#NeverTrump Delegate Rebels ‘Defeated’ at the RNC Rules Committee

[Jazzhead]

It's Friday night...everyone relax and have a drink...

Ardbeg 10.

[MACVSOG68]

I've experienced an entire site get taken over by less than a dozen trolls who ran off every productive contributor to that site, engaging in the same kind of sowing of discord about the owner/mods crap I'm watching repeated here.  They were not as open and brazen about calling for banning people that opposed them like I'm reading from one of Trump's militants here.  So it's not nonsense to warn about it.  I've seen it before.

You are going to have that regardless which tyrant is handed the throne in November.  That die is now cast and we will be forced to eat it.

It's a big internet out there and it's interesting to watch some members here act the same way that the larger bunch of Trump militants act all over the net and social media.   Spouting the same talking points, engaging in the same kind of insults, threats and ridicule we read elsewhere. 

That is the excuse given at places like TOS and elsewhere for what they have done to make their domains Trump Safe Spaces.  Demanding a member 'needs to go yesterday!' is just more of the same crap they have done elsewhere.  I'm making sure to point it out.
 
It's dead Jim.  The GOP has gone the way of the Whigs AFAIAC.

It's frightening anyone would think a corrupted party is the only way to save the principles and ideology of our founding.  Because if that is what people truly believe, Conservatism might as well have built it's mansion on sand in a tidewater basin.

I'm not the one advocating the zotting of anyone over remarks that they believe Trump is a Fascist and then warning the owner not to 'cross the line' while giving her grief. 

I don't tolerate bullies and I don't much care for people telling me to sit down and shut up because I'm calling them out for what they are doing.

Even though it is soon rest time.

Well, none of the rest of us tolerate bullies either regardless of how long they've been here.  When you have any evidence of a coup here, I'm sure Mystery would love to hear from you about it.  And yes, the GOP is the only party that can keep conservatism a viable and influential ideology.  If OTOH you are aware of another such organized political structure, might be nice to hear about it.  In 2008, people said they wouldn't vote for McCain and conservatives would go their separate way; again in 2012 the same was said about Romney.  Now in 2016 they're going to do the same.  Well, so far it doesn't seem to have worked.  They let Obama fundamentally change this Country while still complaining they needed a new party. 

I agree, nobody needs to be told they should be elsewhere, but if you have read any of these threads, you have also read the same suggestions made against the handful of Trump supporters here.  There have been insults on both sides, but there have been some pretty quality posts on both sides too.  No one here has a corner on values or principles.  And believe me as a long time member here, no one is going to successfully challenge the leadership of this forum.  For me now, it's time for a beer.  Have a good evening.

[RetBobbyMI]

Well, none of the rest of us tolerate bullies either regardless of how long they've been here.  When you have any evidence of a coup here, I'm sure Mystery would love to hear from you about it.  And yes, the GOP is the only party that can keep conservatism a viable and influential ideology.  If OTOH you are aware of another such organized political structure, might be nice to hear about it.  In 2008, people said they wouldn't vote for McCain and conservatives would go their separate way; again in 2012 the same was said about Romney.  Now in 2016 they're going to do the same.  Well, so far it doesn't seem to have worked.  They let Obama fundamentally change this Country while still complaining they needed a new party. 

I agree, nobody needs to be told they should be elsewhere, but if you have read any of these threads, you have also read the same suggestions made against the handful of Trump supporters here.  There have been insults on both sides, but there have been some pretty quality posts on both sides too.  No one here has a corner on values or principles.  And believe me as a long time member here, no one is going to successfully challenge the leadership of this forum.  For me now, it's time for a beer.  Have a good evening.

This comment highlighted in bold appears to me to insinuate the voting for someone other than a Dem or GOP is a vote for a Dem. Preposterous!  No one should vote for a party, they should vote FOR a candidate they feels best represents their views, regardless of party or whether they MIGHT win or lose. The comment also insinuates that minor parties have no business in the race. Also preposterous!  Where was the GOP back in 1856, the first year they offered a candidate?  The following cycle they won.

