Delegates....a rigged system?

[Iceweasel]

Okay, I am going to personally address this question and discuss it, but I've been really busy for most of this afternoon and evening, and I'm honestly too tired to put that together. So I will come back tomorrow and pursue this. Meanwhile, I will provide this:

A National Primary Wouldn't Work - US News

A single national primary day is a bad idea, but having national standards for primaries and every state having a primary long with other states of the same region and staggering those dates with a different regional order each election that is a great idea. I think it was CandyCorn that first posted it on another thread, though I'm sure she got the idea from somewhere else.

I would add to this that there be no contributions or ads favoring a candidate legal by any for-profit corporations. Get the corporate money out of the system and most of this will right itself.

Again, NOT the government's business what private organizations do, nor should it be. The very idea that you're suggesting the federal government needs to extend its overreach and overcontrol into even more is repugnant.

But you refuse to acknowledge the cozy relationship the parties have with government. They are private but what they do is control public policy to a very large degree.

No, we don't need more of the same, we need to get the big money, unions and corporations, out of politics as much as possible. and it would be a good start to change the laws to allow the people to pick the delegates, instead of party insiders.

Limiting government by expanding it's powers to regulate private organizations. Now there's an idea that's every bit as crazy as it sounds ...

And we've seen what money does to politics. It isn't shrinking government. At all.

 

[kaz]

Okay, I am going to personally address this question and discuss it, but I've been really busy for most of this afternoon and evening, and I'm honestly too tired to put that together. So I will come back tomorrow and pursue this. Meanwhile, I will provide this:

A National Primary Wouldn't Work - US News

A single national primary day is a bad idea, but having national standards for primaries and every state having a primary long with other states of the same region and staggering those dates with a different regional order each election that is a great idea. I think it was CandyCorn that first posted it on another thread, though I'm sure she got the idea from somewhere else.

I would add to this that there be no contributions or ads favoring a candidate legal by any for-profit corporations. Get the corporate money out of the system and most of this will right itself.

Again, NOT the government's business what private organizations do, nor should it be. The very idea that you're suggesting the federal government needs to extend its overreach and overcontrol into even more is repugnant.

But you refuse to acknowledge the cozy relationship the parties have with government. They are private but what they do is control public policy to a very large degree.

No, we don't need more of the same, we need to get the big money, unions and corporations, out of politics as much as possible. and it would be a good start to change the laws to allow the people to pick the delegates, instead of party insiders.

Limiting government by expanding it's powers to regulate private organizations. Now there's an idea that's every bit as crazy as it sounds ...

And we've seen what money does to politics. It isn't shrinking government. At all.

Yes, the solution is to shrink government, not expand it's powers. And seriously, you want Democrats to set the rules for the Republican nomination process? Republicans are weak and pathetic and constantly roll over, Democrats would rule like they do everywhere else

 

[hadit]

Of course the process is rigged. The sad thing is, EVERY candidate knew that going in, so to cry foul now just looks like sour grapes. Bernie KNEW that Hillary was picked by the party and that he had no true fair shot. Same with Trump. The difference being that Trump actually has a shot at beating the establishment while Bernie doesn't.

 

[hadit]

A single national primary day is a bad idea, but having national standards for primaries and every state having a primary long with other states of the same region and staggering those dates with a different regional order each election that is a great idea. I think it was CandyCorn that first posted it on another thread, though I'm sure she got the idea from somewhere else.

I would add to this that there be no contributions or ads favoring a candidate legal by any for-profit corporations. Get the corporate money out of the system and most of this will right itself.

Again, NOT the government's business what private organizations do, nor should it be. The very idea that you're suggesting the federal government needs to extend its overreach and overcontrol into even more is repugnant.

But you refuse to acknowledge the cozy relationship the parties have with government. They are private but what they do is control public policy to a very large degree.

No, we don't need more of the same, we need to get the big money, unions and corporations, out of politics as much as possible. and it would be a good start to change the laws to allow the people to pick the delegates, instead of party insiders.

Limiting government by expanding it's powers to regulate private organizations. Now there's an idea that's every bit as crazy as it sounds ...

