RNC should let delegates decide without guidance

[Cecilie1200]

Yeah, yeah, you and the left, always blathering on about "should". Somehow, the way things "should" be always mysteriously favoring everyone else just giving up and letting you droolers have your way.

I feel he wins if he achieves the goal according to the rules. That's how games are played. I don't know of any game where you win because you declare, loudly and often, that you're entitled to, and demanding that the rules be changed mid-game to suit you.

Do you have anything other than misrepresenting what others say?

Haven't misrepresented anyone.

You've made it abundantly, painfully clear that you've been oblivious to virtually everything about political parties and how they work up until about five minutes ago, when you suddenly woke up and started shouting about, "Damn it, they're not doing things the way I THOUGHT they worked, and it's not fair, and everything should change RIGHT NOW to match what I imagined they were!"

There's nothing "corrupt" or "rigged" or "cheating" or "swindling" about following rules and procedures that have been in place and widely available for quite some time, simply because YOU didn't bother to know what they really were, or about those procedures serving a purpose that's always been there, simply because it's not the purpose you erroneously thought was being served, because you were too lazy to find out the facts.

What IS "rigged" and "cheating" is trying to demand that the rules and purposes be changed mid-campaign to suit you, because you're not getting your way. You don't sit down to a game of Texas Hold 'Em and decide to rewrite Hoyle to make a pair worth more than a flush halfway through the hand, because you don't like your cards and you didn't bother to learn how to play.

As you proceed to misrepresent me AGAIN. Let me guess, you don't see any rigging or cheating in Colorado either, right?

Nope. They followed the rules and worked with the system. Trump could have done that, but he chose not to. His mistake.

So, you're fine with this?
DISGUSTING! Colorado Trump Delegates Scratched From Ballots at GOP Convention - Cruzers Listed TWICE - The Gateway Pundit

You posting a bunch of Internet opinion and demanding that I treat it as gospel truth? No, I've never been fine with that.

 

[S.J.]

Do you have anything other than misrepresenting what others say?

Haven't misrepresented anyone.

You've made it abundantly, painfully clear that you've been oblivious to virtually everything about political parties and how they work up until about five minutes ago, when you suddenly woke up and started shouting about, "Damn it, they're not doing things the way I THOUGHT they worked, and it's not fair, and everything should change RIGHT NOW to match what I imagined they were!"

There's nothing "corrupt" or "rigged" or "cheating" or "swindling" about following rules and procedures that have been in place and widely available for quite some time, simply because YOU didn't bother to know what they really were, or about those procedures serving a purpose that's always been there, simply because it's not the purpose you erroneously thought was being served, because you were too lazy to find out the facts.

What IS "rigged" and "cheating" is trying to demand that the rules and purposes be changed mid-campaign to suit you, because you're not getting your way. You don't sit down to a game of Texas Hold 'Em and decide to rewrite Hoyle to make a pair worth more than a flush halfway through the hand, because you don't like your cards and you didn't bother to learn how to play.

As you proceed to misrepresent me AGAIN. Let me guess, you don't see any rigging or cheating in Colorado either, right?

Nope. They followed the rules and worked with the system. Trump could have done that, but he chose not to. His mistake.

So, you're fine with this?
DISGUSTING! Colorado Trump Delegates Scratched From Ballots at GOP Convention - Cruzers Listed TWICE - The Gateway Pundit

You posting a bunch of Internet opinion and demanding that I treat it as gospel truth? No, I've never been fine with that.

Internet opinion??? It's been verified but I'm sure you'll still deny it. It's people like you who diminish the sacrifices of patriots throughout history who have fought and died for our right to self govern. You prefer to turn over your rights and your voice to a few corporate owned politicians making deals in a back room to pick the best puppet to serve them and no one else. You're truly pathetic.

 

[OKTexas]

Whatever rules are in place for the convention need stay in place. If the rule is that you have to have won eight states; so be it. If it’s not the rule so be it.

The national convention leadership should just set the rules, without further input, and let the delegates make the decision.

Just like a jury; if they can’t work it out amongst themselves, send them back into the jury room to do it again.

