• Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

Trump Delegate Says US Government Leaders May Need to Be Killed

Rob_BW

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Typically what happens is each campaign recruits delegates (or people apply to be delegates) after their state primary is held. These delegate applicants, if approved at the state convention, will to go the national GOP convention and cast a vote for their state for the GOP candidate that won that proportion of the state's votes. So, in this case, Tennessee, there are 33 Trump delegates, 16 Cruz delegates, 9 Rubio delegates.

The vetting process is done before (or during) the state convention. So this guy, who backs Trump, applied to be a delegate to party officials and was approved even though he stated his radical views to the Trump campaign. Therefore, the Trump campaign knew about this guy, but still accepted him as a delegate.
What do you mean by "accepted him as a delegate"???

Does a candidate have any choice is returning delegates that they find unacceptable, after the state picks the guy? Is there a lemon law or return policy?
 

Crabtownboy

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Then in one example of yours recently, you tacitly agreed that the Dred Scott case was rightly decided by the Supreme Court in 1857, since you ran away and refused to answer.

I do not remember seeing the Dred Scott issue being discussed. So, not seeing it silence means nothing.

Trump surely was informed of this man's irresponsible statement.

Do you agree with the delegate?
 

Crabtownboy

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
I have not read all that the delegate said. Do you agree the Dred Scott case was rightly decided?

If you have not read what the delegate said, why enter the discussion?

On Dred Scott, I disagree that that SC decision. How about you?

Here is what he said in the interview:

There's only one reason why the Founding Fathers put the Second Amendment…If the federal government were to follow the path of all other governments, at some point it will turn to tyranny against the people. And at that point, when it stops to uphold and abide by the Constitution—and we're talking about the Supreme Court, Congress, and the executive branch, all three are way off away from the Constitution right now—the people have the right to assemble, bear arms, go to Washington, DC, or wherever necessary, and go into military battle against the government and replace those in government with individuals that will uphold the Constitution. The Constitution should remain, but the people that are abusing it should be, the polite word is, eliminated. The harsh word is killed. And they're killed by American citizens with weapons. And if people have tanks, assault weapons, if they have bombs—they need to have the weaponry necessary to be able to overthrow the federal government.

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2016/06/trump-delegates-patriot-movement-militias

Note: This is a quote from an interview. Do you agree with him?
 

OnlyaSinner

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
No, I would definitely not agree with it. From what I've read here the guy sounds like a kook. However, assuming (in the absence of solid corroboration) that a far-left advocacy source like Mother Jones has accurately presented what the man actually said seems more than a little naïve.
 

carpro

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
As far as we know right now, the whole story may be a lie.

Consider the source.
 

InTheLight

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
What do you mean by "accepted him as a delegate"???

A friend of mine was a congressional district GOP delegate in Minnesota, and he went to the state convention. Here's how it works in Minnesota. I presume the process is similar in other states.

Delegates can be backed by specific candidates or they can be neutral. State delegates are selected at the congressional district level. These delegates go to the state convention. Once at the state convention anybody that wants to run for a national delegate puts their name up for election. The state GOP, via a delegate selection committee then vets these delegate candidates. They ask them questions about their political views, personal life, voting history, etc. The idea is to make sure they are Republicans. By the time the questioning is over it is usually clear what candidate the prospective delegate is backing.

If they pass the interview process their names are put up for consideration for the whole delegate assembly. Each national delegate candidate gives a short talk before the assembled state delegates, followed by a short Q&A session. When all of this has been completed there is a vote by all the state delegates to select who will be national delegates.

Does a candidate have any choice is returning delegates that they find unacceptable, after the state picks the guy? Is there a lemon law or return policy?

I don't know. Good question.

FWIW, my friend said there were people just like this guy at the Minnesota convention, advocating elimination of government departments, including violent actions, if necessary, to achieve the end result. They did not get elected as delegates.
 

InTheLight

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
As far as we know right now, the whole story may be a lie.

Consider the source.

Well, we know there are Sanders backers that are violent and advocate violence. Why can't there be Trump people like this as well? Also, I have a friend that was a GOP state delegate and he said there were several people advocating violence as a means for change. (They were Trump people.)
 

Alcott

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
On Dred Scott, I disagree that that SC decision. How about you?

Here is what he said in the interview:


Note: This is a quote from an interview. Do you agree with him?

From what I read here-- yes. Do you oppose the USA as being founded on this basis that you oppose?

For that Dred Scott question, I am a disadvantage right now, needing to find that thread and only having this HTC phone and limited time. But I'll get back to it tonight.
 

Crabtownboy

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
No, I would definitely not agree with it. From what I've read here the guy sounds like a kook. However, assuming (in the absence of solid corroboration) that a far-left advocacy source like Mother Jones has accurately presented what the man actually said seems more than a little naïve.

Remember it was an interview not an opinion editorial.
 

carpro

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Well, we know there are Sanders backers that are violent and advocate violence. Why can't there be Trump people like this as well? Also, I have a friend that was a GOP state delegate and he said there were several people advocating violence as a means for change. (They were Trump people.)

Anecdotal 2nd hand stories aside, There may well be Trump backers that advocate violence. But this story , considering the source is immediately suspect. There is zero corroboration and a souce like this, from the far left, definitely needs it.
 

InTheLight

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Anecdotal 2nd hand stories aside, There may well be Trump backers that advocate violence. But this story , considering the source is immediately suspect. There is zero corroboration and a souce like this, from the far left, definitely needs it.

Would you agree that stories from the far right also need corroboration?
 

Crabtownboy

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
No; I mean taking up arms against.st the existing authority.

Why would I do that?

There are far more effective ways of influencing government then armed insurrection as well as far safer. This coming November is one of those ways.
 

Alcott

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Why would I do that?

There are far more effective ways of influencing government then armed insurrection as well as far safer. This coming November is one of those ways.

Since the USA was, in fact, conceived through disloyalty and birthed through armed insurrection, do you oppose its existence?
 

Crabtownboy

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Since the USA was, in fact, conceived through disloyalty and birthed through armed insurrection, do you oppose its existence?

Not a very bright question.

It was conceived through the writings of the French Enlightenment, the ideas compiled in the writings of the founding fathers. It was not conceived through disloyalty. It was brought about through armed insurrection because King George and the British Parliament would not negotiate with the founding fathers and their grievances. If King George and Parliament had been wiser it all could have been avoided and we probably still would be part of the British Commonwealth. But that is academic as that did not happen.

Of course it has the right to exist as it has existed for over 200 years.
 
Last edited:
Top