And we've seen what money does to politics. It isn't shrinking government. At all.

Yes, the solution is to shrink government, not expand it's powers. And seriously, you want Democrats to set the rules for the Republican nomination process? Republicans are weak and pathetic and constantly roll over, Democrats would rule like they do everywhere else

Funny thing is, democrats want the status quo, where Republicans produce reliably weak candidates who don't like to get in the mud where democrats fight.

 

[JimBowie1958]

Of course the process is rigged. The sad thing is, EVERY candidate knew that going in, so to cry foul now just looks like sour grapes. Bernie KNEW that Hillary was picked by the party and that he had no true fair shot. Same with Trump. The difference being that Trump actually has a shot at beating the establishment while Bernie doesn't.

The problem is that cynical realism should not disuade us from demanding ideal behavior in our system.

We, the American Middle Class, stopped doing that with the various scandals that have been publicized since Watergate, and now we have allowed things to get out of hand and we are paying the price for that with a firmly established Corporate Crony Network that robs the federal treeaury of hundreds of billions of dollars every year, and stole literally Trillions with the 'recovery' from the subprime mortgage crash.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Another example of how our primary system is rigged.

Trump had won the 7th districts vote, but the Cruz slimeballs wanted to steal the delegate slots with fraudulent Trump delegates.

Trump Supporters Walk Out of Georgia Delegate Fight After Party Picks Cruz Supporter...'Uproar in the Hall' - Breitbart

A Cruz-Rubio alliance at the district convention in Buford, Georgia helped to knock Trump supporters out of the district’s national delegation altogether. Cruz supporters implied that Trump’s people would “embarrass” the district at the convention in Cleveland. Then things got heated.

“This morning, I attended Georgia 7th Congressional District GOP convention as a delegate and a Donald Trump supporter. We were there to elect the 3 delegates and 3 alternates to the national convention,” Ronnie Kurtz told Breitbart News. “Per the primary results, two slots were for Trump, and one was for Rubio.
Ted Cruz finished third in the primary and had no delegates allotted to him…Nonetheless, the hall was stacked with Cruz delegates.”....

So on the next ballot it came time to replace one or all of those delegates with new people. The Cruz supporters managed to knock out Dooley, the one Trump supporter. Kurtz described what happened:

When it came time for nominations from the floor, the Cruz bloc, which I believe had the numbers to install whoever they wanted, did not challenge the Rubio delegate. Only the true Trump supporter, Debbie Dooley, was challenged. Two Cruz supporters argued in favor of their alternative delegate, a Mr. David Hancock, on the premise that he had ‘been in the party from the beginning’ and ‘wouldn’t embarrass us at the convention.’ The convention was given no time to ask questions of the candidates on the basis that ‘the nominating committee has already interviewed them for you’. The Cruz people succeeded in voting in their delegate over Trump’s Debbie Dooley.

So, completely ignoring the state GOP bylaws that state that Trump should have gotten two of those delegates, the Cruz people elected two people who were fake Trump delegates, which is fraud, no matter how universal the practice may be.

We need national standards for primaries and all delegate allotment based on the results of the primaries with a uniform and reasonable method.

Maybe we can get Trump to stop whining like a little *****. "Unfair!"

I can see Trump being at a Yankees game and screaming that 'stealing a base' is unfair.

What is up with your constant whines? What is your excuse?

I'd like to know where he gets off saying the delegates have been "bought"? Does he have any evidence of Cruz and his campaign "buying" votes with anything other than showing up, paying attention to them, and making them feel like their support actually mattered, something Donny Boy can't be bothered to do? If I were a delegate, I'd be suing Trump for slander and defamation of character.

The truth is, Trump resents the whole idea that he should "lower" himself to doing anything other than having a big flashy rally with some vague slogans and buzzwords and lots of cheering for him. He finds the idea of treating other people as important to be degrading. The nerve of them, thinking he should actually have to communicate with them and convince them to support him, instead of understanding that they should feel honored to be gifted with the opportunity to support him.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Should American's (registered voters) be denied their vote be it via caucus or straight vote primary? Yes or no?

