Putin for being a nasty guy. Morning Twitter mouth briefings.

I think that's how Trump got his wife also isn't? He whined until she went out with him. ;-)

[Gunny]

I liked what Bennett said regarding CO, 'if the people don't like it, they'll let the state GOP know and perhaps some of them will get involved enough to make the changes they want.' THAT is how the system works.

Now the 'conservative' Trump is saying, 'If he's elected, he'll make the system work the way it should-meaning the fed would take over the election system.

The only problem would be the Constitution actually provides for the states broad discretion regarding nearly all aspects of voting and elections:

http://elections.uslegal.com/regulation-of-elections/

Honestly, I think about the election system the same as I do the border ... it's something the Federal government SHOULD have in control. They're so busy meddling in state affairs but they can't manage to handle what is actually their job. Voting for Federal office is one of the things that should be uniform in rules for the Nation and not controlled by individual states and definitely not by political parties. We've let them make the rules and they've turned everything to crap.

I'm for doing away with the electoral college and letting each vote count for what it is. I'm also for one standard as far as the Federal government and voting is concerned. People have argued against it over the years, but no one's come up with a better idea that I've heard. I also go with the flat tax idea. As it stands, the middle class is getting killed.

[jimnyc]

Question for you Trump supporters. Be honest now. Would you guys be this upset and pissed off....

if all the delegates had gone to Trump instead of Cruz? Somehow....

I doubt it.

You ask a question. Answer it yourself. Then get thanked for it! :lol:

And the answer is YES. I think the people should NEVER be taken out of the equation, even if it's the witch running against Sanders. They should just cancel all of the primaries if the citizens votes don't matter and it's only the insiders that matter.

[jimnyc]

Still lots of glee about denying Trump, and I can understand that, to an extent. But I have to wonder when these folks are going to realize that this glee is slowly killing November at the same time? All of these voters feeling denied, and being told to go and make changes - you do realize those changes will be to vote against whoever the GOP puts in there then? Some want to downplay all of the shenanigans because it's Trump, but I wonder if they will downplay things as much when the millions of Trump supporters are the reason that their candidate loses in November?

[Bilgerat]

Question for you Trump supporters. Be honest now. Would you guys be this upset and pissed off....

if all the delegates had gone to Trump instead of Cruz? Somehow....

I doubt it.


If people had been allowed to vote, that would have been an accurate count

But it's simpler for the "Establishment" who wants to retain control to prevent that from occurring

Why let them vote

Let them eat cake

[fj1200]

Bottom line is...What about the will of The People?

The 'party' in Colorado is sinking their own canoe, handing
this process over to the Lib Democrats.

It's total bullshit.

The people get their say in November. Right now parties decide their nominees. Nevertheless if a candidate can't build a get-out-the-vote structure now in the primaries how do we expect him to build a get-out-the-vote structure for the general?

[fj1200]

Honestly, I think about the election system the same as I do the border ... it's something the Federal government SHOULD have in control. They're so busy meddling in state affairs but they can't manage to handle what is actually their job. Voting for Federal office is one of the things that should be uniform in rules for the Nation and not controlled by individual states and definitely not by political parties. We've let them make the rules and they've turned everything to crap.

I'm for doing away with the electoral college and letting each vote count for what it is. I'm also for one standard as far as the Federal government and voting is concerned. People have argued against it over the years, but no one's come up with a better idea that I've heard. I also go with the flat tax idea. As it stands, the middle class is getting killed.

The States elect the POTUS not the people. It was that way for a reason just like the State legislatures used to select their Senators.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

I can't say I'm in favor of the way Colorado handled things but all the candidates had the same opportunity. No candidate was cheated.

If the people feel like they were cheated then they need to get involved and change their system. It's just more of Trump's whining to get sympathy votes and protests if he doesn't win the nomination.

Good Lord, I hope he doesn't win! 4 years of how unfair Putin or China are treating him. Threatening to sue Putin for being a nasty guy. Morning Twitter mouth briefings.

I think that's how Trump got his wife also isn't? He whined until she went out with him. ;-)


I can't say I'm in favor of the way Colorado handled things but all the candidates had the same opportunity. No candidate was cheated.

No, but the voters were cheated.
Our political system is set up on the vote counting system not political party special DELEGATES/RULES IMPLEMENTED TO CHEAT- WE THE PEOPLE.
Amazing to me ,how so many view this as nothing simply because it impacted Trump negatively.
Every President ever elected has been a rookie to the job.
And Russia and China both fear our military might not the asshat sitting in the Oval office my friend.
You can thank the obama ,the dem-traitor, for lessening that fear-- not a Trump that has never been in charge .--Tyr

[Black Diamond]

Still lots of glee about denying Trump, and I can understand that, to an extent. But I have to wonder when these folks are going to realize that this glee is slowly killing November at the same time? All of these voters feeling denied, and being told to go and make changes - you do realize those changes will be to vote against whoever the GOP puts in there then? Some want to downplay all of the shenanigans because it's Trump, but I wonder if they will downplay things as much when the millions of Trump supporters are the reason that their candidate loses in November?

Or when Cruz isn't nominated either....

[Drummond]

The voters have definitely been cheated ... and that is probably the most obvious and incontroversial statement I've ever made on this forum !

In the UK, we don't have anything like your electoral system ... to my thinking, the American version of it seems extraordinarily convoluted. I do know that if any area, any substantial number of people, were summarily denied any voting facilities at all for WHATEVER reason, it'd be seen as an unacceptable violation of a fundamental right, and simply wouldn't be tolerated .. by anybody.

[Kathianne]

Honestly, I think about the election system the same as I do the border ... it's something the Federal government SHOULD have in control. They're so busy meddling in state affairs but they can't manage to handle what is actually their job. Voting for Federal office is one of the things that should be uniform in rules for the Nation and not controlled by individual states and definitely not by political parties. We've let them make the rules and they've turned everything to crap.