Except that's not what the rules say, as usual the MSM has been lying to everyone. It actually says a candidate has to show support from a majority of delegates from 8 states. Delegates can show support for a candidate without being bound to that candidate.

(b) Each candidate for nomination for President of the United States and Vice President of the United States shall demonstrate the support of a majority of the delegates from each of eight (8) or more states, severally, prior to the presentation of the name of that candidate for nomination. Notwithstanding any other provisions of these rules or any rule of the House of Representatives, to demonstrate the support required of this paragraph a certificate evidencing the affirmative written support of the required number of permanently seated delegates from each of the eight (8) or more states shall have been submitted to the secretary of the convention not later than one (1) hour prior to the placing of the names of candidates for nomination pursuant to this rule and the established order of business.

https://cdn.gop.com/docs/2012_RULES_Adopted.pdf

It says nothing about winning anything, just having support.

 

[DarkFury]

Whatever rules are in place for the convention need stay in place. If the rule is that you have to have won eight states; so be it. If it’s not the rule so be it.

The national convention leadership should just set the rules, without further input, and let the delegates make the decision.

Just like a jury; if they can’t work it out amongst themselves, send them back into the jury room to do it again.

Except that's not what the rules say, as usual the MSM has been lying to everyone. It actually says a candidate has to show support from a majority of delegates from 8 states. Delegates can show support for a candidate without being bound to that candidate.

(b) Each candidate for nomination for President of the United States and Vice President of the United States shall demonstrate the support of a majority of the delegates from each of eight (8) or more states, severally, prior to the presentation of the name of that candidate for nomination. Notwithstanding any other provisions of these rules or any rule of the House of Representatives, to demonstrate the support required of this paragraph a certificate evidencing the affirmative written support of the required number of permanently seated delegates from each of the eight (8) or more states shall have been submitted to the secretary of the convention not later than one (1) hour prior to the placing of the names of candidates for nomination pursuant to this rule and the established order of business.

https://cdn.gop.com/docs/2012_RULES_Adopted.pdf

It says nothing about winning anything, just having support.

If you read rule 43 it says rules 1 through 42 are standing rules "Temporary" so even the rules as written are subject to being thrown out.

 

[OKTexas]

Whatever rules are in place for the convention need stay in place. If the rule is that you have to have won eight states; so be it. If it’s not the rule so be it.

The national convention leadership should just set the rules, without further input, and let the delegates make the decision.

Just like a jury; if they can’t work it out amongst themselves, send them back into the jury room to do it again.

Except that's not what the rules say, as usual the MSM has been lying to everyone. It actually says a candidate has to show support from a majority of delegates from 8 states. Delegates can show support for a candidate without being bound to that candidate.

(b) Each candidate for nomination for President of the United States and Vice President of the United States shall demonstrate the support of a majority of the delegates from each of eight (8) or more states, severally, prior to the presentation of the name of that candidate for nomination. Notwithstanding any other provisions of these rules or any rule of the House of Representatives, to demonstrate the support required of this paragraph a certificate evidencing the affirmative written support of the required number of permanently seated delegates from each of the eight (8) or more states shall have been submitted to the secretary of the convention not later than one (1) hour prior to the placing of the names of candidates for nomination pursuant to this rule and the established order of business.

https://cdn.gop.com/docs/2012_RULES_Adopted.pdf

It says nothing about winning anything, just having support.

If you read rule 43 it says rules 1 through 42 are standing rules "Temporary" so even the rules as written are subject to being thrown out.

I'm aware of that, I just pointed out the myths the media has been feeding everyone about having to "win" 8 states.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Haven't misrepresented anyone.

You've made it abundantly, painfully clear that you've been oblivious to virtually everything about political parties and how they work up until about five minutes ago, when you suddenly woke up and started shouting about, "Damn it, they're not doing things the way I THOUGHT they worked, and it's not fair, and everything should change RIGHT NOW to match what I imagined they were!"

