Not a Single Republican Delegate Is ‘Bound’ to Donald Trump

[r9etb]

Trump won 33 States, He won the delegates in them. Trump has won more delegates and more states with Manfort to ensure no stealth Cruz people creeped  in. Which by the way was no secret plan.

That's not the point, however.  The point is that a lot of "Trump's" delegates are actually supporters of other candidates; Cruz's ground game in Arizona and Washington, for example, ensured that most of the delegates in those states would prefer Cruz over Trump.

If the convention manages to find a way to get past the first ballot, then Trump is in very serious trouble. 

And the rest of us, and the entire country, will be immeasurably better off.

[Fantom]

Trump won 33 States, He won the delegates in them. Many were large number delegate states.  Manfort knows the delegate game and has been on with Trump since May. Now you prove Cruz's ground game was not negated like it was in PA for all the States Trump won since then. Its called math. Trump has won more delegates and more states with Manfort to ensure no stealth Cruz people creeped  in. Which by the way was no secret plan.

Well... here is just one State trump showed his incompetence in... http://www.politico.com/story/2016/04/donald-trump-ted-cruz-gop-delegates-222673

and this has been the norm....

[Fantom]

That's not the point, however.  The point is that a lot of "Trump's" delegates are actually supporters of other candidates; Cruz's ground game in Arizona and Washington, for example, ensured that most of the delegates in those states would prefer Cruz over Trump.

If the convention manages to find a way to get past the first ballot, then Trump is in very serious trouble. 

And the rest of us, and the entire country, will be immeasurably better off.

 

[RoosGirl]

Trump won 33 States, He won the delegates in them. Many were large number delegate states.  Manfort knows the delegate game and has been on with Trump since May. Now you prove Cruz's ground game was not negated like it was in PA for all the States Trump won since then. Its called math. Trump has won more delegates and more states with Manfort to ensure no stealth Cruz people creeped  in. Which by the way was no secret plan.

I would never try to prove anything about Cruz's ground game.  For one thing I made no such claims.  Why? Because there is no proof of it one way or the other right now.  You have no *proof* of what you are saying about Manafort collecting Trump delegates.  Perhaps you would be wise to think about the things you're saying and the way you are saying them.

For example, telling me on the thread earlier today that Hugh Hewitt said he was going to go to the RNC with the purpose of disrupting and protesting.  You still haven't provided proof of that. 

You are creating an integrity problem for yourself.

[Norm Lenhart]

I would never try to prove anything about Cruz's ground game.  For one thing I made no such claims.  Why? Because there is no proof of it one way or the other right now.  You have no *proof* of what you are saying about Manafort collecting Trump delegates.  Perhaps you would be wise to think about the things you're saying and the way you are saying them.

For example, telling me on the thread earlier today that Hugh Hewitt said he was going to go to the RNC with the purpose of disrupting and protesting.  You still haven't provided proof of that. 

You are creating an integrity problem for yourself.

Proof is in short supply where a Trump fanatic is concerned. Just yesterday I had one demand I stop 'threatening' him/her/whatever it is, because I said they could provide proof or I'd be happy to remind people they had not.

So in short, don't ever expect proof from propagandists. Expect them to follow the example of their leader. Divert, Accuse and Disappear. Integrity never enters the picture.

[RoosGirl]

So I am finding out.  I would be mortified to make a claim and then find out it wasn't true.  Last night I posted some primary election vote totals comparing 2012 to 2016.  And then I found out I either copied something incorrectly from the website I was researching at or that website was wrong.  So I posted corrected numbers and mentioned that my previous numbers were wrong.  I certainly cannot understand just making things up and passing it off as the truth.  It's really unbecoming.  Glad I was around in the earlier days of FR when everyone required proof for every little thing you said, it taught me well.