I'm for doing away with the electoral college and letting each vote count for what it is. I'm also for one standard as far as the Federal government and voting is concerned. People have argued against it over the years, but no one's come up with a better idea that I've heard. I also go with the flat tax idea. As it stands, the middle class is getting killed.

Totally disagree. If anything I think there's an argument being made right now for why "The Reform System" was wrong in the first place and the Framers were correct. I would suggest that everyone should read the Federalist v. Anti-Federalists, but they are too long for most today.

[fj1200]

I've never read so many conservatives sound like Democrats. :(

[Kathianne]

I've never read so many conservatives sound like Democrats. :(

http://www.foundingfatherquotes.com/articles/22


The Founders never used the words" republic" and "democracy" interchangeably. They had studied various forms and systems of government from throughout history in order to establish a system of government that would best deter a tyrant (in their case King George III), or a group of tyrants, from denying God-given rights to Americans. Interestingly, the Declaration of Independence, the Articles of Confederation, and the Constitution do not use the term democracy to describe our form of government. �Furthermore, "Neither the Articles of Confederation nor the Constitution set up direct democracies."3 �The authors of these founding documents disagreed on many points, but on one point they ALL agreed wholeheartedly: "The United States is not a democracy, never was, and never was intended to be. It is a Republic."4��The following statements represent a small sampling of what the Founding Fathers thought about democracies.


Alexander Hamilton (http://www.foundingfatherquotes.com/father/id/61) asserted that "We are now forming a Republican form of government. Real liberty is not found in the extremes of democracy, but in moderate governments. If we incline too much to democracy we shall soon shoot into a monarchy, or some other form of a dictatorship."4 �Hamilton, in the last letter he ever wrote, warned that "our real disease�is DEMOCRACY."3


Thomas Jefferson (http://www.foundingfatherquotes.com/father/id/6) declared: "A democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where fifty-one percent of the people may take away the rights of the other forty-nine."


Benjamin Franklin (http://www.foundingfatherquotes.com/father/id/3) had similar concerns of a democracy when he warned that “Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote!” After the Constitutional Convention was concluded, in 1787, a bystander inquired of Franklin: "Well, Doctor, what have we got�a Republic or a Monarchy?" Franklin replied, "A Republic, if you can keep it."



John Adams (http://www.foundingfatherquotes.com/father/id/1), our second president, wrote: “Remember, democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself.”


James Madison (http://www.foundingfatherquotes.com/father/id/7), the father of the Constitution wrote in Federalist Paper No. 10 that pure democracies “have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths.”3


The Constitution itself, in Article IV, Section 4, declares: "The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government.” Obviously the Framers were not speaking of a political party, as no political parties existed at that time. �The Pledge of Allegiance, although not a founding document, does strike the right chord when it asks Americans to "�pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the Republic for which it stands�"


Clearly, the Founders have given us ample warning that democracies have historically led to tyranny and that, in their wisdom, they never intended our nation to devolve into a democracy. But it bears repeating–why does this distinction between the words "republic" and "democracy" matter today? ��Perhaps because ignorance of our own history has made it easier for statists in America to blur distinctions that have traditionally defined our Republic. If people are oblivious of America`s history and the changes that are slowly being made, they would naturally have little interest in defending it or the Founders` original intent. So, what is the transformation for which progressives seek? �It is the "total rejection in theory, and a partial rejection in practice, of the principles and policies on which America [has] been founded�" 5 �By using the word "democracy," progressives (in both political parties) have effectively begun to convert our Republican system that preserves unalienable and individual rights to an increasingly socialist system that replaces the individual`s rights with government distributed entitlements. Sadly, legislatively, on many counts, progressives have been successful in this quiet revolution. Although there are too many to list here, the following are a few examples of trends away from a republican and limited form of government.
...


The following is an example of why 'more democracy' is a feature of the federated system. In a smaller area, geographically and population wise, it can help to have direct participation.

http://www.azquotes.com/picture-quotes/quote-democracy-is-morose-and-runs-to-anarchy-but-in-the-state-and-in-the-schools-it-is-indispensable-ralph-waldo-emerson-127-7-0757.jpg

[crin63]

Still lots of glee about denying Trump, and I can understand that, to an extent. But I have to wonder when these folks are going to realize that this glee is slowly killing November at the same time? All of these voters feeling denied, and being told to go and make changes - you do realize those changes will be to vote against whoever the GOP puts in there then? Some want to downplay all of the shenanigans because it's Trump, but I wonder if they will downplay things as much when the millions of Trump supporters are the reason that their candidate loses in November?


I don't personally agree with the way the Colorado caucus/primary was handled. Regardless of my opinion, I do believe that Colorado has the right do things how they want to do them and every candidate had the same opportunity.

Trump was unprepared which I find more disturbing than the process in someone who wants to be POTUS. What else would he be unprepared for and find unfair on the international stage.

[jimnyc]

I don't personally agree with the way the Colorado caucus/primary was handled. Regardless of my opinion, I do believe that Colorado has the right do things how they want to do them and every candidate had the same opportunity.

Trump was unprepared which I find more disturbing than the process in someone who wants to be POTUS. What else would he be unprepared for and find unfair on the international stage.

If Ted Cruz lies now... And he tries to deceive the voters as he did several times... what will he do as president when speaking to us citizens, or speaking on an international stage?

[Kathianne]

Just a reminder to all, if you live in CO and dislike what the state GOP has done you can choose:

1. to change parties
2. get involved to change that system
3. move

all those options and perhaps more are available to you, indeed the same goes if you disagree with the system in whatever state you are in.

[jimnyc]

Just a reminder to all, if you live in CO and dislike what the state GOP has done you can choose:

1. to change parties
2. get involved to change that system
3. move

all those options and perhaps more are available to you, indeed the same goes if you disagree with the system in whatever state you are in.

Additionally, they can show how they feel about things with their votes come November.

[fj1200]

If Ted Cruz lies now... And he tries to deceive the voters as he did several times... what will he do as president when speaking to us citizens, or speaking on an international stage?

Only Cruz lies?

http://www.politifact.com/personalities/donald-trump/

[Kathianne]

Additionally, they can show how they feel about things with their votes come November.
Without a doubt.

