So It Begins: ‘Never Trump’ Gets a Resounding Victory in State Ruling

[carpro]

Well, that's funny too.

Why? Truth is I don't mind all that much that establishment republicans might pull some shenanigans at the convention to oust Trump and run their candidate...if they ran a conservative. But they won't. They'll run Obama light and guarantee Hillary's election by angering the millions that are sick of their games and back Trump because of them. So Trump is as good as anybody they will come up with. Better. They don't own him.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[InTheLight]

Prince Rebus said Trump could win without the votes of the #NeverTrump people so no matter what I do I can't help Hillary win.

Sent from my Motorola Droid Turbo

 

[carpro]

Prince Rebus said Trump could win without the votes of the #NeverTrump people so no matter what I do I can't help Hillary win.

Sent from my Motorola Droid Turbo

More rationalization that doesn't fly. Doesn't keep you from trying to help at all. All we have to do is compare the threads you have started attacking Trump vs. those negative about Hillary. No contest. Your agenda is crystal clear.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[InTheLight]

More rationalization that doesn't fly. Doesn't keep you from trying to help at all. All we have to do is compare the threads you have started attacking Trump vs. those negative about Hillary. No contest. Your agenda is crystal clear.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Almost no one here likes Hillary. This is a debate and discussion board and threads ripping her would not create discussion.

Sent from my Motorola Droid Turbo

 

[rsr]

Unbelievable that people defending Trump will make stuff up about me in their feckless attempt to counter my arguments.

Kudos to ITL for successfully slipping feckless into an argument. A most salubrious development.

 

[Smyth]

An anti-Trump GOP delegate in Virginia argued in federal court last Thursday that he should have the right to vote his conscience at the Republican national convention in Cleveland next week.

On Monday, a federal judge agreed with him.

I don't see how this is a First Amendment issue. The party rule is that the delegate votes go to who won the most popular votes each state (or something like that). It's not the delegates own position that matters. He is purely a messenger (at least in the first round of voting). That federal judge just declared the whole primary process to be irrelevant.

It would take over 300 delegates to abandon their responsibility to stop Trump from winning the majority delegate vote.

 

[Don]

Don, the other Don, you do realize Trump actually lost in this ruling? The state law required winner-take-all but the GOP rules mandated proportionally. What this court ruled was that the party was in control over the delegate allotment:

Yes, I do realize that. Go back and read what I wrote again. If the state party basically says their candidate is so-and-so, then the individual representing them has a duty and responsibility to vote for that person. I may not like Trump, but I at least try to be fair and honest. This is neither fair nor honest.

 

[Smyth]

Prince Rebus said Trump could win without the votes of the #NeverTrump people so no matter what I do I can't help Hillary win.

Most of the RATs (Republicans Against Trump) are not-bright lemmings. They're against trump because the neoconservative enemies of America, whom they treat as prophets, told them to reject Trump.

 

[Don]

Most of the RATs (Republicans Against Trump) are not-bright lemmings. They're against trump because the neoconservative enemies of America, whom they treat as prophets, told them to reject Trump.

Yeah, that must be it. I don't like Trump because someone told me not to. Thanks for shedding the light on that for me.

Oh, wait - I'm not a republican. Never mind.

 

[InTheLight]

Yes, I do realize that. Go back and read what I wrote again. If the state party basically says their candidate is so-and-so, then the individual representing them has a duty and responsibility to vote for that person. I may not like Trump, but I at least try to be fair and honest. This is neither fair nor honest.

As 777 noted the case was about whether or not the state has the ability to regulate the rules that political parties, which are private entities, set up to choose their delegates. In this case the state law said that the delegates must follow the "winner take all" method, whereas the state GOP rules are a proportionate vote. The judge threw out the law so there will be a proportionate vote.

This individual delegate may now vote for one of the other candidates, not Trump, so long as the overall delegate voting remains true to the proportional vote given to all candidates. So this one guy doesn't have to vote for Trump.

