Trump a disaster for the Nation and Republicans

hawkwing wrote:

BroncoBot wrote:
A question to those vehemently opposed to trump. (and I don't like him)



do you agree with the gop's tactics in colorado?

I totally disagree with what happened in CO. It has nothing to do with who I am supporting. (I am a Cruz supporter).



But, either we are a democracy where people get to vote and have it counted - or we are not a democracy and the party bosses scheme, manipulate, and select who they want. I may not agree with the candidate that is selected thru the democratic process. But, the integrity go the primary and general election is paramount - critical.

To jack with democracy is "Bad Mojo."

We aren't a democracy.

I know. We are a republic, based on democratic principles. Where we vote and elect representatives - hence a republic. I had an inkling that might be brought up. I just didn't feel like typing it. The larger principle remains though - we vote. One person, one vote. But that voting principle is sacrosanct and not to be interfered with.



Even though my guy benefited 100%. I did not like the move - on principle. In all honesty, that was a total democrat move. Like the Super Delegates shenanigans. Total corruption so party bosses can manipulate the primary process. I don't like the GOP being like the corrupt and dishonest democrats.

The nation is a constitutional republic, and the sanctity of your vote is protected inasmuch as there are proper laws in place to do so and the executive branch has the will to enforce those laws. However, that only applies to general elections, not to primaries.



Political parties, so far as I am aware, are not mentioned in nor governed by the constitution, federal or state. They are separate institutions which get to make up their own rules and processes. At the state level, the party can decide to have completely democratic elections to decide who their nominees are, they can do it through caucuses, they can do it by democratically electing delegates, who will decide who they want to nominate, or they can use shrunken heads and voodoo dolls - they are beholden only to the national party rules, and the national party is beholden to no one but its members as far as what rules to make and who gets what say in those rules.



As a candidate, it is your job to know what the current rules are and put in play a strategy to win within those rules. In Colorado, Cruz did that, Trump didn't. It's like a college DB who pulls down a receiver that's about to burn him on a deep ball for a TD. He's not cheating, he's just choosing to give up 15 yards and an automatic 1st down rather than hope and pray the receiver will drop the ball or trip over the 10 yard line. The receiver can cry foul all he wants, but the rules of the game only give him 15 yards, not the touchdown he believes he deserved. You have to know the rules if you want to win the game.

redneckjedi wrote:
The nation is a constitutional republic, and the sanctity of your vote is protected inasmuch as there are proper laws in place to do so and the executive branch has the will to enforce those laws. However, that only applies to general elections, not to primaries.



Political parties, so far as I am aware, are not mentioned in nor governed by the constitution, federal or state. They are separate institutions which get to make up their own rules and processes. At the state level, the party can decide to have completely democratic elections to decide who their nominees are, they can do it through caucuses, they can do it by democratically electing delegates, who will decide who they want to nominate, or they can use shrunken heads and voodoo dolls - they are beholden only to the national party rules, and the national party is beholden to no one but its members as far as what rules to make and who gets what say in those rules.



As a candidate, it is your job to know what the current rules are and put in play a strategy to win within those rules. In Colorado, Cruz did that, Trump didn't. It's like a college DB who pulls down a receiver that's about to burn him on a deep ball for a TD. He's not cheating, he's just choosing to give up 15 yards and an automatic 1st down rather than hope and pray the receiver will drop the ball or trip over the 10 yard line. The receiver can cry foul all he wants, but the rules of the game only give him 15 yards, not the touchdown he believes he deserved. You have to know the rules if you want to win the game.

All that you typed is correct. I understand that. Still, the point is, does the GOP want to send the message - "Your voice does not matter." That is exactly what happened in CO. I do not like what happened there. Rules or not. All the GOP citizens in CO that wanted to vote have now been disenfranchised. There will be a backlash.

Guys, get away from Drudge and read about this from someone who's not shilling for Trump.



Republicans in Colorado got to vote--they got to vote for their delegates at precinct caucuses. They had opportunity to question the candidates in person prior to casting their votes for their representative delegates. Then those delegates went to a district convention where they represented their precincts in selecting delegates (from the same body of precinct delegates), again after opportunity to question and interview the candidates, to represent the district at the state convention. Then the whole process was repeated again at the State Convention this past weekend.