[jimnyc]

Only Cruz lies?

No thanks, I'll stick with what I actually wrote.

[Black Diamond]

If Ted Cruz lies now... And he tries to deceive the voters as he did several times... what will he do as president when speaking to us citizens, or speaking on an international stage?

Once a liar, always a liar.

[Kathianne]

Once a liar, always a liar.

Assuming 'Cruz lies' are surely founded; and Trump's are too, as FJ linked to, your statement fits both, no? Now going onto Hillary? Good lord!

Doomed, we are doomed!

[fj1200]

No thanks, I'll stick with what I actually wrote.

:dunno: It seems I've seen you post "Cruz lies" in a few threads. My apologies if I'm wrong.


Once a liar, always a liar.

Does that apply to other candidates?

[Abbey Marie]

http://www.foundingfatherquotes.com/articles/22



The following is an example of why 'more democracy' is a feature of the federated system. In a smaller area, geographically and population wise, it can help to have direct participation.

http://www.azquotes.com/picture-quotes/quote-democracy-is-morose-and-runs-to-anarchy-but-in-the-state-and-in-the-schools-it-is-indispensable-ralph-waldo-emerson-127-7-0757.jpg

Seriously, how wise were these men? There appear to be none like them today. Or more probably, few have ears to hear those we might have.

[Black Diamond]

:dunno: It seems I've seen you post "Cruz lies" in a few threads. My apologies if I'm wrong.



Does that apply to other candidates?

Nope. Only Cruz. See how that feels?

[fj1200]

Nope. Only Cruz. See how that feels?

My conscience is clear.

[jimnyc]

:dunno: It seems I've seen you post "Cruz lies" in a few threads. My apologies if I'm wrong.

Yes, and? Did you notice they weren't even discussed? :laugh: You seemed to imply that I said he was the ONLY one lying. Just like Trump having campaign issues would reflect on his presidency, I assume so would these lies. And then the cheating Ted tried in Florida, and what other state? Rubio never dropped. Carson never dropped. But if we're going to take a thing or 2 and call it a failed presidency - then I can show you 17 candidates that ran this year that should never be POTUS, including the last 3, including the mention of Ryan or anyone else. But only one person running in this race that is known for being a liar. Well, besides Hillary anyway.

[jimnyc]

Seriously, how wise were these men? There appear to be none like them today. Or more probably, few have ears to hear those we might have.

You would be surprised how some in the past weren't so nice about things, that you may have confused for today! I just read this yesterday:

Adams was a "hideous hermaphroditical character which has neither the force and firmness of a man, nor the gentleness and sensibility of a woman."

"Are you prepared to see your dwellings in flames... female chastity violated... children writhing on the pike? GREAT GOD OF COMPASSION AND JUSTICE, SHIELD MY COUNTRY FROM DESTRUCTION."

He and his handlers said Jackson had the personality of a dictator, was too uneducated to be president (they claimed he spelled Europe 'Urope'), and hurled all sorts of horrible insults at his wife, Rachel. Rachel had been in an abusive marriage with a man who finally divorced her, but divorce was still quite the scandal at the time. The Federalists called her a "dirty black wench", a "convicted adulteress" and said she was prone to "open and notorious lewdness"

On their end, Jackson's people said that Adams had sold his wife's maid as a concubine to the czar of Russia.

Douglas took aim at Lincoln, too, saying he was a "horrid-looking wretch, sooty and scoundrelly in aspect, a cross between the nutmeg dealer, the horse-swapper and the nightman." Another good one? "Lincoln is the leanest, lankest, most ungainly mass of legs and arms and hatchet face ever strung on a single frame."

http://www.neatorama.com/2008/01/28/5-nastiest-us-presidential-elections-in-history/

[fj1200]

Yes, and? Did you notice they weren't even discussed? :laugh: You seemed to imply that I said he was the ONLY one lying. Just like Trump having campaign issues would reflect on his presidency, I assume so would these lies. And then the cheating Ted tried in Florida, and what other state? Rubio never dropped. Carson never dropped. But if we're going to take a thing or 2 and call it a failed presidency - then I can show you 17 candidates that ran this year that should never be POTUS, including the last 3, including the mention of Ryan or anyone else. But only one person running in this race that is known for being a liar. Well, besides Hillary anyway.

It seems that more than just Ted is based on the link I posted. I only bring it up because it seems like a scorched earth policy that you can't support anyone if lying is your benchmark.

[jimnyc]

It seems that more than just Ted is based on the link I posted. I only bring it up because it seems like a scorched earth policy that you can't support anyone if lying is your benchmark.

So you want to include both as liars. Why not both on campaign issues then - or is lying to the people to get the to no longer vote for Carson/Rubio not an issue important enough to speak for ones future character/issues as president?

[Abbey Marie]

:cool:
You would be surprised how some in the past weren't so nice about things, that you may have confused for today! I just read this yesterday:

Adams was a "hideous hermaphroditical character which has neither the force and firmness of a man, nor the gentleness and sensibility of a woman."

"Are you prepared to see your dwellings in flames... female chastity violated... children writhing on the pike? GREAT GOD OF COMPASSION AND JUSTICE, SHIELD MY COUNTRY FROM DESTRUCTION."

He and his handlers said Jackson had the personality of a dictator, was too uneducated to be president (they claimed he spelled Europe 'Urope'), and hurled all sorts of horrible insults at his wife, Rachel. Rachel had been in an abusive marriage with a man who finally divorced her, but divorce was still quite the scandal at the time. The Federalists called her a "dirty black wench", a "convicted adulteress" and said she was prone to "open and notorious lewdness"

On their end, Jackson's people said that Adams had sold his wife's maid as a concubine to the czar of Russia.