[MACVSOG68]

This comment highlighted in bold appears to me to insinuate the voting for someone other than a Dem or GOP is a vote for a Dem. Preposterous!  No one should vote for a party, they should vote FOR a candidate they feels best represents their views, regardless of party or whether they MIGHT win or lose. The comment also insinuates that minor parties have no business in the race. Also preposterous!  Where was the GOP back in 1856, the first year they offered a candidate?  The following cycle they won.

Don't assume something  you didn't read.  And be my guest, start yourown party, and certainly vote for whomever you please. And be sure and let us know when that party/group extends its influence past a local trailer park.  Have a good evening.

[libertybele]

It's Friday night...everyone relax and have a drink...

    We have a rough Convention ahead of us and a really, really, rough 4 years ahead of us.  Enjoy the calm before the storm!

[INVAR]

And yes, the GOP is the only party that can keep conservatism a viable and influential ideology.

The GOP is NOT Conservative, it's leadership have told us repeatedly we needed to get lost and shut up and when attempts have been made for actual Constitutional Conservatives to change the direction of their party - we got undermined, sabotaged and railroaded.

It's how your party now has a Liberal NY leftist as it's nominee against another NY leftist.

If Conservatism can only have viability within the GOP - then kiss it goodbye.

There was no political party around that gave birth to or maintained the ideology that led to our Independence and our form of Liberty.  If you've limited it to a political party, you have consigned it to death.

[truth_seeker]

Don't assume something  you didn't read.  And be my guest, start yourown party, and certainly vote for whomever you please. And be sure and let us know when that party/group extends its influence past a local trailer park.  Have a good evening.

Being involved with 3rd parties seems like it would be a cool hobby.

Gather with like minded folks, much tall long winded talk. Much like several here engage in.

But not much interested in results, since for the most part there are none of any significance.

[Lando Lincoln]

That's pure nonsense.  There aren't more than half a dozen Trump supporters here as you well know.  There are quite a number who don't care much for him, but will vote for the GOP nominee in November, given what we know another four years of liberal leadership in the White House would bring.  There are no mobs here, and never have been.  There are members who are passionate about their values and this election.  This forum has been a conservative one, but one that doesn't limit its members to any one conservative ideology.  Most here generally support the GOP, because they realize that with all its faults, it is the only party that can save conservatism.  Some support the libertarian ideology and frequently make some excellent points.  Although a few have indicated they will vote for Hillary this Fall, most are a lot smarter than that. 

I don't care much for the views of some here, and some don't care much for mine.  But the owners have welcomed almost all views, and even those who complain about how the forum is run are tolerated, something even some who came over here recently wouldn't have done in earlier elections at TOS.  Sit down, have a drink and quit worrying about 5% of the members staging a coup.

Damn it MAC.  So much rational thought in a post, I didn't know what to do with it at the first reading.

[truth_seeker]

Damn it MAC.  So much rational thought in a post, I didn't know what to do with it at the first reading.

MAC and Lando; engaging in the type of civil adult discussion, which was once the norm here, but now only a rare exception.

[Hoodat]

The GOP is NOT Conservative, it's leadership have told us repeatedly we needed to get lost and shut up and when attempts have been made for actual Constitutional Conservatives to change the direction of their party - we got undermined, sabotaged and railroaded.

It's how your party now has a Liberal NY leftist as it's nominee against another NY leftist.

If Conservatism can only have viability within the GOP - then kiss it goodbye.

There was no political party around that gave birth to or maintained the ideology that led to our Independence and our form of Liberty.  If you've limited it to a political party, you have consigned it to death.

Well said.  Voting for liberals does not advance Conservatism.

[R4 TrumPence]

Let me pose a hypothetical question?

Let's say your candidate whoever it may be. Won the primary with 1500+ delegates.

Then Mitt and his crew of the GOP big boys, said OH NO THIS AINT HAPPENEING!
So they try and unbind delegates , the same ones they asked to be bound for Mitt!
They wanted Mitt and kasich or jeb and Kasich!
So they tried a couple during the  RNC rules committee votes!

What would you think?
Your guy won hands down, and they want to void that?
What if the primary winner was Cruz, Rubio, Kasich?
How would you feel?

Be honest and. No postings for this...

SO WHAT WOULD YOU DO?

