RNC Stop Trump Official: “We Choose Our Nominee, Not The Voters” (video)…

[drbrumley]

Well, if the RNC/GOP were attempting to keep up pretenses, it appears that’s all gone now. During a CNBC interview Curly Haugland explains the RNC will select the republican nominee for president and the primary voters are irrelevant and inconsequential peons to be summarily dismissed.

Mr. Haugland is very transparent about it the RNC/GOPe intents; even going so far as to say he doesn’t even know why the RNC go through the process of holding primary elections [@3:26]. (watch video all the way through)

(Via CNBC) Political parties, not voters, choose their presidential nominees, a Republican convention rules member told CNBC, a day after GOP front-runner Donald Trump rolled up more big primary victories.

“The media has created the perception that the voters choose the nomination. That’s the conflict here,” Curly Haugland, an unbound GOP delegate from North Dakota, told CNBC’s “Squawk Box” on Wednesday. He even questioned why primaries and caucuses are held.

Haugland is one of 112 Republican delegates who are not required to cast their support for any one candidate because their states and territories don’t hold primaries or caucuses.
RNC Stop Trump Official: “We Choose Our Nominee, Not The Voters” (video)…

DB-VINDICATED!!!!!!!!!! And you thought your vote really mattered.....

 

[drbrumley]

Continued!!!!!

This is absolute under handed tactics...and I'm not voting for Trump....but this is bad bad bad stuff

 

[drbrumley]

I am so disgusted with this still. I am gonna have to officially withdraw from the Republican party is they actually go thru with this. Disgusting...

 

[ok doser]

if they try to broker the nomination at the convention, there'll be blood

everywhere


think the elevator scene in the shining

 

[drbrumley]

if they try to broker the nomination at the convention, there'll be blood

everywhere


think the elevator scene in the shining

Oh I can see it.

I just shocked they are now coming clean with this. Year after year, we hear "your vote counts". Now we know that was a bunch of garbage.

 

[kmoney]

I think the RNC will be making a big mistake if they try some scheming or underhanded tactics to avoid Trump being the nominee.
Like it or not, the voters are speaking and saying they like Trump. If the GOP leadership goes against that it will just intensify the discontent.

Sure, Trump may be bad but getting around him could end up producing an even worse result. Trump could hand the presidency to the Democrats and maybe even some changes in Congress but if this rift grows deeper it could lead to longer term effects. Could the GOP completely split? :idunno: Democrats will benefit from a war between the GOP.

Things could still change between now and the convention but if Trump goes into the convention with clear support within the party then I think the GOP needs to suck it up and let him be the nominee.

If Trump goes on to face Clinton or Sanders and loses, especially if he loses big and we see effects in Congress too, then the GOP leadership can say to the voters, "I told you so".

All that is from a practical viewpoint. There is still doc's point about whether or not votes really matter. Whether or not the GOP even cares about democracy.


What a mess.

 

[Nick M]

Did you miss the scripted vote at the RNC convention?

 

[Ktoyou]

I think the RNC will be making a big mistake if they try some scheming or underhanded tactics to avoid Trump being the nominee.
Like it or not, the voters are speaking and saying they like Trump. If the GOP leadership goes against that it will just intensify the discontent.

Sure, Trump may be bad but getting around him could end up producing an even worse result. Trump could hand the presidency to the Democrats and maybe even some changes in Congress but if this rift grows deeper it could lead to longer term effects. Could the GOP completely split? :idunno: Democrats will benefit from a war between the GOP.

Things could still change between now and the convention but if Trump goes into the convention with clear support within the party then I think the GOP needs to suck it up and let him be the nominee.

If Trump goes on to face Clinton or Sanders and loses, especially if he loses big and we see effects in Congress too, then the GOP leadership can say to the voters, "I told you so".

All that is from a practical viewpoint. There is still doc's point about whether or not votes really matter. Whether or not the GOP even cares about democracy.


What a mess.

I am not saying all, but some may be so angered by this, if someone with little or no votes is chosen, may vote for the democrat, out of spite.

 

[TomO]

I am so disgusted with this still. I am gonna have to officially withdraw from the Republican party is they actually go thru with this. Disgusting...

:AMR: You're still registered to them?....I quit years ago.

 

[genuineoriginal]

The talking head in the second video repeated the lie that we live in a "Representative Democracy".

We do not live in a "Representative Democracy", we live in a Republican Form of Government as guaranteed in the Constitution.
There is no such thing as a "Representative Democracy", the term is an oxymoron.

In a Democracy, all the votes of the uninformed majority will overturn the votes of the informed minority.
In a Republic, the uninformed majority is supposed to choose a representative, who is supposed to be one of the informed minority that can understand what the issues are and the consequences of his/her vote as representative.

Why are Republicans upset that the Republican National Committee is not acting like a Democracy and blindly voting the way the uninformed majority would vote?
Why aren't the Republicans upset that the media is trying to turn us into a Democracy instead of an informed Republic?