Douglas took aim at Lincoln, too, saying he was a "horrid-looking wretch, sooty and scoundrelly in aspect, a cross between the nutmeg dealer, the horse-swapper and the nightman." Another good one? "Lincoln is the leanest, lankest, most ungainly mass of legs and arms and hatchet face ever strung on a single frame."

http://www.neatorama.com/2008/01/28/5-nastiest-us-presidential-elections-in-history/

I have actually done lots of reading about our Founders. I know their campaigns could be quite nasty. (I considered posting about it yesterday, in fact). And they often made great sacrifice and faced dangers that today's politicians can't imagine. The point I was making was just that they were exceedingly wise patriots and statesmen. :salute:

[fj1200]

So you want to include both as liars. Why not both on campaign issues then - or is lying to the people to get the to no longer vote for Carson/Rubio not an issue important enough to speak for ones future character/issues as president?

I'm only questioning your benchmark. This process is about the Republicans selecting the best candidate and so far this process has been awful.

[fj1200]

:cool:

I have actually done lots of reading about our Founders. I know their campaigns could be quite nasty. (I considered posting about it yesterday, in fact). And they often made great sacrifice and faced dangers that today's politicians can't imagine. The point I was making was just that they were exceedingly wise patriots and statesmen. :salute:

True. Thankfully we're governed by their document and not their actions.

[Kathianne]

You would be surprised how some in the past weren't so nice about things, that you may have confused for today! I just read this yesterday:

Adams was a "hideous hermaphroditical character which has neither the force and firmness of a man, nor the gentleness and sensibility of a woman."

"Are you prepared to see your dwellings in flames... female chastity violated... children writhing on the pike? GREAT GOD OF COMPASSION AND JUSTICE, SHIELD MY COUNTRY FROM DESTRUCTION."

He and his handlers said Jackson had the personality of a dictator, was too uneducated to be president (they claimed he spelled Europe 'Urope'), and hurled all sorts of horrible insults at his wife, Rachel. Rachel had been in an abusive marriage with a man who finally divorced her, but divorce was still quite the scandal at the time. The Federalists called her a "dirty black wench", a "convicted adulteress" and said she was prone to "open and notorious lewdness"

On their end, Jackson's people said that Adams had sold his wife's maid as a concubine to the czar of Russia.

Douglas took aim at Lincoln, too, saying he was a "horrid-looking wretch, sooty and scoundrelly in aspect, a cross between the nutmeg dealer, the horse-swapper and the nightman." Another good one? "Lincoln is the leanest, lankest, most ungainly mass of legs and arms and hatchet face ever strung on a single frame."

http://www.neatorama.com/2008/01/28/5-nastiest-us-presidential-elections-in-history/

Very true on Jackson and Adams, but those two weren't 'founders or framers.'

As Abbey pointed out, there have been more than a few liars, more than a few nasty campaigns, Jackson's does stand out though regarding 'democracy.' It's what worried the framers, who spent their lives reading about the past and how to apply to the present and future.

[Kathianne]

Early on Trump was quite often compared to Jackson, as he kept winning (like Jackson), the comparisons dwindled. Here's one of the first I can find:

http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2015/08/the_new_jacksonian_rebellion_and_trump_too_.html

[Voted4Reagan]

Another win for Hillary and Bernie...

Good job and well done to the Bickering Trump and Cruz Bots...

[Black Diamond]

Another win for Hillary and Bernie...

Good job and well done to the Bickering Trump and Cruz Bots...

Well we may end up with Kasich instead....

[PixieStix]

I was watching one America News and they did a story about Colorado. What they found is that a Trump delegate number 379 was replaced with a Cruz delegate #378. The Cruz delegate showed up twice on the ballot.

Trump delegate burns his republican registration, he is outraged.


Colorado Trump Delegate Removed And Replaced
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MVc_hIKFmmE

Colorado CRUZ GOPe BACKFIRE ! ! !
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KrqLQK7ecNE

[PixieStix]

Question for you Trump supporters. Be honest now. Would you guys be this upset and pissed off....

if all the delegates had gone to Trump instead of Cruz? Somehow....

I doubt it.

I would be, it is wrong. I don't want someone I support to win by denying votes

Lets turn that question to you. Respectfully, Would those who hate Trump be upset if it were the other way around?

[DLT]

I'll even add that if he'd put the money in, had he realized the time, people that would have been necessary, some others might say he was trying to 'buy the election.' That too would have been as wrong as what his supporters are now doing.

Colorado is just doing what they have a right to do....doing it 'their' way. Cruz just studied up on how to turn that into a success rather than a defeat, unlike Trump. Trump didn't bother with Colorado. And now he whines and cries foul. Does that tell you or clue you into what kind of a juvenile POS he would be as president?

[DLT]

Foul play is foul play (assuming there is any). If I begged you or anyone else to pigeonhole me, it couldn't be done.

Only....it's not foul play. It's a state GOP entity doing what it feels best. Reading their explanation for why they did it that way makes it obvious that they were trying to avoid 'real' fraud. And I respect that. The sore-loser Trumpists need to get a clue.

[DLT]

You ask a question. Answer it yourself. Then get thanked for it! :lol:

And the answer is YES. I think the people should NEVER be taken out of the equation, even if it's the witch running against Sanders. They should just cancel all of the primaries if the citizens votes don't matter and it's only the insiders that matter.

Did you even bother to read WHY Colorado decided to do it that way back in August of last year?

[DLT]

If people had been allowed to vote, that would have been an accurate count

But it's simpler for the "Establishment" who wants to retain control to prevent that from occurring

Why let them vote

Let them eat cake

Another one that didn't even bother to read (or try to comprehend) the reason behind WHY Colorado GOP decided to do it that way. Ergo, the misinformed outrage.

[DLT]

Still lots of glee about denying Trump, and I can understand that, to an extent. But I have to wonder when these folks are going to realize that this glee is slowly killing November at the same time? All of these voters feeling denied, and being told to go and make changes - you do realize those changes will be to vote against whoever the GOP puts in there then? Some want to downplay all of the shenanigans because it's Trump, but I wonder if they will downplay things as much when the millions of Trump supporters are the reason that their candidate loses in November?