Trump doesn't "lose", he still gets the proportionate number of delegates he won on Super Tuesday (he won a plurality of 35%, Rubio had 32%, Cruz 17%.) He does not get all of Virginia's delegates, however.

I would think conservatives would like the ruling since it restores the rules of a private organization and removes the regulatory burden of the government.

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk

 

[Don]

As 777 noted the case was about whether or not the state has the ability to regulate the rules that political parties, which are private entities, set up to choose their delegates. In this case the state law said that the delegates must follow the "winner take all" method, whereas the state GOP rules are a proportionate vote. The judge threw out the law so there will be a proportionate vote.

This individual delegate may now vote for one of the other candidates, not Trump, so long as the overall delegate voting remains true to the proportional vote given to all candidates. So this one guy doesn't have to vote for Trump.

Trump doesn't "lose", he still gets the proportionate number of delegates he won on Super Tuesday (he won a plurality of 35%, Rubio had 32%, Cruz 17%.) He does not get all of Virginia's delegates, however.

I would think conservatives would like the ruling since it restores the rules of a private organization and removes the regulatory burden of the government.

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk

Ah, okay.

Still think it's a poor ruling, but we'll see how the chips fall.

 

[Baptist in Richmond]

So, what are the ramifications?

I guess it means that our votes don't count: that they know better than we do. In fact, why bother voting? I seem to recall that was what happened in Colorado......

I am beginning to think it's over.....

Regards, hope all is well with you, your family, and your ministry,
BiR

 

[Crabtownboy]

Trump's only majority is his negativity rating.

 

[HankD]

For the benefit of those of us who live in "fly over" America, who cling to our guns and bibles:

Feckless: lacking initiative or strength of character; irresponsible.

HankD

 

[Jedi Knight]

Trump's only majority is his negativity rating.

 

[Baptist in Richmond]

No, I wouldn't argue that. I posted here on BB very early in the primary season that the candidate selection should be the prerogative of the party, not the primary voters.

Greetings ITL,

Please clarify this point you made: is it your opinion that the candidates should be selected by the party, and not the voters? Is that your assertion here?

An honest question, by the way: just want clarification on this point.

Hope all is well,
BiR

 

[Crabtownboy]

Greetings ITL,

Please clarify this point you made: is it your opinion that the candidates should be selected by the party, and not the voters? Is that your assertion here?

An honest question, by the way: just want clarification on this point.

Hope all is well,
BiR

A very interesting question. That is the way it used to be, the party selected the candidate. When I was young I thought this was bad and when the system changed I thought it a good thing. However, seeing the candidates we have had, from both parties, over the last number of elections I now believe the "old smoke-filled room" system selected better candidates, both parties.

 

[InTheLight]

Greetings ITL,

Please clarify this point you made: is it your opinion that the candidates should be selected by the party, and not the voters? Is that your assertion here?

An honest question, by the way: just want clarification on this point.

Hope all is well,
BiR

It's complicated. The states have the right to set the way their own delegates are selected. So there's going to be a possibility of 50 different ways of doing things. I think the political party should have a large say in the selection of their delegates, either through internal voting by party officials, a closed caucus system, or a closed primary vote.

If I could design a system I would go with a caucus system where participants must be registered members of the respective political party. In this way there would be citizen involvement but there would be no opening for general crossover voting. The result of the caucuses would assign a percentage of the delegates for that state and the party would directly assign a percentage.

If a primary voting system is desired it ought to be a closed primary, with the popular vote given a percentage of the delegates and the party given a percentage. For example, let's say Ohio went to a closed primary. I would set it up so the outcome of the Ohio primary would apportion 50% of the delegates and 50% of the delegates would be chosen by the state party. (Or somesuch percentage.)

At the other end of the spectrum I would strongly oppose a direct national primary.

 

[Squire Robertsson]

This thread is now moot. Thread closed.