Trump Supporters Walk Out of Georgia Delegate Fight After Party Picks Cruz Supporter…’Uproar in the Hall’

[libertybele]

Don't you get it, libertybele??  To the whining crowd it is the RULES that are "unethical."

Any RULE or LAW that hurts little Donnie isn't fair.  The world must bow to little Donnie, because he wants to be king.

As in any Rule of Law such as our Constitution.  I would expect him to disregard the Constitution just like the current administration because it doesn't suit his agenda. Certainly he would place justices on the SCOTUS who fit his liberal ideals.

[HonestJohn]

Don't you get it, libertybele??  To the whining crowd it is the RULES that are "unethical."

Any RULE or LAW that hurts little Donnie isn't fair.  The world must bow to little Donnie, because he wants to be king.

That's a good point. 

It's in the same vein as his desire to make it easier to sue anyone for libel.  IE: anything to make it easier to take revenge against those that do not worship him.

[musiclady]

As in any Rule of Law such as our Constitution.  I would expect him to disregard the Constitution just like the current administration because it doesn't suit his agenda. Certainly he would place justices on the SCOTUS who fit his liberal ideals.

Exactly.  Since Trump completely disregards any rule that doesn't suit his personal needs, there is no reason in the world to expect him to follow the Law of the land written in the Constitution.

In addition, he has given no evidence....... NONE............. that he has ever even looked at the Constitution, let alone read it, studied it, and understood it.

The danger of giving Trump power is just as severe as having given Obama power.

[HonestJohn]

Some of us work and have no time to clean up the puerile vomitings of childish minds.

The NEXT one of you to degenerate a thread like this gets an extended posting vacation. To be absolutely clear, that means a-lert, bill, paladin, frank. And by extended I mean a month. Not a slap on the wrist time out.

Thread cleaned and unlocked.

Degenerates?  How insulting to the posters of this forum.  You are a cad!

 

[Wingnut]

Degenerates?

 

 

Hey.....I resemble that remark.   

[ABX]

My Trump baby pictures were within the rules.  I get to insult the candidate.  Or at least I thought I could.  I guess it depends on who is doing the moderating.

Here is the deal knowing those who moderate here. They want this site to be so much more than just another forum where people scream at each other. There really is the desire to make this a hub of Conservative information and activism. It is one of the reasons for the big push for people to write original content. The feeling is there is a strong brain trust here if people focus it. Sometimes the moderation is to try to get what should be a good thread on an important topic, back on track. We have had a lot of media eyes on this site when people actually get into digging and research on a topic. Drudge has retweeted us several times, at least one of Rush's staff is a member here that we have confirmed, and we have the eyes and followers from some major players.

We don't want that derailed turning into an FR-2 that loses the respect it may have once had because of infighting.

If you believe strongly in something, write a unique article of your own, defend it with facts and evidence.

We have some threads for political graphics and humor like the crying Donald, and yes, sometimes humorous graphics are appropriate, but make sure they don't steer the conversation to Jr. High level.

IE, put your best foot forward.

[mystery-ak]

Thanks Ab couldn't have said it better myself.

[HonestJohn]

I'd have to say that, for any moderated forum to succeed, it's vital that any moderator/administrator keep up the appearance of impartiality.

The moment that the members of a forum sense that favoritism, it all goes to heck.

[mystery-ak]

I'd have to say that, for any moderated forum to succeed, it's vital that any moderator/administrator keep up the appearance of impartiality.

The moment that the members of a forum sense that favoritism, it all goes to heck.

I know this...We strive to not let our own partiality show, although it is difficult at times....but all in all I think we do a pretty fair job.

[DCPatriot]

I'd have to say that, for any moderated forum to succeed, it's vital that any moderator/administrator keep up the appearance of impartiality.

The moment that the members of a forum sense that favoritism, it all goes to heck.

The very fact this site has changed from what it was 10 months ago is all the evidence one  needs in seeking evidence of impartiality. 

 

I hope we can all come together behind the Nominee...no matter WHO it may be.       

And I hope the overall tone of the conversation in here will reflect that.                           