No glee. And there was no denying Trump. Trump didn't even bother with Colorado, unlike Cruz. Cruz has been WORKING at becoming the nominee. Trump is so arrogant that he 'thinks' things should just be handed to him. Trump 'thinks' wrong. Trump knew or SHOULD HAVE KNOWN how Colorado was doing things since August of last year. Trump is not just arrogant....

he's lazy, as well. Else he would have worked as hard as Cruz has been working.

Sore-loser mentality runs rampant in the Trump camp....tsk tsk.

[DLT]

I don't personally agree with the way the Colorado caucus/primary was handled. Regardless of my opinion, I do believe that Colorado has the right do things how they want to do them and every candidate had the same opportunity.

Trump was unprepared which I find more disturbing than the process in someone who wants to be POTUS. What else would he be unprepared for and find unfair on the international stage.

Exactly. And why was Trump unprepared? Because of his arrogance (IMO).

[Voted4Reagan]

Legalized Marijuana has made Colorado a bunch of Brain Dead morons...

[crin63]

One thing that seems to be going unnoticed in this debate is that caucus voting for delegates was open to ALL Colorado Republicans (who had been registered for at least a month) in their precinct. Then from those delegates, the national delegates were chosen.

[Black Diamond]

Legalized Marijuana has made Colorado a bunch of Brain Dead morons...

:lol:

[Gunny]

Very true on Jackson and Adams, but those two weren't 'founders or framers.'

As Abbey pointed out, there have been more than a few liars, more than a few nasty campaigns, Jackson's does stand out though regarding 'democracy.' It's what worried the framers, who spent their lives reading about the past and how to apply to the present and future.

Oh sure. Drag MY family into it (I'm a direct descendant of John Q. I fortunately didn't get that Adams beak the rest of my family has!):laugh: He was a weenie and I'm surprised they didn't have a duel. They really went after each other to include their wives.

Teddy and Cleveland were just as bad. Teddy went after him like a dog with after a bone.

Trump AND Cruz are BOTH being stupid. Focusing on each other instead of actual platform issues. Personally, I think it's too late to save the ship. W'ere going to get at least 4 more years of dumbass crap because of egos and people not knowing when to just STFU.

[Abbey Marie]

Oh sure. Drag MY family into it (I'm a direct descendant of John Q. I fortunately didn't get that Adams beak the rest of my family has!):laugh: He was a weenie and I'm surprised they didn't have a duel. They really went after each other to include their wives.

Teddy and Cleveland were just as bad. Teddy went after him like a dog with after a bone.

Trump AND Cruz are BOTH being stupid. Focusing on each other instead of actual platform issues. Personally, I think it's too late to save the ship. W'ere going to get at least 4 more years of dumbass crap because of egos and people not knowing when to just STFU.

Most folks who are attracted to holdin office have inflated egos. They are bound to behave this way.

[Gunny]

Most folks who are attracted to holdin office have inflated egos. They are bound to behave this way.

There's no excuse for a lack of manners. Trump is acting to type. NY businessman. And now he's whining like a baby because the voting rules in Colorado don't suit him. It's called you lost. Wait'll he gets to Texas. They caucus just the same. While I don't agree with it, it's how it is. No damned whining.

Ben Stein just called him a big sulking baby when he doesn't get his way. :laugh2:

[DLT]

One thing that seems to be going unnoticed in this debate is that caucus voting for delegates was open to ALL Colorado Republicans (who had been registered for at least a month) in their precinct. Then from those delegates, the national delegates were chosen.

They don't understand the process there any more than Trump does. Ergo, why the whining and BS accusations of fraud and cheating. It would be hilarious if it were not so seriously distressing for the future of this nation and our main problem.....too many idiots that can vote.

[Gunny]

Entire state doesn't even vote, Cruz gets all the delegates. I guess they should just eliminate all the people from voting going forward, what's the point. 1 million voters have no say at all, none.

There are a couple of points. One, I've never done it, but if your boy don't quit whining like a little bitch I WILL find someone 3d party to vote for. You want that pissy little bitch that cries like a baby when he doesn't get his way for President?

Second, I am totally AGAINST caucusing. It amounts to stealing votes, IMO. They do it in Texas too and I'm STILL against it. I think for a Federal government position we should have ONE set of fair rules where the peoples' votes, not some delegates count.

I'm okay with Trump being against caucusing. I'm NOT okay with his whining and name-calling.

[DLT]

Legalized Marijuana has made Colorado a bunch of Brain Dead morons...

Dissing an entire state now? lol

[Gunny]

Dissing an entire state now? lol

I'm sure we'll all be Southern rednecks before all is said and done. He won't be the first to try that one either.

If there's one thing I can't stand as much as a bully is a damned whiner. He's 0-2 on those. I used to compete at every sport you could dream up nd if I lost, I got out-played. move on. If I got mad it was at ME if I know I didn't try my damndest. Trump didn't do jack squat in CO. He went from WI to NY with maybe a pit stop in CO. In a possible contested convention climate, you might want to not over look ANY state.

And now he's blaming pot. :rolleyes:

[Gunny]

And just for Jim, the MSM hasn't shut up about this crap for 3 days. It is part and parcel to the problem. Those of us kind of on the fence and willing to hold our noses and vote are being driven absolutely nuts listening to the same soundbytes day in and day.

And regardless what jimbob thinks in whatever thread he said it, Trump says nothing but the same 3 sentences unless he's attacking another Republican. Sorry, but he ain't making any knew friends with his behavior.

[Voted4Reagan]

Dissing an entire state now? lol

YES...

Brain Dead, Pot Smoking Morons...

http://orig09.deviantart.net/2e22/f/2012/093/9/4/marijuana_flag__by_flagsdesigns-d4uv4g4.png

Be proud Colorado... here's your new flag...

[Gunny]

YES...

Brain Dead, Pot Smoking Morons...

http://orig09.deviantart.net/2e22/f/2012/093/9/4/marijuana_flag__by_flagsdesigns-d4uv4g4.png

Be proud Colorado... here's your new flag...