There's nothing "corrupt" or "rigged" or "cheating" or "swindling" about following rules and procedures that have been in place and widely available for quite some time, simply because YOU didn't bother to know what they really were, or about those procedures serving a purpose that's always been there, simply because it's not the purpose you erroneously thought was being served, because you were too lazy to find out the facts.

What IS "rigged" and "cheating" is trying to demand that the rules and purposes be changed mid-campaign to suit you, because you're not getting your way. You don't sit down to a game of Texas Hold 'Em and decide to rewrite Hoyle to make a pair worth more than a flush halfway through the hand, because you don't like your cards and you didn't bother to learn how to play.

As you proceed to misrepresent me AGAIN. Let me guess, you don't see any rigging or cheating in Colorado either, right?

Nope. They followed the rules and worked with the system. Trump could have done that, but he chose not to. His mistake.

So, you're fine with this?
DISGUSTING! Colorado Trump Delegates Scratched From Ballots at GOP Convention - Cruzers Listed TWICE - The Gateway Pundit

You posting a bunch of Internet opinion and demanding that I treat it as gospel truth? No, I've never been fine with that.

Internet opinion??? It's been verified but I'm sure you'll still deny it. It's people like you who diminish the sacrifices of patriots throughout history who have fought and died for our right to self govern. You prefer to turn over your rights and your voice to a few corporate owned politicians making deals in a back room to pick the best puppet to serve them and no one else. You're truly pathetic.

No, it really hasn't been "verified". The Gateway Pundit is just that, an Internet pundit posting his highly biased opinion, with little to no actual facts included.

You'll excuse me if I skip over your long-winded, self-righteous emoto-fest. I started snoring.

Actually, I don't care if you excuse me or not. If I want a lot of thoughtless hormones, I'll go have a beer at the neighborhood bar.

 

[candycorn]

Whatever rules are in place for the convention need stay in place. If the rule is that you have to have won eight states; so be it. If it’s not the rule so be it.

The national convention leadership should just set the rules, without further input, and let the delegates make the decision.

Just like a jury; if they can’t work it out amongst themselves, send them back into the jury room to do it again.

Except that's not what the rules say, as usual the MSM has been lying to everyone. It actually says a candidate has to show support from a majority of delegates from 8 states. Delegates can show support for a candidate without being bound to that candidate.

(b) Each candidate for nomination for President of the United States and Vice President of the United States shall demonstrate the support of a majority of the delegates from each of eight (8) or more states, severally, prior to the presentation of the name of that candidate for nomination. Notwithstanding any other provisions of these rules or any rule of the House of Representatives, to demonstrate the support required of this paragraph a certificate evidencing the affirmative written support of the required number of permanently seated delegates from each of the eight (8) or more states shall have been submitted to the secretary of the convention not later than one (1) hour prior to the placing of the names of candidates for nomination pursuant to this rule and the established order of business.

https://cdn.gop.com/docs/2012_RULES_Adopted.pdf

It says nothing about winning anything, just having support.

Yes, that is why I put “if” in the post. I’m not much interested in the GOP rules (or the DNC rules for that matter); only that whatever the rules are; they should follow them.

 

[candycorn]

There is that. And that is the main thing; why have primaries???

Parties have primaries in order to get input from the base of voters. There is little direct democracy in party primaries and caucuses and conventions. Why should there be?

To ensure that the a person with a bare modicum of support gets the party nomination.

They're actually trying to ensure that the person who can put together a majority of the party gets the nomination. They have no interest in or use for a candidate with a "bare modicum of support", which is why they don't just hand out the nomination to whoever limps in with a scant plurality, no further discussion needed.

Wouldn’t the candidate who can “put together a majority” have won more than 1 state (or zero states)?

At what point have they chosen a candidate who HASN'T won more than one state? I feel sure if a GOP nominee had been selected already, it would have been in the news.

Stop being an ignorant bitch for 5 seconds, okay? I doubt its possible

They have never done it and they shouldn’t do it in Cleveland.

 

[candycorn]

RNC should let delegates decide without guidance

Whatever rules are in place for the convention need stay in place. If the rule is that you have to have won eight states; so be it. If it’s not the rule so be it.

The national convention leadership should just set the rules, without further input, and let the delegates make the decision.