Everyone got a chance to vote for their precinct delegate. No one was robbed of any opportunity to vote. The only difference between 2016 and 2012 is that they didn't conduct a non-binding presidential preference poll this year. Yes, they had a poll in 2012, but it was absolutely not binding on any of the delegates. Colorado has been doing their caucus system this way for decades--Trump is just the loudest whiner about the process.



Yes, Colorado did eliminate the poll in October, but that was in response to a national GOP rule that would have made the poll binding on the delegates, which had never been the case in Colorado before. The GOP changed the rules, and the Colorado amendment was simply an equal and opposite reaction to preserve the way they have always elected delegates. The fix is not in against Trump--Trump just failed to plan, much like his kids not being eligible to vote in the primaries because they missed the registration deadline.



Trump's failure to play within long-standing rules is not part of any anti-Trump movement, it's ineptitude laid bare before you, but he just tries to play the masquerade of pawning it off as a rigged system so he can be a victim instead of an idiot.

snoscythe wrote:
Guys, get away from Drudge and read about this from someone who's not shilling for Trump.

Yep, I got so tired of Drudge's blatant pro-Trump propaganda that I don't go to his site and deleted the app until after the election.

snoscythe wrote:
Republicans in Colorado got to vote--they got to vote for their delegates at precinct caucuses. They had opportunity to question the candidates in person prior to casting their votes for their representative delegates. Then those delegates went to a district convention where they represented their precincts in selecting delegates (from the same body of precinct delegates), again after opportunity to question and interview the candidates, to represent the district at the state convention. Then the whole process was repeated again at the State Convention this past weekend.



Everyone got a chance to vote for their precinct delegate. No one was robbed of any opportunity to vote. The only difference between 2016 and 2012 is that they didn't conduct a non-binding presidential preference poll this year. Yes, they had a poll in 2012, but it was absolutely not binding on any of the delegates. Colorado has been doing their caucus system this way for decades--Trump is just the loudest whiner about the process.



Yes, Colorado did eliminate the poll in October, but that was in response to a national GOP rule that would have made the poll binding on the delegates, which had never been the case in Colorado before. The GOP changed the rules, and the Colorado amendment was simply an equal and opposite reaction to preserve the way they have always elected delegates. The fix is not in against Trump--Trump just failed to plan, much like his kids not being eligible to vote in the primaries because they missed the registration deadline.



Trump's failure to play within long-standing rules is not part of any anti-Trump movement, it's ineptitude laid bare before you, but he just tries to play the masquerade of pawning it off as a rigged system so he can be a victim instead of an idiot.

Trump is upset because he can't close this deal. He's mad because he's run a lazy campaign and is getting out-worked.

SpiffCoug wrote:

Guys, get away from Drudge and read about this from someone who's not shilling for Trump.

Yep, I got so tired of Drudge's blatant pro-Trump propaganda that I don't go to his site and deleted the app until after the election.

http://i.qkme.me/3v58cv.jpg" alt="" loading="lazy" style="max-width:100%">

snoscythe wrote:
The fix is not in against Trump--Trump just failed to plan, much like his kids not being eligible to vote in the primaries because they missed the registration deadline.

719564299124023297

SpiffCoug wrote:

The fix is not in against Trump--Trump just failed to plan, much like his kids not being eligible to vote in the primaries because they missed the registration deadline.

719564299124023297

She didn't register because she, like the rest of her family, are Democrats and did not want to change parties, even temporarily, to vote for their father in an election.

hawkwing wrote:

snoscythe wrote:
The fix is not in against Trump--Trump just failed to plan, much like his kids not being eligible to vote in the primaries because they missed the registration deadline.

719564299124023297

She didn't register because she, like the rest of her family, are Democrats and did not want to change parties, even temporarily, to vote for their father in an election.

Occam's Razor. Probably the most reasonable and simplest explanation.

snoscythe wrote:



Guys, get away from Drudge and read about this from someone who's not shilling for Trump.

Ok, I'll turn to the Denver Post. BTW, to me, this is not about Trump.

snoscythe wrote:

Republicans in Colorado got to vote--they got to vote for their delegates at precinct caucuses.