I won't go as far as that, but I DID used to be the weed head in my day. I always end up in arguments with proponents because I KNOW what it will do to you. Ambition? 0% unless it's to get munchies. Decreased motor skills same as alcohol? 100%. I don't care if they want to sit at home and smoke their brains out same as if someone wants to sit home and drink their organs to death. They need to quit selling it as something less problematic though. It does the same crap and you're just as stupid in a different way. ESPECIALLY if there's a donut shop around! :laugh:

[Voted4Reagan]

http://snowbrains.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/colorado_marijuana1.jpg

http://musicians4freedom.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/etc_colorado48__01a__370.jpg

[Gunny]

http://snowbrains.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/colorado_marijuana1.jpg

http://musicians4freedom.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/etc_colorado48__01a__370.jpg

I'm waiting for this to hit the fan. I don't really care what people do in the privacy of their own homes as long as no one's getting hurt. At the same time, why does the Federal government insist on controlling things clearly fall under the 10th but can or won't enforce their own damned laws?

[Kathianne]

While this concerns a would-be Trump delegate in CO, I'm posting it more to illustrate just how difficult it is to run a successful campaign, even at the local level. Indeed, the would be delegate thought he was being 'shut out' by shenanigans, claiming there had to be something 'wrong' when it sees Cruz's people were evident, but not so Trump's. He claimed that he didn't get the information, but it seems that there is a record that he was notified, by a local running for office who he spoke to for 8 minutes. (This is the 'data' that Lewandowski saw no use for.):

http://hotair.com/archives/2016/04/12/colorado-trump-delegate-who-burned-his-party-registration-i-may-have-missed-a-meeting/


Colorado Trump delegate who burned his party registration: I may have missed a meeting

POSTED AT 11:21 AM ON APRIL 12, 2016 BY ALLAHPUNDIT


In a better world, this media whirlwind would end with an admission that an honest mistake had been made and everyone would let it drop. In the world we live in, so much emotion has been invested in the narrative that an average joe was cheated out of his opportunity to cast a vote for Trump that that narrative has to be salvaged somehow. Especially now that it’s been at the top of the Drudge Report.


This weekend Lindsey claimed he was duly elected as a delegate to the state Republican convention but had been barred from the proceedings by the powers that be to prevent him from casting a vote for Trump’s slate of national delegates. Mollie Hemingway debunked that (http://hotair.com/archives/2016/04/11/video-colorado-trump-delegate-burns-gop-registration-after-being-turned-away-from-state-convention/), claiming per local GOP officials that Lindsey had been elected as a delegate to his county caucus, not to the state convention, and that he’d never showed up at the county caucus to run for state delegate. He was barred from the state convention, in other words, because, er, he wasn’t a delegate to the state convention. Could that explain why Lindsey, seemingly uniquely among Trump supporters at the Colorado convention, had trouble getting his credentials? Well, no: Like I say, the narrative calls for chicanery somewhere in this process, so the new story is that Lindsey may well have missed a meeting — but only because shadowy operatives loyal to Cruz wanted him to (http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2016-election/colorado-man-burns-gop-registration-protest-video-n554401).


[A] sign-in sheet from his county’s March 19 assembly, the second step of the process where delegates were elected to the statewide assembly, reveals that Lindsey never showed up to that meeting, and an alternate signed in for him instead.


Lindsey admits he may have missed a meeting, but claims that his point person for navigating the party processes was among the many Cruz supporters who deliberately tried to mislead him on several occasions, including on dates and times of meetings…


No record of the woman Lindsey named as his point-person — Jan Morgan — exists among the Colorado Republican Party’s listings of activists and operatives, and a GOP spokesman said they haven’t been able to confirm the person exists. Lindsey couldn’t provide their contact information, and couldn’t remember the last time he spoke with her.


Who is the mysterious “Jan Morgan” who steered Lindsey wrong? Lindsey claimed in a Facebook post (https://www.facebook.com/larry.lindseyphd/posts/10206034972209811?pnref=story) last night that she approached him at the precinct caucus, told him she was his precinct captain, then called him later to claim that the county caucus had been canceled and that he’d already been chosen as a delegate to the state convention and should show up there this past weekend. That sounds like … a lot of subterfuge to disqualify one county-level delegate, especially when (to my knowledge) no other pro-Trump delegates to the state convention in Colorado have claimed elaborate shenanigans designed to deter them from attending key meetings. Lindsey himself writes, “Apparently, there was no lack of knowledgeable counsel available for Cruz supporters, since it seems only Trump supporters had problems with the rules.” He attributes that to some sort of conspiracy (“Since I don’t believe in coincidence, it reeks of something more”), but what’s the likelier explanation? That Team Cruz was running an elaborate con targeting all manner of Trumpists at a granular level — and somehow it only worked on Lindsey — or that Team Trump didn’t have its own act together enough to provide proper instructions to its supporters in the state on how to become delegates? Remember, no less than Paul Manafort told “Meet the Press” this weekend that the campaign wasn’t playing in Colorado.


Anyway, if Lindsey had been told, erroneously, that the county caucus was canceled, then he was indeed deprived of his chance to become a state delegate. But … what if Lindsey did have reason to know that the county caucus was being held as scheduled? Hemingway dug a little deeper today (http://thefederalist.com/2016/04/12/colorado-trump-voter-who-cried-foul-was-told-of-county-assembly-never-showed-up/) and got in touch with another local Republican official from Douglas County, where Lindsey lives. Patrick Neville is a state representative for one of the districts within Douglas and wanted to run for reelection; the way to do that is to be nominated at the county caucus, where Lindsey was a delegate. So Neville did what any politician would — he dialed up Lindsey and asked for his support. And he has the records to prove it.


In the weeks leading up to the county assembly on March 19, Neville called delegates to ask for their support at the county assembly. According to phone records, he had an eight-minute phone call with Lindsey. Neville says that they talked about his positions and areas of shared concern, as well as the importance of showing up at the assembly. Indeed, that was the main purpose of the phone call — to ensure delegates showed up at the county assembly and voted on the HD-45 race. Neville was surprised when Lindsey didn’t show up. (Neville ended up winning the nomination by acclamation.)