[Norm Lenhart]

So I am finding out.  I would be mortified to make a claim and then find out it wasn't true.  Last night I posted some primary election vote totals comparing 2012 to 2016.  And then I found out I either copied something incorrectly from the website I was researching at or that website was wrong.  So I posted corrected numbers and mentioned that my previous numbers were wrong.  I certainly cannot understand just making things up and passing it off as the truth.  It's really unbecoming.  Glad I was around in the earlier days of FR when everyone required proof for every little thing you said, it taught me well.

I have never seen a group more determined to avoid facts. They have an allergic reaction to providing evidence for their claims far more often than not.

Which makes sense really since there is a lack of fact or proof for them to provide. Where is the PROOF of Trump's conservatism, ESPECIALLY prior to his testing the political waters? Where is the PROOF that government is responsible for providing healthcare? OBAMACARE???? That the proof?

Where is the proof that a man that switches sides more tham Mitt freaking Romney is trustworthy in any capacity much less a conservative for doing so? Where is the PROOF that Trump was this huge fan of Reagan?

All the actual proof anyone presents is AGAINST the assertions of the Trump fanatics. But you gotta BELIEVE the lie!!!

Pathetic. It's like the kid throwing a tantrum on the floor of the store because mom won't buy the candybar. They will keep repeating the wailing until they get what they DEMAND.

Fat chance.

[BuckeyeTexan]

You do not get it The RNC has anointed Trump. They per the USSC are masters of the convention. They can eject, void and replace anybody trying this. The price will be NO input in the platform etc going forward. Make no mistake Trump people will not allow it either and thanks to Manfort they will vastly outnumber your people. I would like to see Cruz people involved in going forward, but this stupidity will cause them to get kicked out.

No, you don't get it. A simple majority of delegates at the national convention are the masters of the convention. They vote on whether or not to adopt the reports of every committee: credentials, rules, platform, etc. They can vote to reject the proposed rules submitted by the Rules Committee and adopt their own set of rules for the convention.

In addition to that, if they don't like the way things are going, they can suspend the rules and do WTF they want, including removing the entire Republican National Committee.
 
Voting doesn't happen until delegates are credentialed and seated. So the RNC won't be ejecting anyone based on their vote. Chicken, egg.

RULE NO. 32
Suspension of Rules
A motion to suspend the rules shall always be in order, but only when made by authority of a majority of the delegates from any state and seconded by a majority of the delegates from each of seven (7) or more other states, severally.

[RoosGirl]

It just makes no sense.  I am so pleasantly surprised at all the intellect here.  I know there's no way y'all old timers let them get away with making statements that aren't true.  Am I being tested because I'm new?  I have a 4 year old little boy.  I know how to deal with temper tantrums.

[Norm Lenhart]

It just makes no sense.  I am so pleasantly surprised at all the intellect here.  I know there's no way y'all old timers let them get away with making statements that aren't true.  Am I being tested because I'm new?  I have a 4 year old little boy.  I know how to deal with temper tantrums.

When you start seeing these 'people' as children having a tantrum, or simply seeing them as what they are, liberals supporting a liberal using liberal tactics, it crashes into crystal clarity.

I am a firm believer in respect being earned. If they want to act like liberals, they should be treated as liberals. their mindset destroyed FR. It split the right. It is most likely their tantrum will result in President Clinton and all that will follow because of it. Until they rise to the level of honest debate, they should be talked 'at' and only after proving they are worthy of intelligent discussion should they be talked 'to'.

The best thing for ones blood pressure is to put them on ignore but they want that so they are then free to spread their liberal ideals, liberal tactics and liberal candidate unopposed.

[RoosGirl]

Heh, I'm going to have to work on my "tone" if my responses are coming across as being my worked up.  More like baffled at the behavior.

[truth_seeker]

Calififornia:

"Who chooses the delegates?

Delegates are chosen by the Presidential candidates, NOT by the CRP or the RNC."


So contrary to the title of this thread, the largest delegation IS bound because they are selected by the winning candidate.

https://www.cagop.org/national-delegation/

[RoosGirl]

Calififornia:

"Who chooses the delegates?