[Jackson]

The FACT is that voters were disenfranchised. Its embarrassing that people who call themselves Republicans would be OK with such a thing. No...check that...its disgusting. Worse, all of this unethical behavior is for nothing, as Trump is STILL going to be the nominee. But it DOES show just how ethically unfit Ted Cruz is for the Presidency...any man willing to disenfranchise voters does not deserve to be in the White House. And if the rules allow it, the rules might as well say the votes of Jews or African Americans or Women do not count...the mere fact of being a rule, does not make that rule ethical. In this case, it clearly is not.

NO voters were disenfranchised. Georgia voters got exactly what they voted for in the primary: a certain number of delegates pledged to vote for Donald Trump on the first ballot. Thats what the election was for, and the result will be respected. The selection of the actual delegates is a separate process, one that apparently is beyond the comprehension of the Trump supporters and maybe even Trump himself, but which is entirely normal, historical, and important.

For a self-proclaimed successful businessman, Trump seems to pay precious little for the nitty-gritty work required to win. I think Trump is less a winner and more of a bully and self-entitled pr*ck.

[mystery-ak]

The very fact this site has changed from what it was 10 months ago is all the evidence one  needs in seeking evidence of impartiality. 

 

I hope we can all come together behind the Nominee...no matter WHO it may be.       

And I hope the overall tone of the conversation in here will reflect that.                           

My hope as well....

[Formerly Once-Ler]

No..."Those that come in through the door...those that come through the window."     

I believe there are only 2 kinds of people...
#1 those who finish lists
#2

[DCPatriot]

I believe there are only 2 kinds of people...
#1 those who finish lists
#2

[Wingnut]

I believe there are only 2 kinds of people...
#1 those who finish lists
#2

Knock Knock.

[Formerly Once-Ler]

Knock Knock.

Who's there?

[Wingnut]

Who's there?

www.youtube.com/watch?v=5LpgxHS1D5E

Sniff sniff.   

[Bill Cipher]

NO voters were disenfranchised. Georgia voters got exactly what they voted for in the primary: a certain number of delegates pledged to vote for Donald Trump on the first ballot. Thats what the election was for, and the result will be respected. The selection of the actual delegates is a separate process, one that apparently is beyond the comprehension of the Trump supporters and maybe even Trump himself, but which is entirely normal, historical, and important.

For a self-proclaimed successful businessman, Trump seems to pay precious little for the nitty-gritty work required to win. I think Trump is less a winner and more of a bully and self-entitled bleep.

[Bill Cipher]

NO voters were disenfranchised. Georgia voters got exactly what they voted for in the primary: a certain number of delegates pledged to vote for Donald Trump on the first ballot. Thats what the election was for, and the result will be respected. The selection of the actual delegates is a separate process, one that apparently is beyond the comprehension of the Trump supporters and maybe even Trump himself, but which is entirely normal, historical, and important.

For a self-proclaimed successful businessman, Trump seems to pay precious little for the nitty-gritty work required to win. I think Trump is less a winner and more of a bully and self-entitled bleep.

[Weird Tolkienish Figure]

The FACT is that voters were disenfranchised. Its embarrassing that people who call themselves Republicans would be OK with such a thing. No...check that...its disgusting. Worse, all of this unethical behavior is for nothing, as Trump is STILL going to be the nominee. But it DOES show just how ethically unfit Ted Cruz is for the Presidency...any man willing to disenfranchise voters does not deserve to be in the White House. And if the rules allow it, the rules might as well say the votes of Jews or African Americans or Women do not count...the mere fact of being a rule, does not make that rule ethical. In this case, it clearly is not.

They're not disenfranchised. Trump has to get to 1237, until he can do that, his votes mean jack squat. Period.

[AnybodyButaDem]

I don't think the Stupid Party could actually script Hillary Clinton becoming president if they tried.

Cruz went down a lot of notches in my book.  He could stand up and say that the delegates in each district should reflect the will of GOP voters.