One open question, I guess, is whether Neville called Lindsey before or after “Jan Morgan” supposedly told him that the county caucus was canceled. But that brings you back to the more important open question of why other Trumpers haven’t come forward claiming this same scenario happened to them. A disinformation campaign doesn’t work unless it’s broad in scope. And even if someone wanted to do this, why would they try to mislead delegates to the county caucus rather than delegates to the state convention? There are many more of the former than the latter; if all you wanted to do was to keep Trump’s fans away from the big vote to elect delegates to the national convention, you’d be dialing up state delegates and telling them not to attend the state convention for whatever reason. You wouldn’t bother with lower level delegates like Lindsey.

[Gunny]

While this concerns a would-be Trump delegate in CO, I'm posting it more to illustrate just how difficult it is to run a successful campaign, even at the local level. Indeed, the would be delegate thought he was being 'shut out' by shenanigans, claiming there had to be something 'wrong' when it sees Cruz's people were evident, but not so Trump's. He claimed that he didn't get the information, but it seems that there is a record that he was notified, by a local running for office who he spoke to for 8 minutes. (This is the 'data' that Lewandowski saw no use for.):

http://hotair.com/archives/2016/04/12/colorado-trump-delegate-who-burned-his-party-registration-i-may-have-missed-a-meeting/

I don't disagree where caucusing is concerned. I'm not a Hillary fan, but in 08, she lost half her delegates due to it. I don't think it's in any way fair nor equal that the sick, lame and lazy that don't go to work the next day should be allowed to hang around after the polls close and basically steal votes. There is nothing democratic about that. In that, I agree with Trump.

I don't agree with his whining and not showing up. The process is older than I am. If you're going to try and play the game, know the rules and quit whining when you lose. If I whined like him every time I lost a basketball game, football game, baseball game or karate match I'd STILL be crying. Suck it up and move on.

[Black Diamond]

I don't disagree where caucusing is concerned. I'm not a Hillary fan, but in 08, she lost half her delegates due to it. I don't think it's in any way fair nor equal that the sick, lame and lazy that don't go to work the next day should be allowed to hang around after the polls close and basically steal votes. There is nothing democratic about that. In that, I agree with Trump.

I don't agree with his whining and not showing up. The process is older than I am. If you're going to try and play the game, know the rules and quit whining when you lose. If I whined like him every time I lost a basketball game, football game, baseball game or karate match I'd STILL be crying. Suck it up and move on.
Have to agree. Be should concentrate on New York.

[Gunny]

Here's an analogy for you: when you get beat in combat, you bring people home in bags. When you lose a game, race, whatever you want to call it, you take your ball inside and hit the showers. Tomorrow's another day on the court. There is no next day in the first scenario.

So losing a contest just doesn't phase me much. Who cares? It's a damned game.

[Kathianne]

I don't disagree where caucusing is concerned. I'm not a Hillary fan, but in 08, she lost half her delegates due to it. I don't think it's in any way fair nor equal that the sick, lame and lazy that don't go to work the next day should be allowed to hang around after the polls close and basically steal votes. There is nothing democratic about that. In that, I agree with Trump.

I don't agree with his whining and not showing up. The process is older than I am. If you're going to try and play the game, know the rules and quit whining when you lose. If I whined like him every time I lost a basketball game, football game, baseball game or karate match I'd STILL be crying. Suck it up and move on.


She chose to run in DNC contests, she lived with those rules. Trump chose to run in RNC contests, he too needs to follow the rules. Bottom line, the national and each state's rules are published and to run successfully one needs to have the people around them that read, comprehend, strategize, and implement. It takes a lot of people-some paid, most are volunteers.

Even those running for country positions have to follow all the rules or they'll find their petitions rejected, they won't be on the ballot if they don't pay the fees-get them in on time, along with all the papers and aforementioned petitions.

It's purposefully complicated, one has to be serious to go through all that.

[Gunny]

She chose to run in DNC contests, she lived with those rules. Trump chose to run in RNC contests, he too needs to follow the rules. Bottom line, the national and each state's rules are published and to run successfully one needs to have the people around them that read, comprehend, strategize, and implement. It takes a lot of people-some paid, most are volunteers.

Even those running for country positions have to follow all the rules or they'll find their petitions rejected, they won't be on the ballot if they don't pay the fees-get them in on time, along with all the papers and aforementioned petitions.

It's purposefully complicated, one has to be serious to go through all that.

I think the voting rules in this country are stupid. I'm for one set of rules for Federal office for everyone. However, I agree with you completely. They aren't. Each state has its own. Learn to read and comprehend. You know how many officers I worked for that had stupid little personal rules that chapped my butt? But it's how it was. You learn the rules and how to play within them or get around them.

[Kathianne]

I think the voting rules in this country are stupid. I'm for one set of rules for Federal office for everyone. However, I agree with you completely. They aren't. Each state has its own. Learn to read and comprehend. You know how many officers I worked for that had stupid little personal rules that chapped my butt? But it's how it was. You learn the rules and how to play within them or get around them.

We couldn't disagree more. The states should retain control, one knows whom to contact in their city, county, and state. Not only that, but when one is really concerned about something, telling 'everyone you know,' means something.

The biggest problem came with direct election of senators, then the Wisconsin reforms that set up the primaries, caucuses, etc. Again, more 'democracy' has not created a better republic.

[Gunny]

We couldn't disagree more. The states should retain control, one knows whom to contact in their city, county, and state. Not only that, but when one is really concerned about something, telling 'everyone you know,' means something.

The biggest problem came with direct election of senators, then the Wisconsin reforms that set up the primaries, caucuses, etc. Again, more 'democracy' has not created a better republic.

So what exactly are we disagreeing about? I have no problem with local and state being in control of the states' voting. I was specific in stating the Federal elections. It's a national election and should be such instead of these ad hoc rules state by state. Texas has that caucus crap too and Rick Perry got a letter from yours truly about it. I don't bitch solely on the net. :)

IMO, a vote should be a vote. No delegates, superdelegates like the left has, and no senators. I'm for "We, the People ...".