As long as Parties are able to make up rules each year it's not democratic. Congress should set the rules for both Parties, and should fund the election.

No. No, they shouldn't. We have no need for the government to usurp even more control of the lives and choices of individuals.

 

[Cecilie1200]

The parties get taxpayer funding in the general hence the corrupt bastards are not free to do whatever the hell they want.

The candidates get funding, not the parties. The parties don't control the money, the candidate does. Can the government control your business if one of your investors gets welfare?

Dear God, don't give them ideas.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Should American's (registered voters) be denied their vote be it via caucus or straight vote primary? Yes or no?

As long as Parties are able to make up rules each year it's not democratic. Congress should set the rules for both Parties, and should fund the election.

the candidates do not represent they government. they represent the parties. the parties used to just appoint candidates and people had zero say.

The people have a Constitutional right to vote for their representatives in government. Anything impeding that right should be illegal, whether it's a Superdelegate system, or making people jump through hoops to be able to vote, or limiting the number of places to vote.

Sorry, but the people DO get to vote for their representatives in government. How people are presented to campaign to BE that representative is something else entirely, and does not need government interference.

 

[HUGGY]

You know...I have never tally'd up a list of the thousands of thanks and agree's. It just happens. Maybe it's just because I make sense at times. You do realize that we here are for the most part AMERICANS.. right? It isn't a crime to agree with another American if what they say is party neutral and good for the country.

If you choose to have some on going witch hunt over who you think is faking a party affiliation as if it really matters then by all means have a good time. It's your picknic. To me the only real tale of the tape is how one votes. Whining about the results is crying over spilt milk. By THEN it is too late. If you HATE every American that votes dem then get your ass out there and push for the GOP house to house. You will accomplish much more that way than wasting your time bitching at me.

I think it's pretty disproportionately left and you'd admit that if you were honest. So think about it, the party that you hate, who fucked you and your family, the people who continue to strongly support that policy, they are thanking you for continually agreeing with them. Remind me to not worry about you getting pissed at me ...

OK I am starting to understand that you are a paranoid schizophrenic. You obviously cannot help yourself.

My complaints with the current and recent(2-3 decades) direction taken by the GOP what with the fundamental christian over reaching and the systematic ass kissing of so called U S corporations which are in fact multi nationals has drawn some actual libs to thank some of my posts. They probably do so misunderstanding me the same way you do thinking any crumb they come across is a trail to a goldmine.

Many of my posts are/have been generally about the need to support American manufacturers and the survival of American business and American jobs. For the last couple of decades I have been involved with machining so I have a particular hard on against out sourcing and the destruction of U S manufacturing businesses and jobs. Having been a farm boy I have been very much against 3M and their destruction of family farming by patenting and prosecuting accidental cross planting. It is deplorable as it is intended to force compliance to buy their seed product. I get thanks from many sources for many reasons. Stop trying to bully me into accepting your accusations as true. Just keep it between yourself and your psychiatrist.

You're not contradicting me yet again. Democrats fucked you. Then the SC said the Florida SC had to follow their own laws. Then you said, WTF, I'm a socialist! Give me my way! I'm going to endlessly support the people I hate who sole my family's legacy by supporting the people who support the policy that did that!

Wow, you are a Republican ...

It is clear that you have no idea how crazy your posts are. "WTF, I'm a socialist Give me my way! I'm going to endlessly support the people I hate who sole my family's legacy by supporting the people who support the policy that did that! " ???

I don't "endlessly" support anyone or any thing. I take things as they come and as they are. I used to support Dubya and his dad. Then as their actions were proven to be nearly the end of ours and the world's financial system and the wars and the talking to god and on and on I had to be realistic and reject what I once thought to be honorable and good for America.

Now DON"T go off the deep end. That does NOT mean I had to run over to the dems and sign up. It just means as my faith applied to the Bush's I felt betrayed. Since I have NEVER voted democratic they are not so much of a problem.. I just say no. I certainly don't take the GOP for granted anymore. My general trust in them has vanished. If they want my vote they need to be transparent and telling the truth and stop talking crazy like the Donald. Otherwise I won't waste my time voting.