I also think it's funny that some people think that Cruz has anything to do with this rigging of delegates.  He's basically a puppet at this point, and if the polling showed Cruz beats Trump without Kasich in the race, then Kasich would be long gone.

In the end, but Trump and Cruz will be screwed over, and Kasich will be the nominee.  Yay Amurrrrrrica!

[Weird Tolkienish Figure]

[Mesaclone]

Some people don't see caucus goers as people.  I guess rule following caucus goers are Martians.  And the whole delegate system must have been mind-melded into brains just to rob Trump of his entitlements.

No. Its not meant to rob Trump, its meant to rob any "outsider" candidate of which the Establishment disapproves. Nor is this about getting to 1237 or about whining because someone was outsmarted...its about a process designed to disenfranchise the actual votes cast by actual GOP voters. Or, in some cases, to completely bypass such a vote (and the will of the GOP voters entirely) by having a Byzantine process in which insiders caucus to have THEIR will imposed on GOP voters.

Rules can be just or unjust. Good Nazis followed the rules, for example. So hiding behind "the rules" as if simply being a rule made them just...is little more than a dodge for doing the wrong thing. Someone in this thread was foolish enough to equate such anti-voter rules with the US Constitution...unreal and sad for a host of reasons, not least because it denotes a horrific misunderstanding of what the Constitution is and stands for. Suffice it to say that the Constitution's rules are innately just, while this process is innately unjust...it is, in fact, a manifestation of the corruption that occurs when an entrenched establishment seeks to impose its will over that of the people (the people in this specific case being GOP voters).

What's pathetic, is that there are people here who applaud the disenfranchisement of fellow Republicans and citizens...even admire the crafty way in which the establishment, also known as Ted Cruz, conspires to take representation from them. For shame.

And FYI, nobody thinks caucus goers are Martians. In fact, what they ARE is not an issue at all...they are almost certainly good people. What they are NOT is representative of the will of the greater mass of GOP voters. And that is what matters.

[Weird Tolkienish Figure]

No. Its not meant to rob Trump, its meant to rob any "outsider" candidate of which the Establishment disapproves. Nor is this about getting to 1237 or about whining because someone was outsmarted...its about a process designed to disenfranchise the actual votes cast by actual GOP voters. Or, in some cases, to completely bypass such a vote (and the will of the GOP voters entirely) by having a Byzantine process in which insiders caucus to have THEIR will imposed on GOP voters.

Rules can be just or unjust. Good Nazis followed the rules, for example. So hiding behind "the rules" as if simply being a rule made them just...is little more than a dodge for doing the wrong thing. Someone in this thread was foolish enough to equate such anti-voter rules with the US Constitution...unreal and sad for a host of reasons, not least because it denotes a horrific misunderstanding of what the Constitution is and stands for. Suffice it to say that the Constitution's rules are innately just, while this process is innately unjust...it is, in fact, a manifestation of the corruption that occurs when an entrenched establishment seeks to impose its will over that of the people (the people in this specific case being GOP voters).

What's pathetic, is that there are people here who applaud the disenfranchisement of fellow Republicans and citizens...even admire the crafty way in which the establishment, also known as Ted Cruz, conspires to take representation from them. For shame.

And FYI, nobody thinks caucus goers are Martians. In fact, what they ARE is not an issue at all...they are almost certainly good people. What they are NOT is representative of the will of the greater mass of GOP voters. And that is what matters.

SO you think Al Gore should have been President in 2000? It was, after all, the will of the people? Why were all those poor Gore voters disenfranchised?

[Mesaclone]

SO you think Al Gore should have been President in 2000? It was, after all, the will of the people? Why were all those poor Gore voters disenfranchised?

Again, with confusing the Constitution...set up with great justice and foresight in mind...to keep small states relevant in the electoral process. So the voters were not disenfranchised, they were part of a constitutionally sanctioned process for electing a president. Comparing that with the Byzantine process setup by the GOP insiders to protect their power, is truly disgusting...more importantly, they are clearly in no way analogous. The first process being constitutional (by definition) and designed to protect voters, the second meant to override the will of the voters in favor of party insiders.