[Kathianne]

So what exactly are we disagreeing about? I have no problem with local and state being in control of the states' voting. I was specific in stating the Federal elections. It's a national election and should be such instead of these ad hoc rules state by state. Texas has that caucus crap too and Rick Perry got a letter from yours truly about it. I don't bitch solely on the net. :)

IMO, a vote should be a vote. No delegates, superdelegates like the left has, and no senators. I'm for "We, the People ...".

The federated system gives control of the states rules to the individual state. The feds do control age and such, but only through amendments to the Constitution. It's that difficult for good reasons. Personally I'd get rid of such 'improvements' as motor voter and registering online. It's a privilege to vote and while it shouldn't be onerous, it shouldn't be like Amazon either. Not for politicians, not for voters. I'd get rid of politicking through twitter and such too. LOL! Now bring on reasonable term limits and voter ID.

[Gunny]

The federated system gives control of the states rules to the individual state. The feds do control age and such, but only through amendments to the Constitution. It's that difficult for good reasons. Personally I'd get rid of such 'improvements' as motor voter and registering online. It's a privilege to vote and while it shouldn't be onerous, it shouldn't be like Amazon either. Not for politicians, not for voters. I'd get rid of politicking through twitter and such too. LOL! Now bring on reasonable term limits and voter ID.

I don't disagree with anything you just said. I want to know why illegals don't need IDs to vote but I've always needed one. Too white?

[Voted4Reagan]

http://www.debatepolicy.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=8722&stc=1
Who'll be next?

[Gunny]

http://www.debatepolicy.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=8722&stc=1
Who'll be next?

You need to pick a few more states than just CO. Texas does the same shit. I think FL does too. The fact is, Cruz put boots on the ground in CO and Trump treated it like it was a foregone conclusion. I'm not a fan of either so I'm not picking a side, just assessing a situation.

My biggest problem is having to look at and listen to any one of the 3 main candidates for 4 years. If I have to listen to Billary or Bernie for 4 years I'm investing in an icepick for my eardrums. Likewise Trump. What a whiny sh*t. And I can't look at Cruz's nose and take him seriously. :laugh:

[darin]

The republican party is a shit-show. Was that Trump's idea? To fuck things up so bad Hillary wins?

Ugh.

There's no hope.

[Drummond]

The republican party is a shit-show. Was that Trump's idea? To fuck things up so bad Hillary wins?

Ugh.

There's no hope.

If Trump is 'fucking things up' so very badly, how come he's established - and maintained !! - the lead that he has ?? He could've only managed such a feat, especially consistently so, if his campaign was resonating with the voters.

What annoys me is seeing some people so determined not to view, or to care about, the bigger picture .. that they allow their own prejudicial perceptions against Trump to blind them to it. The bigger picture being, of course, that the GOP's opposition, the Dems, are operating according to a long-term agenda, one which MUST be stymied at the earliest opportunity.

Now ... who will permit the Dems to continue on, JUST because they happen to take a dislike against a single candidate, one single individual ?? And are such individuals driven by their own agenda, anyway ???

What happened in Colorado is beyond my understanding, because our voting system is nothing like as convoluted as the American model. For anyone, in ANY way, to be deprived of any voting rights they'd otherwise expect to enjoy, would be unacceptable in the UK, and I've a hard time believing that any form of equivalence is even possible here ... which is why I can't coherently comment on the Colorado situation. What I DO know is that there's strength in voting numbers, and any setbacks need to be converted into an even greater call for solidarity behind the candidate most likely to win .. in this case, TRUMP.

Anything else fractures that solidarity and strength of overall purpose .. TO SEE THE DEMS KICKED OUT. Surely, SURELY, all else is subordinate to that one primary goal ????

[jimnyc]

If Trump is 'fucking things up' so very badly, how come he's established - and maintained !! - the lead that he has ?? He could've only managed such a feat, especially consistently so, if his campaign was resonating with the voters.

I've wondered similarly but maybe different. If the other candidates, any of them, were so much better and that's what the people want, then why aren't then winning in the vote count, the state count, the delegate count? Some will say "That's now, but Trump can't win without the women...". As others have said, they all have equal access to the same right now, so why aren't the others winning then with Trump so shitty in many areas?

But perhaps someone with less votes, less states, less delegates - will get the nomination. If they can't even beat the guy that is so shitty, it only makes sense that they can beat the candidate on the other side of the aisle. :)

[darin]

If Trump is 'fucking things up' so very badly, how come he's established - and maintained !! - the lead that he has ?? He could've only managed such a feat, especially consistently so, if his campaign was resonating with the voters.

What annoys me is seeing some people so determined not to view, or to care about, the bigger picture .. that they allow their own prejudicial perceptions against Trump to blind them to it. The bigger picture being, of course, that the GOP's opposition, the Dems, are operating according to a long-term agenda, one which MUST be stymied at the earliest opportunity.

Now ... who will permit the Dems to continue on, JUST because they happen to take a dislike against a single candidate, one single individual ?? And are such individuals driven by their own agenda, anyway ???

What happened in Colorado is beyond my understanding, because our voting system is nothing like as convoluted as the American model. For anyone, in ANY way, to be deprived of any voting rights they'd otherwise expect to enjoy, would be unacceptable in the UK, and I've a hard time believing that any form of equivalence is even possible here ... which is why I can't coherently comment on the Colorado situation. What I DO know is that there's strength in voting numbers, and any setbacks need to be converted into an even greater call for solidarity behind the candidate most likely to win .. in this case, TRUMP.

Anything else fractures that solidarity and strength of overall purpose .. TO SEE THE DEMS KICKED OUT. Surely, SURELY, all else is subordinate to that one primary goal ????


My point is more along the lines of - regardless of what people want, the Republican Party is in shambles. They seem like - from my perspective (am not a republican, nor do I identify with much of their platform) a shit show. Just a cluster-fuck of disorganization.