Delegates are chosen by the Presidential candidates, NOT by the CRP or the RNC."


So contrary to the title of this thread, the largest delegation IS bound because they are selected by the winning candidate.

https://www.cagop.org/national-delegation/

Not necessarily true if the candidate does something to make you no longer support them after the candidate has chosen you as a delegate.  Just an example of how a delegate would not HAVE to vote for the candidate that picked them, although probably unlikely.

[BuckeyeTexan]

Calififornia:

"Who chooses the delegates?

Delegates are chosen by the Presidential candidates, NOT by the CRP or the RNC."


So contrary to the title of this thread, the largest delegation IS bound because they are selected by the winning candidate.

https://www.cagop.org/national-delegation/

Being selected by the candidate does not bind a delegate by law. State laws cannot govern a national convention of a private organization in another state. There are no federal laws regarding the binding of delegates. If there were, they'd be unconstitutional because poltical parties are private organizations. SCOTUS has repeatedly ruled that political parties govern themselves and states cannot interfere in that process.

[txradioguy]

Heh, I'm going to have to work on my "tone" if my responses are coming across as being my worked up.  More like baffled at the behavior.

That's a tactic the Trump folks...like their brethren on the left like to use.

"Hey why are you so angry?"  Even when you're not.  And they usually say that when you're hammering them with the facts.

[R4 TrumPence]

Its just getting sad. Its not really worth arguing with you folks, you're going to be devastated when the convention rolls around because none of these fantasy scenarios have any chance of occurring. Move forward, the primary is over and Donald Trump is the Republican nominee.

Thank you, my voice of reason

[txradioguy]

none of these fantasy scenarios have any chance of occurring.

Would that be like the "fantasy scenarios" the Trumpkins keep coming up with like Trump winning 35% or more of the Latino vote...or rolling to Reagan like landslide victories?

Or maybe the more outlandish "fantasy scenarios" like not voting for Trump or being critical of what comes out of Trump's soup cooler as some how equating to support for Hillary.

[aligncare]

Thank you, my voice of reason

Mesaclone rocks. In the battle of wits with Mesaclone, #NeverTrump's pea shooter was jammed.

#NeverTrump is what Mesaclone scrapes off the bottom of his shoes.

Hey, this bitterness and resentment thing is kinda fun. Wish I had discovered it sooner... Thanks #Never Trump for leading the way!

[Oceander]

Mesaclone rocks. In the battle of wits with Mesaclone, #NeverTrump's pea shooter was jammed.

#NeverTrump is what Mesaclone scrapes off the bottom of his shoes.

Hey, this bitterness and resentment thing is kinda fun. Wish I had discovered it sooner... Thanks #Never Trump for leading the way!

How's Queens?

[libertybele]

It just makes no sense.  I am so pleasantly surprised at all the intellect here.  I know there's no way y'all old timers let them get away with making statements that aren't true.  Am I being tested because I'm new?  I have a 4 year old little boy.  I know how to deal with temper tantrums.

There's a reason for the 'ignore' feature in here.

[musiclady]

There's a reason for the 'ignore' feature in here.

Yep.  Not too many require it, but when the few children/truth avoiders are on it, life is much sweeter.

[Mechanicos]

lets put this Democrat fantasy to bed:

Thanks to Paul supporters trying this game before, this rule is in still effect until new rules are voted on by the full body of Delegates.

RNC convention rule 16(a)(2). It says that faithless delegates will be punished for violating state rules if they try to vote against a bound candidate .