For me to vote for Trump he would have to publicly admit his thoughts on the huge wall are nonsense. Congress will not pay for this wall no matter how the Donald attempts to sell it. Getting Mexico to pay for the wall in advance is about as likely as something not likely at all. But THAT is the only way this super wall would ever be financed. Remember Elliot Ahbrams telling us that Iraqi oil would pay for the invasion? Fool me once...yada yada yada

Another position from you, another agreement with the Democrats. And the wall is way cheaper than not building it. The people thanking you tell you what you are, and you sure aren't getting thanks from Republicans

Again with the obsession. I have made it clear and for good reason that cannot be argued why I hate the dems and how I came to be a republican in the footsteps of my dad and his dad before him.

How is it that you have decided that any kind of republican other than the one in your imagination deserves no voice?

Is it supposed to bother me that a handful of progressives agree with a few of the views I bring to USMB? You must think the republican mind weak that they can only parrot what the leadership offers as opinion. What has this mindset achieved for our nation? This mindless rudeness and name calling is supposed to enlist co-operation in dealing with the nation's business?

You talk about the "hand waiving". Just what in hell do you think the GOP leadership is doing? God, gays and guns and nothing else is NOTHING else but hand waiving. Hey! Look at me! I hate gays! My god has all the answers! Obama will take away your guns! Really? I still have mine... probably a presidential oversight.

I think what you represent is the intolerance of the GOP even distant from the party you are here to sell it's worst attributes. Highly amusing.

 

[Cecilie1200]

The parties get taxpayer funding in the general hence the corrupt bastards are not free to do whatever the hell they want.

The candidates get funding, not the parties. The parties don't control the money, the candidate does. Can the government control your business if one of your investors gets welfare?

Since the party controls the candidate and the candidate is bought and paid for by the party, well there you have it.

Well, wow, that's your opinion, clearly a justification for government to take over parties and tell them how to operate. Due process schmu process

Why shouldn't Congress set rules for the Parties who are currently in control of a Constitutional right?

What would be your reaction if there was a group not specified in the Constitution controlling who gets a gun or not, based solely on their whims?

There's no Constitutional right, or any legal right, involved in who private organizations present for the consideration of the voters. And I dare you to show me anything in the Constitution that says otherwise, or even MENTIONS political parties and their primaries.

 

[Cecilie1200]

The parties get taxpayer funding in the general hence the corrupt bastards are not free to do whatever the hell they want.

The candidates get funding, not the parties. The parties don't control the money, the candidate does. Can the government control your business if one of your investors gets welfare?

Since the party controls the candidate and the candidate is bought and paid for by the party, well there you have it.

Well, wow, that's your opinion, clearly a justification for government to take over parties and tell them how to operate. Due process schmu process

And seriously, Blues, the politicians who run the parties you want to fix are the ones who run government, and you trust them to fix the parties. I never get when another conservative succumbs to the idea that government is capable of fixing anything. No matter how broken it is, government is more broken. But you trust them to give them the power to solve it. Completely insane. Look up Einstein's definition of insanity if you don't already know it

If someone is suggesting that the solution to a problem is even more government control, I become very suspicious of any claim that that person is a conservative.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Maybe we can get Trump to stop whining like a little *****. "Unfair!"

Maybe we can get Trump-haters to stop whining about things they only imagine?

If we ever start doing that, we'll certainly discuss it.

 

[bendog]

Another example of how our primary system is rigged.

Trump had won the 7th districts vote, but the Cruz slimeballs wanted to steal the delegate slots with fraudulent Trump delegates.

Trump Supporters Walk Out of Georgia Delegate Fight After Party Picks Cruz Supporter...'Uproar in the Hall' - Breitbart

A Cruz-Rubio alliance at the district convention in Buford, Georgia helped to knock Trump supporters out of the district’s national delegation altogether. Cruz supporters implied that Trump’s people would “embarrass” the district at the convention in Cleveland. Then things got heated.