[Mechanicos]

I don't know the exact number, but it apparently is enough -- in combination with committed delegates who are not bound -- to put him over the top.  That's the whole reason the motion for a rule change was filed in the first place.  Because without it, the nomination is his.  As for the actual number, it's my understanding that was the count we were being given all along after each state's primary/caucus.

Anyway, my point was that the idea that they are free if they're not bound by the RNC is wrong, because it ignores not just state laws of questionable enforceability, but state rules as well.

The Federal Court and the parties themselves stipulated the the National rules for allocation of delegates by primary results is what binds delegates. The sole issue in that case was VA violating the National Rules about if it was before the date it could not be winner take all allocation but had to be proportional. One of the reasons the court struck the State Statute requiring the delegates to vote winner take all was because it conflicted with the National. Bottom line, the language saying the delegates are proportional vs winner take all was held by all involved as the binding language.

Underlying this argument is the misconception of what a delegate is. A Delegate is not a voter, is not a representative, is not a ruler. A delegate is an agent of a principle acting for the principle with the principle's authority, not their own.

This is why the fight was to "unbind" them since all involved know the National Rules bind them.

[R4 TrumPence]

MAC and Lando; engaging in the type of civil adult discussion, which was once the norm here, but now only a rare exception.

Yes! The good old days, when people nut cases!

[jmyrlefuller]

Let me pose a hypothetical question?

Let's say your candidate whoever it may be. Won the primary with 1500+ delegates.

Then Mitt and his crew of the GOP big boys, said OH NO THIS AINT HAPPENEING!
So they try and unbind delegates , the same ones they asked to be bound for Mitt!
They wanted Mitt and kasich or jeb and Kasich!
So they tried a couple during the  RNC rules committee votes!

What would you think?
Your guy won hands down, and they want to void that?
What if the primary winner was Cruz, Rubio, Kasich?
How would you feel?

Be honest and. No postings for this...

SO WHAT WOULD YOU DO?

I wouldn't pick a candidate that lies, cheats and steals on a regular basis. Any electorate that willingly chooses a candidate like that deserves to be overruled.

[oldmomster]

Let's say your candidate whoever it may be. Won the primary with 1500+ delegates.

Your guy won hands down, and they want to void that?

SO WHAT WOULD YOU DO?

Doncha just love it when the shoe is on the other foot?  No matter how hard they pushed Jeb the gentle and Postman Kasich, the citizens who got out of bed and actually participated in the system PICKED THEIR CANDIDATE.

Time to look at the choices for cabinet and get the ball rolling on who conservatives would like to see in place and start stumping for some power there.  Beating a dead horse NEVER gets you a ride into town.

[Bigun]

Well said.  Voting for liberals does not advance Conservatism.

Voting for liberals because they were "the lesser evil" is what has brought us to where we are today.

[MACVSOG68]

The GOP is NOT Conservative, it's leadership have told us repeatedly we needed to get lost and shut up and when attempts have been made for actual Constitutional Conservatives to change the direction of their party - we got undermined, sabotaged and railroaded.

It's how your party now has a Liberal NY leftist as it's nominee against another NY leftist.

If Conservatism can only have viability within the GOP - then kiss it goodbye.

There was no political party around that gave birth to or maintained the ideology that led to our Independence and our form of Liberty.  If you've limited it to a political party, you have consigned it to death.

Good Morning @INVAR

The GOP is made up of who is voted in.  There are a number of caucuses within the Party and the largest is the Republican Study Committee, the conservative wing of the GOP.  There's also the Republican Liberty Caucus made up of several hundred conservative activists and the Freedom Caucus.  My point is simply that you may need to work harder to get more of these groups elected.  I do disagree with you on the future of conservatism, but of course part of that may be our definitions of the philosophy.

In any case, rather than starting a new party, which I hear demanded from some quarters here and elsewhere every four years, why not just pick from those already organized?  Recognize that they don't do well, but apparently do make their members feel good about themselves. 

I have never told the Religious Right to get lost.  We need them, as well as the rest of the conservatives to win a major election.  From moderates to libertarians, the Party prospers with all of these philosophies, just as this forum does.

[Mechanicos]

Getting the different factions of the GOP to go in the same direction is like:

[oldmomster]

Any electorate that willingly chooses a candidate like that deserves to be overruled.

so who deserves the right to decide what gets overruled - and who gets the spot?

eliminate elections and just let the ones who 'know best' make their picks?

sounds a little like the EU.