Not really. The Colorado GOP elite decided last summer decided to do away with the "preference poll." Meaning - they cancelled the vote.



Here's what the Denver Post wrote about that decision in August 2015:

"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/colorado-republicans-cancel-2016-presidential-caucus-vote

snoscythe wrote:

They had opportunity to question the candidates in person prior to casting their votes for their representative delegates. Then those delegates went to a district convention where they represented their precincts in selecting delegates (from the same body of precinct delegates), again after opportunity to question and interview the candidates, to represent the district at the state convention. Then the whole process was repeated again at the State Convention this past weekend.

Theses convoluted and the result of inside GOP elitists controlling the process. It's a lot simpler to just let people vote.



The question is, why did the Colorado GOP party bosses go to the complex gobbledy gook system you described above?



From the Denver Post"

"GOP leaders have never provided a satisfactory reason for forgoing a presidential preference poll, although party chairman Steve House suggested on radio at one point that too many Republicans would otherwise flock to their local caucus.



Imagine that: party officials fearing that an interesting race might propel thousands of additional citizens to participate. But of course that might dilute the influence of elites and insiders. You can see why that could upset the faint-hearted."

snoscythe wrote:

No one was robbed of any opportunity to vote.

Technically - you're right. Technically and with a long explanation. In reality, the Colorado GOP citizens were denied their chance to vote and be heard.



Again, the Denver Post:

"The caucuses already limit participation to a narrow slice of the electorate. But the fact that the Republican leadership then took matters a step further and deprived even that narrow slice of voters a voice in one of the most competitive, consequential political nominations in memory - and perhaps in history - is mindboggling.



It's likely that some Republicans who show up Tuesday will be surprised to learn their presidential preference is of no consequence. Perhaps someone should be on hand to explain to them why party democracy is apparently too disruptive and unpredictable to be trusted."

snoscythe wrote:

Yes, Colorado did eliminate the poll in October, but that was in response to a national GOP rule that would have made the poll binding on the delegates, which had never been the case in Colorado before. The GOP changed the rules, and the Colorado amendment was simply an equal and opposite reaction to preserve the way they have always elected delegates. The fix is not in against Trump--Trump just failed to plan, much like his kids not being eligible to vote in the primaries because they missed the registration deadline.

Interestingly, the Colorado GOP elites were the only ones to make that decision regarding the national GOP rule change.

snoscythe wrote:

Trump's failure to play within long-standing rules is not part of any anti-Trump movement, it's ineptitude laid bare before you, but he just tries to play the masquerade of pawning it off as a rigged system so he can be a victim instead of an idiot.

Again, my argument is not pro-Trump. True, Trump did not have a ground game in CO to work within the "new and whacky" system that the CO GOP created. That is his bad. He failed to prepare and lost. Ted Cruz dove into the details of the CO GOP primary, understood it, prepared, and won. These rules changes in CO were set without Trump in mind. It was not an effort to "screw" Trump.



Still - the real loser here is the CO GOP that looks elitist. My point is pretty simple - you let people vote. You don't take that away and install a complex pretzel delegate system. What the CO GOP did is legal, and it stinks.



Again, per the Denver Post:

"Colorado GOP blundered on 2016 presidential caucus

Republicans made big mistake in abandoning presidential tally"

By The Denver Post Editorial Board

http://www.denverpost.com/editorials/ci_29563108/colorado-gop-blundered-2016-presidential-caucus



Th beat goes on.

#1-- the article you cite is a bit funny at this point...the complaint was that preserving the caucus system by jettisoning a non-binding preference poll would "take Colorado off the map" and forfeit its role in the nomination process. Seems obvious now that is absolutely not the case given the existence of this discussion.



#2--the other link you provided was to an editorial (i.e. opinion piece) by the Editorial Board, comprised of a pure-democracy Libertarian in Vincent Carroll and two raging liberals in Jeremy Meyer and Cohen Peart. Read it for what it is--an opportunistic hit piece from three guys who hate anything GOP.