“This morning, I attended Georgia 7th Congressional District GOP convention as a delegate and a Donald Trump supporter. We were there to elect the 3 delegates and 3 alternates to the national convention,” Ronnie Kurtz told Breitbart News. “Per the primary results, two slots were for Trump, and one was for Rubio.
Ted Cruz finished third in the primary and had no delegates allotted to him…Nonetheless, the hall was stacked with Cruz delegates.”....

So on the next ballot it came time to replace one or all of those delegates with new people. The Cruz supporters managed to knock out Dooley, the one Trump supporter. Kurtz described what happened:

When it came time for nominations from the floor, the Cruz bloc, which I believe had the numbers to install whoever they wanted, did not challenge the Rubio delegate. Only the true Trump supporter, Debbie Dooley, was challenged. Two Cruz supporters argued in favor of their alternative delegate, a Mr. David Hancock, on the premise that he had ‘been in the party from the beginning’ and ‘wouldn’t embarrass us at the convention.’ The convention was given no time to ask questions of the candidates on the basis that ‘the nominating committee has already interviewed them for you’. The Cruz people succeeded in voting in their delegate over Trump’s Debbie Dooley.

So, completely ignoring the state GOP bylaws that state that Trump should have gotten two of those delegates, the Cruz people elected two people who were fake Trump delegates, which is fraud, no matter how universal the practice may be.

We need national standards for primaries and all delegate allotment based on the results of the primaries with a uniform and reasonable method.

Maybe we can get Trump to stop whining like a little *****. "Unfair!"

I can see Trump being at a Yankees game and screaming that 'stealing a base' is unfair.

What is up with your constant whines? What is your excuse?

I'd like to know where he gets off saying the delegates have been "bought"? Does he have any evidence of Cruz and his campaign "buying" votes with anything other than showing up, paying attention to them, and making them feel like their support actually mattered, something Donny Boy can't be bothered to do? If I were a delegate, I'd be suing Trump for slander and defamation of character.

The truth is, Trump resents the whole idea that he should "lower" himself to doing anything other than having a big flashy rally with some vague slogans and buzzwords and lots of cheering for him. He finds the idea of treating other people as important to be degrading. The nerve of them, thinking he should actually have to communicate with them and convince them to support him, instead of understanding that they should feel honored to be gifted with the opportunity to support him.

Yeah, it's more than a little ironic that Trump's making an argument that Wyoming's delegates should belong to them, when Wyoming is home to the tea party, small govt (even from the dems), where even the dems are armed, and libertarians. BUT, the system is rigged when delegates are not tied to what the actual vote was in a primary or caucus. Colorado's gop party had a valid point that if all your delegates were tied to a candidate early on, and the candidate dropped out, your state is screwed as far as being part of the nomination process. But the answer to that could be accomplished if the natl gop would amend their rules to release all delegates if a candidate drops out or suspends his/her campaign.

 

[Iceweasel]

Sorry, but the people DO get to vote for their representatives in government. How people are presented to campaign to BE that representative is something else entirely, and does not need government interference.

Oh, so the party is the people's representative. Glad we got that settled.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Okay, I am going to personally address this question and discuss it, but I've been really busy for most of this afternoon and evening, and I'm honestly too tired to put that together. So I will come back tomorrow and pursue this. Meanwhile, I will provide this:

A National Primary Wouldn't Work - US News

A single national primary day is a bad idea, but having national standards for primaries and every state having a primary long with other states of the same region and staggering those dates with a different regional order each election that is a great idea. I think it was CandyCorn that first posted it on another thread, though I'm sure she got the idea from somewhere else.

I would add to this that there be no contributions or ads favoring a candidate legal by any for-profit corporations. Get the corporate money out of the system and most of this will right itself.

Again, NOT the government's business what private organizations do, nor should it be. The very idea that you're suggesting the federal government needs to extend its overreach and overcontrol into even more is repugnant.

I am suggesting CITIZENS take action. The only action I would suggest the government take is to get their damn hands out of my pockets and stop using my tax dollars to pay for these 'private orgaizations' candidate selection 'frat parties'!