    (2) For any manner of binding or allocating delegates under these rules, if a delegate (i) casts a vote for a presidential candidate at the national convention inconsistent with the delegate’s obligation under state law or state party rule, (ii) nominates or demonstrates support under Rule No. 40 for a presidential candidate other than the one to whom the delegate is bound or allocated under state law or state party rule, or (iii) fails in some other way to carry out the delegate’s affirmative duty under state law or state party rule to cast a vote at the national convention for a particular presidential candidate, the delegate shall be deemed to have concurrently resigned as a delegate and the delegate’s improper vote or nomination shall be null and void. Thereafter the secretary of the convention shall record the delegate’s vote or nomination in accordance with the delegate’s obligation under state law or state party rule. This subsection does not apply to delegates who are bound to a candidate who has withdrawn his or her candidacy, suspended or terminated his or her campaign, or publicly released his or her delegates.

This subsection is about enforcing state binding rules. It says at the top that a delegate who does not vote as the state directed them to will be discharged, and their vote will be recorded as the state initially directed.

Current National Convention rules specifically DO enforce state binding rules. This Rule is in force for the Rules committee when they meet. Until the Convention Delegates vote affirmatively on a proposed rule out from the rules committee this rule governs their conduct in the Rules committee. Thus any #neverTrump activity by any member of the Rules committee is automatically a resignation and voided. This would happen before any votes on any proposed rules would happen.

RULE NO. 42
Temporary Rules

Upon the adoption of the report of the Convention Committee on Rules and Order of Business, Rule Nos. 26-42 shall constitute the Standing Rules for this convention and the temporary rules for the next convention.

Checkmate. 

[mlizzy]

Mesaclone pretty much hates Christians (and Conservatives, for that matter), mlizzy.  He thinks he's smarter than all of us, and makes fun of us regularly.

He doesn't understand the meaning of real hope......

Thanks for the heads-up @musiclady ~ Meanwhile, as Trump complains about his lawsuit, and so many other things too, [the hope-filled] Ted is busy doing some good: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/jun/8/cruz-proposes-bill-keep-us-giving-internet-governa/

[Mesaclone]

Thanks for the heads-up @musiclady ~ Meanwhile, as Trump complains about his lawsuit, and so many other things too, [the hope-filled] Ted is busy doing some good: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/jun/8/cruz-proposes-bill-keep-us-giving-internet-governa/

Of course, none of what you are saying here is true. I'm a staunch conservative across the board on virtually every issue (yes, there are one or two exceptions where my LIbertarian side kicks in...marijuana legalization for example). My entire family are Christians, for the record, and I have always had nothing but respect for people of all faiths, when they are genuine in their beliefs and ethics and avoid the need to "evangelize" those who held different beliefs. I have my own very strong beliefs in god, and would have no reason to hope for anything other than that each person found their direct and loving path to the him/her. But this is just a straw man argument tossed my way, meant to devalue the rational arguments I've put forth by imputing some sort of "anti" intentions to me. Its a bit paranoid, and a lot dishonest...very un-Christian, if you will.

You folks can be angry and bitter all you want, but its coming across as irrational and desperate. You're clinging to scenarios that all of us know deep down are never going to happen. And if they did happen, would destroy the party. Ted Cruz ran a good campain...and was SOUNDLY rejected by Republican voters. Donald Trump is now taking in around 86% support from GOP voters and that's with some residual resistance from the establishment and ex-Cruz hardliners...so its an astounding but very accurate number. The truth is, Trump is the only one from the field of 17 that can beat Hillary and the media machine that is lined up to help her...and he is the only one that can restore the true values of conservatism in the White House...giving us borders that really work, a strong national defense and foreign policy, smart trade and an economy unburdened by high taxes and heavy regulation, and is someone who will appoint conservative justices (which will in turn protect all of our amendment rights).

Moving backward with these childish scenarios is harmful because it helps Hillary Clinton...while having no chance whatsoever of attaining the goals some of you are seeking. Anything at this point, that doesn't help the GOP nominee Mr. Trump, IS helping Mrs. Clinton. I realize that is not the intended purpose you folks are after, but it is most clearly the intended effect...and in fact is the ONLY effect.

[sinkspur]

I have my own very strong beliefs in god,

Really?  Which one?