Again, the complex pretzel system has always been there--I lived there and experienced it in 2012. No article from Denver's leftist rag is going to make me ignore what I experienced. The delegates were allocated in exactly the same process in 2016 as they were in 2012 and before. The preference poll was never binding before, so having it was just pretending to vote anyway. Yes, the Colorado GOP did this without asking the Colorado party members, because that's what elected representatives do--they respond to environmental changes to preserve the status quo.



The preference poll is all that was done away with, and it was never binding to begin with, so there is nothing to be worked up about unless you are Trump and mismanaged your campaign.

Here's a, to my mind, unbiased view of what happened in Colorado, specifically noting that the rule change by the Colorado GOP preserved the status quo: "the Colorado GOP canceled their 2016 preference poll, sticking to allocating delegates by assemblies".



Yes, it calls out Trump, but rightfully so:



http://thefederalist.com/2016/04/11/colorado-proves-donald-trump-cant-handle-the-rigors-of-a-campaign/

snoscythe wrote:
#1-- the article you cite is a bit funny at this point...the complaint was that preserving the caucus system by jettisoning a non-binding preference poll would "take Colorado off the map" and forfeit its role in the nomination process. Seems obvious now that is absolutely not the case given the existence of this discussion.



#2--the other link you provided was to an editorial (i.e. opinion piece) by the Editorial Board, comprised of a pure-democracy Libertarian in Vincent Carroll and two raging liberals in Jeremy Meyer and Cohen Peart. Read it for what it is--an opportunistic hit piece from three guys who hate anything GOP.



Again, the complex pretzel system has always been there--I lived there and experienced it in 2012. No article from Denver's leftist rag is going to make me ignore what I experienced. The delegates were allocated in exactly the same process in 2016 as they were in 2012 and before. The preference poll was never binding before, so having it was just pretending to vote anyway. Yes, the Colorado GOP did this without asking the Colorado party members, because that's what elected representatives do--they respond to environmental changes to preserve the status quo.



The preference poll is all that was done away with, and it was never binding to begin with, so there is nothing to be worked up about unless you are Trump and mismanaged your campaign.

Correcto. The preference poll was done away with. I disagree with that decision. I don't know if you undestandr where I am coming from. It doesn't really matter. I support Ted Cruz. I am glad Ted Cruz won in CO. Without question, Cruz is more organized, a more detail oriented campaigner. Trump all about bluster, noise, and the "cult of personality." Trump had the responsibility to know, understand, and play by the rules the same way Cruz did.



Just the same - the GOP primary process in Colorado sucks and is perceived as being "sucko". Optics do matter. Perception is reality.

If the preference poll accomplished anything in the first place, I would be right there with you. However, all it did was give the media something to talk about and had no bearing on the final allocation of delegates--they've always been allocated the same way for as long as I can remember. This was just the first time without the headline generating non-binding poll.



Essentially it was the same as Utah's was until the National GOP changed the rules (without letting the GOP party members vote on THAT rule change *gasp!*) as well as a number of other caucus states like Wyoming etc. Optics only matter now because the media pays attention when Trump whines more than they did when Santorum, McCain, or any other candidate who won the meaningless poll but then got trounced in delegate selection.



The caucuses are designed not to reward the candidate with the most money or best name recognition, but to reward the best-organized candidate, i.e. the candidate most likely to be able to structure a winning national campaign.

Something important that's perhaps being lost/forgotten is that the president's power really is fairly limited, while the Supreme Court affects us much more, and this president is going to put one, maybe up to three, justices on the Supreme Court. Another reason to vote for the candidate that comes out of the GOP, regardless.

snoscythe wrote:

Trump whines more ........

No question. He does. My feeling is, I don't mind "whining" if it's justified - legit. Sometimes it is.



In the case of the Colorado primary and Trump - it looks like his "whining" unjustified. It's true that I read Drudgereport quite a bit. I trust his website quite a bit. I appreciate and value your insight Sno. Thx!

Schmoe wrote:
Something important that's perhaps being lost/forgotten is that .......



the president's power really is fairly limited, while the Supreme Court affects us much more, and this president is going to put one, maybe up to three, justices on the Supreme Court.



Another reason to vote for the candidate that comes out of the GOP, regardless.