Yes, what we need to do is make it impossible for anyone but the news media, the campaigns, and the candidates to disseminate any information or opinions about the election. Because 1) we all know what a stellar history all those entities have for unbiased honesty and 2) **** that whole "First Amendment" thing. Everyone knows that exists for the purposes of porn, and only applies to certain people.

By the way, the governments contribute financially to campaigns primarily for the purpose of making the election system more accessible by lesser-known candidates, so that it's not dominated by entrenched politicians. But hell, we WANT to make the system favor the incumbents even more, right? THAT will fix things.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Okay, I am going to personally address this question and discuss it, but I've been really busy for most of this afternoon and evening, and I'm honestly too tired to put that together. So I will come back tomorrow and pursue this. Meanwhile, I will provide this:

A National Primary Wouldn't Work - US News

A single national primary day is a bad idea, but having national standards for primaries and every state having a primary long with other states of the same region and staggering those dates with a different regional order each election that is a great idea. I think it was CandyCorn that first posted it on another thread, though I'm sure she got the idea from somewhere else.

I would add to this that there be no contributions or ads favoring a candidate legal by any for-profit corporations. Get the corporate money out of the system and most of this will right itself.

Again, NOT the government's business what private organizations do, nor should it be. The very idea that you're suggesting the federal government needs to extend its overreach and overcontrol into even more is repugnant.

I am suggesting CITIZENS take action. The only action I would suggest the government take is to get their damn hands out of my pockets and stop using my tax dollars to pay for these 'private orgaizations' candidate selection 'frat parties'!

I believe there are legitimate arguments for why the government should be paying for parts of the election process. But I will cede a point to you: The people should be debating when, how, and if it should be done; and also the way it is done, or even it it should be done.

Well, and we CAN discuss and debate it. And should. We're fully capable of lobbying whichever government it is to make changes to how they contribute money to the election process. That's the reason why the First Amendment guarantees us the right to petition the government for redress of grievances.

It would help tremendously if people would actually become informed and think about WHY the current policies are in place, though, instead of just kneejerking to an emotional reaction.

 

[HUGGY]

Maybe as a curiosity. Look, shit happens in war and sometimes even in peace that is difficult to pin down and diagram as if we could get all the facts anyway. Sometimes the truth is just too elusive. If it pleases you to go to your grave pursuing that event to some finite detail, go for it. If she lied to cover hers or Obama's ass then that's what happened. I know ONE thing for a fact that our ambassador dug his own grave by not planting his *** ass in the EMBASSY guarded by he Marines. If you think for some reason that we could have saved the stupid **** then PROVE IT.. No wait! Don't bother on my account. Stupid people die in bad places. I don't give a rat's ass about him.

So if I can "prove" that they could have saved the Ambassador, then we can investigate it? Seriously? It's highly relevant if for political reasons they didn't try, which certainly appears to have been the case. In the end, it appears to have been managed horribly, but there don't seem to have been any crimes committed, other than the Administration covering it up ...

"So if I can "prove" that they could have saved the Ambassador, then we can investigate it?"

You REALLY do have problems with basic understanding of the English language don't you. No! What I meant for you to understand is that you should go ahead and investigate it to your heart's content. When and if you find something worth the general public knowing then by all means report it. If your enthusiasm for this "mission" is just speculation please try to stay out from under people's feet. Your "tin foil hat" is not some special entitlement to bring everyone's/anyone's life to a grinding halt. There have already been several congressional hearings on the matter. Not enough? I am more than satisfied that enough energy and resources have been consumed on this matter.

You say "no" then confirm what I said ...

I say "no" because you got it backwards. You do that a lot.

No, you keep repeating that if we can prove it was murder, then we can investigate it, after we prove it was a crime.

What about the lamest controversy ever, "yellowcake." That one never made sense even if you believed everything the Democrats said. Just a few.

- Bush said THE BRITISH reported it, a claim they stood by. What "lie" was there in the first place?

- Why would the Bush administration send anyone to investigate Bush's statement? Why would they send anyone to investigate a claim where they didn't know what it was based on?

- And if they did, why would they send a partisan Democrat?

- How can you disprove a claim you don't know what it was based on?