Just like a jury; if they can’t work it out amongst themselves, send them back into the jury room to do it again.

Why? There is the standing committee that meets a few times every year. They meet about rules before the other committee even comes into existence. Do you know that the rules committee (regular) meet at the start of each convention in order to iron out the rules? That committee does not exist in between conventions, only the standing committee does.

So you are wrong in your assumptions. "The national convention leadership" does NOT have the power to do what you suggest. It would be illegal. The delegates get to vote on rules changes at the start of every convention. Those delegates come to the national convention after being selected at state conventions. The state delegates can be REFUSED if they are NOT credentialed.

Think of Robert's Rules for politics and political conventions. There are even state laws on state elections. Too bad it isn't as simple as you would like it to be.

Okay…

But if the rules were good enough for 2012, why would they not be good enough for 2016? I understand there is a need for evolution. At one time, as I remember my grandpa saying, states used to vote in the order of their inclusion to the Union; that was changed to let a politically important state put a nominee “over the top”. Procedural rules change all the time. Platform planks change regularly. There is a difference between evolution and revolution with rules designed to deny a particular candidate the Presidency.

The rules of the party are designed to achieve the goals of the party. They've never been designed to "express the will of the people at large"; that's what the general election is for.

So the Party is some dis-embodied item that exists without members and a bunch of guys in a conference room make it up; not the millions of registered Republicans, the thousands of men and women who attend the state conventions, the thousands who work phone banks, knock on doors, etc??? I understand that the GOP members elect people to act on their behalf but do you honestly feel that the GOP members ever considered that their reps would do something like draft a guy for the nominee who won 1 State or 0 States?

Its rubbish. The Party should let the delegates do their job unfettered and stay out of the discussion.

Political parties are groups of like-minded people organizing together around common principles and goals. Like any private organization, they are made up much more of the people who have put in the time and work to get into a position to lead and run the party than they are by people who wander by and punch a ballot for a candidate every four years. Voters are welcome to join the party and get as involved as they care to be, even work to become part of the leadership if they wish, but YOU join THEM. They don't join you. That means YOU join THEIR goals, and THEIR system, at least until and unless you get into a position of leadership that lets you set the goals and system.

By the by, the people who attend state conventions ARE part of the party leadership. That's why THEY got to vote in Colorado. Whatever you think, the Colorado convention wasn't decided by a handful of guys in a conference room. And the delegates to the national convention are ALSO part of the party leadership, which is why THEY get to vote on the nominee.

There is no private organization in the country that is in any way obligated, morally or otherwise, to turn their organization over to the whims of random, casual members.

“Turn their organization over”….nobody ever said that. To ignore the desires of the voters on the most visible (and arguably most important thing it does in such a way that the top two vote-getters are both ignored is lunatic-thought. I’m not surprises you’re endorsing such a thing possibly taking place.

 

[BuckToothMoron]

Whatever rules are in place for the convention need stay in place. If the rule is that you have to have won eight states; so be it. If it’s not the rule so be it.

The national convention leadership should just set the rules, without further input, and let the delegates make the decision.

Just like a jury; if they can’t work it out amongst themselves, send them back into the jury room to do it again.

Whatever rules are in place for the convention need stay in place. If the rule is that you have to have won eight states; so be it. If it’s not the rule so be it.

The national convention leadership should just set the rules, without further input, and let the delegates make the decision.

Just like a jury; if they can’t work it out amongst themselves, send them back into the jury room to do it again.

Candycorn are you out of your mind? Let the delegates decide without further input.....those people are commoners, you can't trust the unwashed with that decision. They may pick the wrong guy. No, that decision should be made by professionals, people who make their living doling out money and influence. Duh!

 

[Cecilie1200]

Parties have primaries in order to get input from the base of voters. There is little direct democracy in party primaries and caucuses and conventions. Why should there be?

To ensure that the a person with a bare modicum of support gets the party nomination.

They're actually trying to ensure that the person who can put together a majority of the party gets the nomination. They have no interest in or use for a candidate with a "bare modicum of support", which is why they don't just hand out the nomination to whoever limps in with a scant plurality, no further discussion needed.