[MACVSOG68]

Being involved with 3rd parties seems like it would be a cool hobby.

Gather with like minded folks, much tall long winded talk. Much like several here engage in.

But not much interested in results, since for the most part there are none of any significance.

I think you've defined third party movements to a tee.

[MACVSOG68]

Damn it MAC.  So much rational thought in a post, I didn't know what to do with it at the first reading.

Mornin' Lando.  Thanks, but it's that second reading that always concerns me...

[LMAO]

Let me pose a hypothetical question?

Let's say your candidate whoever it may be. Won the primary with 1500+ delegates.

Then Mitt and his crew of the GOP big boys, said OH NO THIS AINT HAPPENEING!
So they try and unbind delegates , the same ones they asked to be bound for Mitt!
They wanted Mitt and kasich or jeb and Kasich!
So they tried a couple during the  RNC rules committee votes!

What would you think?
Your guy won hands down, and they want to void that?
What if the primary winner was Cruz, Rubio, Kasich?
How would you feel?

Be honest and. No postings for this...

SO WHAT WOULD YOU DO?

My position has always been if Trump wins enough delegates he should be the nominee. Period. I don't like it, but it is what it is. Taking away the nomination from him at this point would create even bigger problems and strife in the GOP.
However, just because I disagree with taking away the nomination from him doesn't mean support for his campaign. But you do raise good points in your post that many haven't considered

[Smokin Joe]

Let me pose a hypothetical question?

Let's say your candidate whoever it may be. Won the primary with 1500+ delegates.

Then Mitt and his crew of the GOP big boys, said OH NO THIS AINT HAPPENEING!
So they try and unbind delegates , the same ones they asked to be bound for Mitt!
They wanted Mitt and kasich or jeb and Kasich!
So they tried a couple during the  RNC rules committee votes!

What would you think?
Your guy won hands down, and they want to void that?
What if the primary winner was Cruz, Rubio, Kasich?
How would you feel?

Be honest and. No postings for this...

SO WHAT WOULD YOU DO?

Oh, I'd fight to keep the nomination. Just as anyone else would.

Now, I understand that, but I also firmly believe that Donald Trump is the worst of the field to nominate. If he is the GOP candidate, the standard bearer for whatever form of government the GOP seeks to impose, so be it.

That doesn't mean I won't fight him tooth and nail when I think he is wrong, and from the viewpoint of a Constitutional Conservative, that is most of the time. It is not so much what he hopes to accomplish in general that I find wrong (when he is consistent, which isn't often), but subverting the Constitution to do so is unAmerican. The ends do not justify those means. You cannot do good by consistently doing evil.  IMHO, destroying or subverting that Constitutional framework of government, when the same ends could be accomplished by returning to it, is an egregious error, and one I will fight so long as I breathe. If that means fighting that man coming into power, so be that, too.

[Lando Lincoln]

MAC and Lando; engaging in the type of civil adult discussion, which was once the norm here, but now only a rare exception.

Maybe we will start a trend!   

[bolobaby]

Let me pose a hypothetical question?

Let's say your candidate whoever it may be. Won the primary with 1500+ delegates.

Then Mitt and his crew of the GOP big boys, said OH NO THIS AINT HAPPENEING!
So they try and unbind delegates , the same ones they asked to be bound for Mitt!
They wanted Mitt and kasich or jeb and Kasich!
So they tried a couple during the  RNC rules committee votes!

What would you think?
Your guy won hands down, and they want to void that?
What if the primary winner was Cruz, Rubio, Kasich?
How would you feel?

Be honest and. No postings for this...

SO WHAT WOULD YOU DO?

I wanted Cruz, so let's play your game.

As a conservative, I'd be PISSED, because some milquetoast excuse for a conservative was trying to steal the nomination away from conservatives.

EXCEPT...

It's the other way around, isn't it? Some life-long liberal guy who VOTED FOR HILLARY (you know, the opposition?) won the GOP primary because our country is descending into a populist Idiocracy. Now conservatives are trying to take their side of the aisle back.

So, not the same thing at all.