If the Republicans are upset that the Republican Party is not a Democracy, then they should leave the Republican Party and join the Democrat Party instead.

 

[kmoney]

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/17/u...-campaign-to-sew-up-delegates.html?ref=topics

Republicans Enter a Shadow Campaign to Sew Up Delegates

COLUMBUS, Ohio — With more than half the states having now held their nominating contests, Donald J. Trump and Senator Ted Cruz are quietly directing their attention to a second, shadow election campaign — one that is out of sight, little understood but absolutely critical if Republicans arrive at their national convention with Mr. Trump short of a majority of delegates.

This parallel campaign is to select the individual delegates who will go to Cleveland in July for what could be the first contested convention in American politics in more than 60 years. Chosen through a byzantine process in each state, most of the delegates will become free agents if no one wins a majority on the first ballot.

The mere prospect that delegates could deny Mr. Trump the nomination led him to predict Wednesday that violence could erupt in such a situation.

“I think you’d have riots,” Mr. Trump warned. It seemed no idle speculation after the recent mayhem at Trump rallies. Mr. Trump told CNN that he still expected to reach the majority of 1,237 delegates needed for a first-ballot nomination before the end of the nominating season. “I’m a closer,” he said. “I get things closed.”

For Mr. Trump, the problem is that a delegate may be pledged to back one candidate, based on the results of a primary or caucus, but may be loyal to another. So Mr. Trump could see the tide turn to a rival’s favor on second and third ballots if he fails to hold the allegiance of delegates pledged to him.

Gov. John Kasich’s victory in his home state of Ohio on Tuesday increased the likelihood — if not the certainty — of a contested convention, highlighting the importance of how delegates are chosen.

Recruiting loyalists to run for delegate slots — often through a series of contests beginning at the precinct and county levels — favors campaigns with strong grass-roots networks and robust national organizations. Mr. Trump has been lacking in both, failing to win in caucus states like Iowa, Kansas and Maine where a ground game is important.

“In the vast majority of the states, you can’t do this on the fly; you have to have laid the groundwork for months,” said Joshua T. Putnam, a political science lecturer at the University of Georgia. “By all accounts, the Trump campaign is not active in pushing their guys into those delegate slots.”

By contrast, Mr. Cruz, who has done well in caucus states, is seeking to get his supporters elected as delegates who are nominally pledged to Mr. Trump, but who would desert him after the first ballot.

“The Cruz campaign has been organized down to the district and county levels all the way across the country,” said Saul Anuzis, a former chairman of the Michigan Republican Party who has participated in meetings for the Cruz campaign about delegate selection. “You’re dealing with people who are party activists. They will trump the Trump loyalists in winning delegate slots.”

The Trump campaign seems to have recently awakened to this possibility. On Friday, it announced a new “delegate selection team” of four people, led by Ed Brookover, a former campaign manager for Ben Carson with long experience as a Republican operative.

 

[genuineoriginal]

I am so disgusted with this still. I am gonna have to officially withdraw from the Republican party is they actually go thru with this. Disgusting...

You should have left years ago when they stonewalled Ron Paul in order to put forth a RINO.

 

[Ktoyou]

Actually we do live in a representative democracy
The U.S., of course, is one of the oldest and most stable representative democracies in the world. The U.S. is a federal republic (since 1865) in which a large central government co-exists with smaller state governments. The federal government of the U.S. is set up with three branches: executive (the president), legislative (the House and Senate) and judicial (the Supreme Court). State and local governments are set up in various ways.

A direst democracy would be"In a direct democracy, all eligible citizens vote on every issue. For example, if a direct democracy were considering a tax increase, all the eligible voters would vote that decision. This form of government is often called 'participatory' or 'Aristotelian democracy.'
http://study.com/academy/lesson/what-is-representative-democracy-definition-examples-pros-cons.html

 

[genuineoriginal]

_____
An Important Distinction: Democracy versus Republic

It is important to keep in mind the difference between a Democracy and a Republic, as dissimilar forms of government. Understanding the difference is essential to comprehension of the fundamentals involved. It should be noted, in passing, that use of the word Democracy as meaning merely the popular type of government--that is, featuring genuinely free elections by the people periodically--is not helpful in discussing, as here, the difference between alternative and dissimilar forms of a popular government: a Democracy versus a Republic. This double meaning of Democracy--a popular-type government in general, as well as a specific form of popular government--needs to be made clear in any discussion, or writing, regarding this subject, for the sake of sound understanding.

These two forms of government: Democracy and Republic, are not only dissimilar but antithetical, reflecting the sharp contrast between (a) The Majority Unlimited, in a Democracy, lacking any legal safeguard of the rights of The Individual and The Minority, and (b) The Majority Limited, in a Republic under a written Constitution safeguarding the rights of The Individual and The Minority; as we shall now see.