Wouldn’t the candidate who can “put together a majority” have won more than 1 state (or zero states)?

At what point have they chosen a candidate who HASN'T won more than one state? I feel sure if a GOP nominee had been selected already, it would have been in the news.

Stop being an ignorant bitch for 5 seconds, okay? I doubt its possible

They have never done it and they shouldn’t do it in Cleveland.

They're not going to, however much you and the rest of the tinfoil hat brigade love to tell yourselves shivery horror stories about the possibility.

The establishment doesn't control the convention, except inasmuch as the delegates themselves are part of the establishment. The delegates control it, and after the first however many ballots their own state binds them to, they control their own votes.

 

[SwimExpert]

Whatever rules are in place for the convention need stay in place.

Thank you for showing how ignorant you are. There are no rules in place. The rules won't be decided until the convention. That is the way it has always worked.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Why? There is the standing committee that meets a few times every year. They meet about rules before the other committee even comes into existence. Do you know that the rules committee (regular) meet at the start of each convention in order to iron out the rules? That committee does not exist in between conventions, only the standing committee does.

So you are wrong in your assumptions. "The national convention leadership" does NOT have the power to do what you suggest. It would be illegal. The delegates get to vote on rules changes at the start of every convention. Those delegates come to the national convention after being selected at state conventions. The state delegates can be REFUSED if they are NOT credentialed.

Think of Robert's Rules for politics and political conventions. There are even state laws on state elections. Too bad it isn't as simple as you would like it to be.

Okay…

But if the rules were good enough for 2012, why would they not be good enough for 2016? I understand there is a need for evolution. At one time, as I remember my grandpa saying, states used to vote in the order of their inclusion to the Union; that was changed to let a politically important state put a nominee “over the top”. Procedural rules change all the time. Platform planks change regularly. There is a difference between evolution and revolution with rules designed to deny a particular candidate the Presidency.

The rules of the party are designed to achieve the goals of the party. They've never been designed to "express the will of the people at large"; that's what the general election is for.

So the Party is some dis-embodied item that exists without members and a bunch of guys in a conference room make it up; not the millions of registered Republicans, the thousands of men and women who attend the state conventions, the thousands who work phone banks, knock on doors, etc??? I understand that the GOP members elect people to act on their behalf but do you honestly feel that the GOP members ever considered that their reps would do something like draft a guy for the nominee who won 1 State or 0 States?

Its rubbish. The Party should let the delegates do their job unfettered and stay out of the discussion.

Political parties are groups of like-minded people organizing together around common principles and goals. Like any private organization, they are made up much more of the people who have put in the time and work to get into a position to lead and run the party than they are by people who wander by and punch a ballot for a candidate every four years. Voters are welcome to join the party and get as involved as they care to be, even work to become part of the leadership if they wish, but YOU join THEM. They don't join you. That means YOU join THEIR goals, and THEIR system, at least until and unless you get into a position of leadership that lets you set the goals and system.

By the by, the people who attend state conventions ARE part of the party leadership. That's why THEY got to vote in Colorado. Whatever you think, the Colorado convention wasn't decided by a handful of guys in a conference room. And the delegates to the national convention are ALSO part of the party leadership, which is why THEY get to vote on the nominee.

There is no private organization in the country that is in any way obligated, morally or otherwise, to turn their organization over to the whims of random, casual members.

“Turn their organization over”….nobody ever said that. To ignore the desires of the voters on the most visible (and arguably most important thing it does in such a way that the top two vote-getters are both ignored is lunatic-thought. I’m not surprises you’re endorsing such a thing possibly taking place.

I endorse nothing. But I'll say it again for the thinking-impaired: the parties are not obligated to "the voters" in any way, shape, or form. That you lazy-minded gullible sheep have coasted along all these years believing that party primaries are official elections, bound to the same requirements and priorities as an official election, does not make it reality, or obligate anyone else to make it reality for you.