- How were lives endangered by a woman who told people in the media (e.g., DEMOCRAT Tim Russert) she worked for the CIA?

WTF? The whole thing was just flat out lame, it didn't even make sense. Was that a waste of money too? Or did we need to nail the SOB W to the wall for lying us into a war?

"No, you keep repeating that if we can prove it was murder, then we can investigate it, after we prove it was a crime."

The congressional committees have already determined that there was no crime. That is unless you believe that the GOP was hiding something. How many investigations were there anyway? I lost count a long time ago.

I clearly did not suggest that WE call for another investigation. I clearly said YOU can go on investigating until you are blue in the face. When/if you come with something incriminating murder/bad taste in pants suits ..whatever please bring it forward. I'm sure Paul Ryan is waiting on the edge of his chair in anticipation.

Now! Can you turn your attention to the OP? Or is that too difficult?

I found the RNC chair's statements on Meet The Press enlightening to say the least and maybe a tad to restrained. He should have just told the Donald to shut the **** up.

Trump is STILL whining about the rules. Can you imagine a Trump arguing with other countries over "the rules" in negotiations with our friends and enemies?

I see the media pundits visibly shaking their heads attempting to take Trump seriously. What Donald? You don't know the rules? And you want to be president?

Now Cruz will be jostled from his perch over the lying about what he did or didn't hear Swanson say(at the top of his lungs) at the gay hate conference Cruz attended. Rules or no rules we have some seriously flawed candidates. Will anyone be left standing by the time the convention rolls around?

Fortunately there is such a thing as a contested convention because it appears they will need some type of orderly way to reboot the presidential candidate selection.

 

[Cecilie1200]

The candidates get funding, not the parties. The parties don't control the money, the candidate does. Can the government control your business if one of your investors gets welfare?

Since the party controls the candidate and the candidate is bought and paid for by the party, well there you have it.

Well, wow, that's your opinion, clearly a justification for government to take over parties and tell them how to operate. Due process schmu process

Why shouldn't Congress set rules for the Parties who are currently in control of a Constitutional right?

Parties are in control of a "Constitutional right?" What does that mean?

What would be your reaction if there was a group not specified in the Constitution controlling who gets a gun or not, based solely on their whims?

To be a relevant analogy, the parties would have to control whether you get to vote in the general election or not. The parties themselves aren't government, you don't get to control them

Parties are not in charge / control of Constitutional rights. They can not prevent you from voting in the GENERAL election, but they can prevent you from voting in their party primary process. It was just done in 2 states.

No it wasn't. Both Colorado and Wyoming had precinct-level caucuses open to any registered Republicans. In the case of Wyoming, it's the exact same system they've been using since forever. In Colorado, the only thing different is that they didn't hold a non-binding state-wide straw poll. The allocation of delegates by representatives has never been a particular issue in either state before now, when suddenly, people have been frothed up by a lazy candidate who resents the notion that he should have to work for support.

 

[Cecilie1200]

The candidates get funding, not the parties. The parties don't control the money, the candidate does. Can the government control your business if one of your investors gets welfare?

Since the party controls the candidate and the candidate is bought and paid for by the party, well there you have it.

Well, wow, that's your opinion, clearly a justification for government to take over parties and tell them how to operate. Due process schmu process

Why shouldn't Congress set rules for the Parties who are currently in control of a Constitutional right?

Parties are in control of a "Constitutional right?" What does that mean?

What would be your reaction if there was a group not specified in the Constitution controlling who gets a gun or not, based solely on their whims?

To be a relevant analogy, the parties would have to control whether you get to vote in the general election or not. The parties themselves aren't government, you don't get to control them

According to you, voters don't get to decide the nominees from the two Parties? They only have a right to choose between two people that private organizations have chosen?

No, there are always more than two choices on the Presidential ballot. I've been voting since I was 18, and I've NEVER seen a ballot that didn't have at least four people listed.

That people are willing to view it as a two-party race is THEIR choice. No one's stopping them from voting for someone else, writing someone in, forming a group to put forward their own candidate, etc. The idea that people have a right to assume for themselves the benefits of other people's time and effort is . . . very leftist, like everything else you say.