A Democracy

The chief characteristic and distinguishing feature of a Democracy is: Rule by Omnipotent Majority. In a Democracy, The Individual, and any group of Individuals composing any Minority, have no protection against the unlimited power of The Majority. It is a case of Majority-over-Man.

This is true whether it be a Direct Democracy, or a Representative Democracy. In the direct type, applicable only to a small number of people as in the little city-states of ancient Greece, or in a New England town-meeting, all of the electorate assemble to debate and decide all government questions, and all decisions are reached by a majority vote (of at least half-plus-one). Decisions of The Majority in a New England town-meeting are, of course, subject to the Constitutions of the State and of the United States which protect The Individual’s rights; so, in this case, The Majority is not omnipotent and such a town-meeting is, therefore, not an example of a true Direct Democracy. Under a Representative Democracy like Britain’s parliamentary form of government, the people elect representatives to the national legislature--the elective body there being the House of Commons--and it functions by a similar vote of at least half-plus-one in making all legislative decisions.

In both the Direct type and the Representative type of Democracy, The Majority’s power is absolute and unlimited; its decisions are unappealable under the legal system established to give effect to this form of government. This opens the door to unlimited Tyranny-by-Majority. This was what The Framers of the United States Constitution meant in 1787, in debates in the Federal (framing) Convention, when they condemned the "excesses of democracy" and abuses under any Democracy of the unalienable rights of The Individual by The Majority. . .

A Republic

A Republic, on the other hand, has a very different purpose and an entirely different form, or system, of government. Its purpose is to control The Majority strictly, as well as all others among the people, primarily to protect The Individual’s God-given, unalienable rights and therefore for the protection of the rights of The Minority, of all minorities, and the liberties of people in general. The definition of a Republic is: a constitutionally limited government of the representative type, created by a written Constitution--adopted by the people and changeable (from its original meaning) by them only by its amendment--with its powers divided between three separate Branches: Executive, Legislative and Judicial. Here the term "the people" means, of course, the electorate.

The people adopt the Constitution as their fundamental law by utilizing a Constitutional Convention--especially chosen by them for this express and sole purpose--to frame it for consideration and approval by them either directly or by their representatives in a Ratifying Convention, similarly chosen. Such a Constitutional Convention, for either framing or ratification, is one of America’s greatest contributions, if not her greatest contribution, to the mechanics of government--of self-government through constitutionally limited government, comparable in importance to America’s greatest contribution to the science of government: the formation and adoption by the sovereign people of a written Constitution as the basis for self-government. . .
_____​

A Representative Democracy is not a true Republic.

 

[Ktoyou]

I would prefer it seen as a republic. yet the main Amendment that tipped the scales from the national government of the United States being a republic to being a representative democracy was the often-overlooked Seventeenth Amendment, which took effect in 1913. Since 1913 the U.S. Senate has been elected directly by the voters, rather than being appointed by the state legislatures. That makes the national government democratic in form, as well as being a republic.

The scope of this thread seems to favor representative democracy, as if it should be a more traditional republic, then parties selecting candidates with no need for citizen appointment, would be standard.

What has the OP upset is the GOP taking away the rights for citizens to select the candidates.

 

[genuineoriginal]

I would prefer it seen as a republic. yet the main Amendment that tipped the scales from the national government of the United States being a republic to being a representative democracy was the often-overlooked Seventeenth Amendment, which took effect in 1913. Since 1913 the U.S. Senate has been elected directly by the voters, rather than being appointed by the state legislatures. That makes the national government democratic in form, as well as being a republic.

Okay, I agree with that.
The 17th Amendment took away the State's right to select representatives in the Senate and gave it to the uninformed voters in order to take power away from both the citizens and the States and give it to the political parties instead.

The scope of this thread seems to favor representative democracy, as if it should be a more traditional republic, then parties selecting candidates with no need for citizen appointment, would be standard.

What has the OP upset is the GOP taking away the rights for citizens to select the candidates.

What has me upset is the use of uninformed masses of voters to ensure that the informed voters do not have a voice in elections.

 

[Ktoyou]

What has me upset is the use of uninformed masses of voters to ensure that the informed voters do not have a voice in elections.

I have been a Paleoconservative for a long time. Before this, the same position was conservatism.
Here is a good review; there is not one paleoconservative mentioned, I hare not studied their work. although it has been some time ago.

 

[genuineoriginal]

I have been a Paleoconservative for a long time. Before this, the same position was conservatism.
Here is a good review; there is not one paleoconservative mentioned, I hare not studied their work. although it has been some time ago.

I suppose I could also be called a Paleoconservative, since I hold a lot of the values ascribed to Paleoconservatives, such as Anti-Federalism and the belief that the family is the core of any society.
I self-identify as a Religious conservative (close to the Puritanical beliefs) and a Constitutional conservative.