Political parties don't exist to be open forums for "the voice of the people" to express whatever tangent they've wandered down this month or hair they've taken across their ass. Recognizing that fact, or the fact that those who run the parties have every right to run them as they choose, is not an endorsement of their choices. I also recognize that you have every right in the world to run your flapping cakehole and sound like an ignorant twat in public. Doesn't mean I endorse the twaddle that spews from you.

Corporations don't let every goober who buys a share of stock guide the direction of the company, and they don't choose their CEO by holding a vote of those self-same goobers. You may be childishly enamored of the idea of populism and mobocracy, but that neither obligates anyone else to hold those views, or make them the automatic best and most efficient way of achieving goals.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Whatever rules are in place for the convention need stay in place. If the rule is that you have to have won eight states; so be it. If it’s not the rule so be it.

The national convention leadership should just set the rules, without further input, and let the delegates make the decision.

Just like a jury; if they can’t work it out amongst themselves, send them back into the jury room to do it again.

Whatever rules are in place for the convention need stay in place. If the rule is that you have to have won eight states; so be it. If it’s not the rule so be it.

The national convention leadership should just set the rules, without further input, and let the delegates make the decision.

Just like a jury; if they can’t work it out amongst themselves, send them back into the jury room to do it again.

Candycorn are you out of your mind? Let the delegates decide without further input.....those people are commoners, you can't trust the unwashed with that decision. They may pick the wrong guy. No, that decision should be made by professionals, people who make their living doling out money and influence. Duh!

The delegates ARE "the professionals", and they DO make their own decisions, Candy's Illuminati fantasies notwithstanding. You don't get to be a delegate to the national convention by being Joe Schmoe pulling a lever like a monkey every four years. And no one tells them who to vote for once they're unbound. At that point, all anyone can do is persuade and convince.

 

[candycorn]

To ensure that the a person with a bare modicum of support gets the party nomination.

They're actually trying to ensure that the person who can put together a majority of the party gets the nomination. They have no interest in or use for a candidate with a "bare modicum of support", which is why they don't just hand out the nomination to whoever limps in with a scant plurality, no further discussion needed.

Wouldn’t the candidate who can “put together a majority” have won more than 1 state (or zero states)?

At what point have they chosen a candidate who HASN'T won more than one state? I feel sure if a GOP nominee had been selected already, it would have been in the news.

Stop being an ignorant bitch for 5 seconds, okay? I doubt its possible

They have never done it and they shouldn’t do it in Cleveland.

They're not going to, however much you and the rest of the tinfoil hat brigade love to tell yourselves shivery horror stories about the possibility.

The establishment doesn't control the convention, except inasmuch as the delegates themselves are part of the establishment. The delegates control it, and after the first however many ballots their own state binds them to, they control their own votes.

zzzzzzz

Never said they did goober.
Just stated they should let the delegates decide without comment or interference.

 

[candycorn]

Whatever rules are in place for the convention need stay in place. If the rule is that you have to have won eight states; so be it. If it’s not the rule so be it.

The national convention leadership should just set the rules, without further input, and let the delegates make the decision.

Just like a jury; if they can’t work it out amongst themselves, send them back into the jury room to do it again.

Whatever rules are in place for the convention need stay in place. If the rule is that you have to have won eight states; so be it. If it’s not the rule so be it.

The national convention leadership should just set the rules, without further input, and let the delegates make the decision.

Just like a jury; if they can’t work it out amongst themselves, send them back into the jury room to do it again.

Candycorn are you out of your mind? Let the delegates decide without further input.....those people are commoners, you can't trust the unwashed with that decision. They may pick the wrong guy. No, that decision should be made by professionals, people who make their living doling out money and influence. Duh!

The delegates ARE "the professionals", and they DO make their own decisions, Candy's Illuminati fantasies notwithstanding. You don't get to be a delegate to the national convention by being Joe Schmoe pulling a lever like a monkey every four years. And no one tells them who to vote for once they're unbound. At that point, all anyone can do is persuade and convince.

He was being facetious, dumbass.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Whatever rules are in place for the convention need stay in place.

Thank you for showing how ignorant you are. There are no rules in place. The rules won't be decided until the convention. That is the way it has always worked.