You beat me to it Schmoe - I was about to post on this topic. This point is critical. As much as I hold both Hawking and Snoscythe in high regard - on the point of not voting for Trump - for whatever reason - he will nominate Conservative Justices for the Supreme Court. Whereas Hillary will nominate crazy liberal judges. This is no small item. This is why it's critical someone from the GOP - preferably Ted Cruz, or Donald Trump, or whoever wins the contested GOP Convention that is looming in Ohio. It's critical the GOP wins the White House to stop Hillary and the Socialist Democrats from nominating a liberal Supreme Court Justice(s).



If you choose to either vote for Hillary, not vote, or vote for a 3rd party candidate to protest "Trump" - and Hillary wins the White House? IMHO, it is beyond comprehension. Hillary will nominate a Liberal Justice - and we've lost the Supreme Court - the Constitution - and the United States as we know it. This is serious business.



A sobering thought - In the last 2 days - at a Townhill meeting - a woman addressed Hillary and said:

“We’re so worried about terrorism but we have terrorism on our own soil. Our gun manufacturers, our ammunition manufacturers are making terrorists out of our citizens. A sobering fact.”



"All the while Hillary Clinton was nodding, smiling, and seemingly approving. I say “seemingly approving” because she never corrected any of the woman’s ridiculous (and completely fallacious) claims."



Does any clear thinking American want a sitting president who hates the 2nd Amendment (and Hillary does), and equates gun mfg's, ammunition mfg's, and gun owners with making and being terroritst? This is crazy stuff.



Please rethink your position gentlemen. The Constitution is hanging in the balance.

What makes you think Trump would nominate conservative Justices? All he's ever done in his entire life is support planned parenthood and liberal politicians and action groups. It's more likely that he'd nominate liberal judges who agree with his philosophies.

hawkwing wrote:
What makes you think Trump would nominate conservative Justices? All he's ever done in his entire life is support planned parenthood and liberal politicians and action groups. It's more likely that he'd nominate liberal judges who agree with his philosophies.

Trump has sai che would nominate Conservative Supreme Court Justices. With Hillary, it is GUARANTEED you will get a socialist liberal democrat judge - who will be hostile to the Constitution and the 2nd Amendment. Trump is promising to nominate Conservative judges - and using the Heritage Foundation to prepare his list to choose from.



I know Hawkdawg - I know - can you trust what Trump is saying? Maybe. Better than 50% chance yes. But, I would rather take a gamble with Trump - than KNOW Hillary is going to pick a hardcore socialist anti-Constitution liberal. IMHO.



"Republican presidential front-runner Donald Trump, in an apparent bid to placate conservatives who fear that he could appoint an insufficiently ideological justice if elected president, plans to release a list of 5-10 names sometime in the next week. He says that, if given the opportunity to name a Supreme Court justice, he will limit his selection to the names on that list.



At a press conference on Monday, Trump also revealed an unusual detail about how he is determining which names should be on the list. “Heritage Foundation and others are working on” the list,” according to Trump."



http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2016/03/22/3762275/trump-says-he-will-delegate-supreme-court-appointments-to-the-heritage-foundation/



And -

"So let’s say that Trump wins, and that Republicans carry out McConnell’s threat to confirm no one, no matter who that person may be. As it turns out, Trump has painted a very vivid picture of what sort of justices he would appoint if given then chance to do so — and it looks a whole lot like what one would expect from some of the most conservative factions within the GOP.



Last December, Trump named his favorite member of the Supreme Court, Justice Clarence Thomas. That alone suggests that Trump’s nominees could immediately become some of the most conservative members of the bench in decades. In addition to joining famous conservative decisions such as Citizens United or the Court’s decision to dismantle much of the Voting Rights Act, Thomas embraces an interpretation of the Constitution that led past justices to strike down child labor laws.



More recently, in a statement earlier this week, Trump disclosed two judges that he believes would “best represent the conservative values we need to protect: William “Bill” Pryor Jr. and Diane Sykes.”



http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2016/02/19/3750758/what-if-donald-trump-wins-inside-his-plans-for-the-supreme-court/

Trump could say his favorite color is republican red tomorrow, that doesn't change the fact that it's really blue, always has been blue, and will be blue until he dies. Trump is a liar, egomaniac, and a Mussolini.



He will cause more damage to the United States and the world at large than any other candidate in history. That fact is very clear to me.