Colorado's Voters Should Revolt!

[chesswarsnow]

Sorry bout that,


1. There I said it.
2. The good people of Colorado was made silent.
3. And they should be upset about it now.
4. Will they fight for the vote or just roll over and smoke a joint?
5. The liberal media is so dishonest even Rush is a lyin' idiot!
6. He would be screaming if Trump won Colorado.
7. There will be a price to pay taking away to good pot smokers vote!


Regards,
SirJamesofTexas

 

[Timmy]

People finally see the GOP for the corrupt fascists that they are .

 

[percysunshine]

.
How do people high on marijuana revolt? Eat Ruffles potato chips instead of Doritos?

 

[skye]

People finally see the GOP for the corrupt fascists that they are .

unlike your Hillary

she is an angel....

a fallen angel ..that is

 

[Bruce_T_Laney]

People finally see the GOP for the corrupt fascists that they are .

unlike your Hillary

she is an angel....

a fallen angel ..that is

Even a fallen Angel is still more pure than Hillary, and the best description for Hillary is she is a child of Lilith...

 

[percysunshine]

.
I knew these marijuana laws were just a conspiracy to pacify the masses.

 

[Avatar4321]

The voters got the person they chose. So why would they revolt?

 

[Steven_R]

It's the system in place. It's been that way for decades and will be this way for decades to come.

What are you going to do?

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

It was never up to the voters to decide to begin with. Why should they ‘revolt.’

 

[Papageorgio]

People finally see the GOP for the corrupt fascists that they are .

The Democratic Party has no room when they have "super delegates", biggest joke ever. The reason they have it? So they can get in who they really want.

The GOP plays the same game with just a smaller voter block.

It's wrong for both parties but they set their own rules and hate the voting public.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

It was never up to the voters to decide to begin with. Why should they ‘revolt.’

Why? Because it should be up to the voters.

 

[percysunshine]

It was never up to the voters to decide to begin with. Why should they ‘revolt.’

Why? Because it should be up to the voters.

 

[jillian]

It was never up to the voters to decide to begin with. Why should they ‘revolt.’

Why? Because it should be up to the voters.

primaries are run by the parties. they have little to do with voting rights.

now if the supreme court appointed your president....

oh wait......

 

[jillian]

People finally see the GOP for the corrupt fascists that they are .

unlike your Hillary

she is an angel....

a fallen angel ..that is

okie dokie

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

It was never up to the voters to decide to begin with. Why should they ‘revolt.’

Why? Because it should be up to the voters.

primaries are run by the parties. they have little to do with voting rights.

now if the supreme court appointed your president....

oh wait......

Back to that again? Do you need my factcheck links to prove you are wrong as usual?

If primaries are run by the party and not the voters, then WTF is the sense of having voters participate in the first place? Tell people there is no voting so we don't waste our time and let them pick who they want.

By allowing people of the party to vote, they give us the impression that what we desire really matters. And in my opinion, primaries are the most important vote since it tells the parties which direction the constituents wish to go.

On the Republican side (so far) we are telling our party we are sick of professional politicians and want a change. On the Democrat side, they wish to have a potential criminal or Socialist represent their points of view. Your current President was endorsed by the US Communist Party Both elections, and Sanders spent his honeymoon in the USSR. That's where your people want your party to go.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

It was never up to the voters to decide to begin with. Why should they ‘revolt.’

Why? Because it should be up to the voters.

No, the GOP is a private organization, at liberty to decide its nominee as it sees fit, in any manner it sees fit, where neither government nor the voters can dictate to a private organization as to its membership, or in the case of a political party, who its nominee might be.

Remember that the primary process is relatively new – for decades the GOP didn’t start the nomination process until the convention itself, with the attending delegates alone voting on who the nominee might be.

Who will be a governor of a given state or who will occupy a given seat in the US Senate is for the voters to decide, determining who will serve in elected office and act in the official capacity of government.

But nominating a presidential candidate is the sole responsibility of the private political party, not subject to the will of the voters or government.

 

[sonic]

 

[percysunshine]

It was never up to the voters to decide to begin with. Why should they ‘revolt.’

Why? Because it should be up to the voters.

No, the GOP is a private organization, at liberty to decide its nominee as it sees fit, in any manner it sees fit, where neither government nor the voters can dictate to a private organization as to its membership, or in the case of a political party, who its nominee might be.

Remember that the primary process is relatively new – for decades the GOP didn’t start the nomination process until the convention itself, with the attending delegates alone voting on who the nominee might be.

Who will be a governor of a given state or who will occupy a given seat in the US Senate is for the voters to decide, determining who will serve in elected office and act in the official capacity of government.

But nominating a presidential candidate is the sole responsibility of the private political party, not subject to the will of the voters or government.

Well, of course, if 'The Donald' turns out to be trans-gendered, the GOP could be forced to nominate him/her.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

It was never up to the voters to decide to begin with. Why should they ‘revolt.’

Why? Because it should be up to the voters.

No, the GOP is a private organization, at liberty to decide its nominee as it sees fit, in any manner it sees fit, where neither government nor the voters can dictate to a private organization as to its membership, or in the case of a political party, who its nominee might be.

Remember that the primary process is relatively new – for decades the GOP didn’t start the nomination process until the convention itself, with the attending delegates alone voting on who the nominee might be.

Who will be a governor of a given state or who will occupy a given seat in the US Senate is for the voters to decide, determining who will serve in elected office and act in the official capacity of government.

But nominating a presidential candidate is the sole responsibility of the private political party, not subject to the will of the voters or government.

So once again, I ask: Why have voters of the party participate in the first place? If our view is not respected or considered, then why waste our time????

 

[Steven_R]

now if the supreme court appointed your president....

oh wait......

The same thing happened in 1876 and 1888. Sometimes the popular vote doesn't match the electoral college vote. Unfortunately, having the electoral college is the best solution to make sure every state gets a say in who becomes president and not just the high population ones (California...I'm looking at you).