Candy the political genius, who likes to prattle about her "brilliant" theory she just formed five minutes ago of "free populism", thinks the delegates should be told how to run the convention they attend, rather than letting them decide that for themselves.

You can pretty much always count on Candy to open her mouth and be a brilliant argument against the 19th Amendment.

 

[Cecilie1200]

They're actually trying to ensure that the person who can put together a majority of the party gets the nomination. They have no interest in or use for a candidate with a "bare modicum of support", which is why they don't just hand out the nomination to whoever limps in with a scant plurality, no further discussion needed.

Wouldn’t the candidate who can “put together a majority” have won more than 1 state (or zero states)?

At what point have they chosen a candidate who HASN'T won more than one state? I feel sure if a GOP nominee had been selected already, it would have been in the news.

Stop being an ignorant bitch for 5 seconds, okay? I doubt its possible

They have never done it and they shouldn’t do it in Cleveland.

They're not going to, however much you and the rest of the tinfoil hat brigade love to tell yourselves shivery horror stories about the possibility.

The establishment doesn't control the convention, except inasmuch as the delegates themselves are part of the establishment. The delegates control it, and after the first however many ballots their own state binds them to, they control their own votes.

zzzzzzz

Never said they did goober.
Just stated they should let the delegates decide without comment or interference.

Just stated they shouldn't do something they won't, and can't, do, because you don't understand anything that's going on, but you imagine everyone is just DYING to hear your cutting-edge, pulled-it-out-of-your-ass analysis.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Whatever rules are in place for the convention need stay in place. If the rule is that you have to have won eight states; so be it. If it’s not the rule so be it.

The national convention leadership should just set the rules, without further input, and let the delegates make the decision.

Just like a jury; if they can’t work it out amongst themselves, send them back into the jury room to do it again.

Whatever rules are in place for the convention need stay in place. If the rule is that you have to have won eight states; so be it. If it’s not the rule so be it.

The national convention leadership should just set the rules, without further input, and let the delegates make the decision.

Just like a jury; if they can’t work it out amongst themselves, send them back into the jury room to do it again.

Candycorn are you out of your mind? Let the delegates decide without further input.....those people are commoners, you can't trust the unwashed with that decision. They may pick the wrong guy. No, that decision should be made by professionals, people who make their living doling out money and influence. Duh!

The delegates ARE "the professionals", and they DO make their own decisions, Candy's Illuminati fantasies notwithstanding. You don't get to be a delegate to the national convention by being Joe Schmoe pulling a lever like a monkey every four years. And no one tells them who to vote for once they're unbound. At that point, all anyone can do is persuade and convince.

He was being facetious, dumbass.

Gosh, I'm so glad I have a walking, talking argument against women's suffrage to pompously explain things to me I already know because she assumes all ovary-bearers are dumb twats like she is.

I know he was being facetious, Mensa Girl. Unlike you, I also know he was using it to imply that he - probably briefly - believed your codswallop about the "establishment" dictating votes to the delegates, as though the delegates aren't themselves part of the party leadership.

 

[candycorn]

Wouldn’t the candidate who can “put together a majority” have won more than 1 state (or zero states)?

At what point have they chosen a candidate who HASN'T won more than one state? I feel sure if a GOP nominee had been selected already, it would have been in the news.

Stop being an ignorant bitch for 5 seconds, okay? I doubt its possible

They have never done it and they shouldn’t do it in Cleveland.

They're not going to, however much you and the rest of the tinfoil hat brigade love to tell yourselves shivery horror stories about the possibility.

The establishment doesn't control the convention, except inasmuch as the delegates themselves are part of the establishment. The delegates control it, and after the first however many ballots their own state binds them to, they control their own votes.

zzzzzzz

Never said they did goober.
Just stated they should let the delegates decide without comment or interference.

Just stated they shouldn't do something they won't, and can't, do, because you don't understand anything that's going on, but you imagine everyone is just DYING to hear your cutting-edge, pulled-it-out-of-your-ass analysis.

You keep responding. Apparently you enjoy my ass quite a bit.