The Establishments war on Donald Trump
See other The Establishments war on Donald Trump Articles
Title: Matt Drudge: ‘Hello Colorado Republicans, even Iraqis get a vote’
Source:
Breitbart
URL Source: http://www.breitbart.com/big-govern ... ublicans-even-iraqis-get-vote/
Published: Apr 12, 2016
Author: Alex Swoyer
Post Date: 2016-04-12 17:02:39 by nolu chan
Keywords: None
Views: 10528
Comments: 72
Matt Drudge: ‘Hello Colorado Republicans, even Iraqis get a vote’ by Alex Swoyer Matt Drudge is weighing in on the results in Colorado, where Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) received at least 30 of the 37 delegates following the state Republican Party Convention last weekend. “Does George Bush have to invade Colorado to make it a Democracy? STUNNING Republicans had NO PRIMARY or CAUCUS. At least Dems are faking it!” Drudge posted on Twitter. Hello Colorado Republicans, even Iraqis get a vote! http://www.wnd.com/2016/04/trump-erupts-as-cruz-sweeps-colorado-without-votes/ 8:48 AM - 11 Apr 2016 When Republican party leaders decided not to hold a primary or caucus in Colorado, The Denver Post reported: During a campaign rally on Monday night, GOP frontrunner Donald Trump called Colorado “a fix” because instead of holding an election, the GOP decided to do it through delegates.
12 Apr 2016
Washington, DC MATT DRUDGE
@DRUDGE The Colorado system often favors anti-establishment candidates who draw a dedicated following among activists — as evidenced by Rick Santorum’s victory in 2012 caucus. So the party’s move may hurt GOP contenders such as Donald Trump, Ben Carson and Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY), who would have received a boost if they won the state.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Comments (1-11) not displayed.
.
.
.
#12. To: Vicomte13 (#8)
(Edited)
Neither is Cruz . He is playing by the rules that were established before the contest began. The difference is that Cruz studied the rules and prepared . He did not begin the race as some impulsive lark . But the real question is ;does this demonstrate Trump's lack of interest in doing the things necessary to run the country ? I believe it does. "If you do not take an interest in the affairs of your government, then you are doomed to live under the rule of fools." Plato
Who are you Kim jong un? This is America the people get to vote. You're a fucking soviet moron.
I believer you're a fucking idiot.
I like it when you stomp on yer opponents with hobnail boots. So funny.
I don't wear a halo.
The Republicans of Colorado have never had a vote that meant a damn in the delegate selection process. What they had was a non-binding straw poll. The delegates have always been selected by the party state machine. No this isn't democracy .It is a political party choosing it's candidate . The people's participation is determined solely at the digression of the party. Whatever democratic process there is can be found in the general election (and even there the people don't directly select the winner ). "If you do not take an interest in the affairs of your government, then you are doomed to live under the rule of fools." Plato
blah blah blahblah. You're a soviet wannabe.
No that would be Trump who let Cruz go to the state and pitch his case to the Republicans there uncontested . "If you do not take an interest in the affairs of your government, then you are doomed to live under the rule of fools." Plato
The country pisses on your rules. Nobody cares about the goddamned Republican party rules, which are gerrymandered, jury rigged, changed around at will to suit the whims of the party leaders. You can take your "rule of 'law'", your rules fetish, and you can exult over foisting Grandpa Munster Cruz on the Republican Party. But there are bigger rules, like the rule of 5 on the Supreme Court. And the fact that Republicans don't control the balloting process in the general election. You'll get your Cruz, and then you'll get Hillary - and HER rules will govern the day, not Cruz's. So, do your little Polish cavalry charge into the panzers here and feel very good about pissing around in your little GOP sandbox. Trump will certainly have to be more organized for the general, and the party - people like you - will have to help him. But nope, you're going to use your ROOLS! to foist Grandpa Munster on us. And the Executive Orders of Hillary Clinton will be upheld by a 5-4 Democrat Supreme Court, and ram every goddamn rule the Democrats ever wanted right down YOUR throat. And guess what? SHE will have won fair and square too. And the ROOLS of the USA say that what the President orders and the Supreme Court upholds are the rules that will govern YOU. And y'know what? I'm good with that. Because, you see, I like Trump a lot, but I agree with a great deal of Hillary's economics, and I've always said I don't care about gun control either way. BUT YOU DO. You HATE Hillary's economics. You call Democrat views "socialist". You call Democrats "gun grabbers" - and you're right about the last part: they ARE. I don't like that a whole lot, but I don't really care either. YOU do. So you can take your pissant "RULES" and win your little game, and then we'll have that $15 minimum wage, those college loan forgivenesses, those inheritance and wealth taxes and capital gains taxes and general regulatory and tax hikes on the Republican donor class, and you'll have Obamacare turned into single payer, and you'll register your guns or go to jail. And I'll be happy as a clam, because I either agree with those RULES or I don't care. So, maybe you'll win your little victory over Trump, maybe. And then your Cruz will get blown out of the water, and with him, every single solitary political firewall the Republicans have built over the past 47 years of GOP control of the Supreme Court. All gone. You'll have the rest of your life to repent your little victory dance over your little plaything "rules". Your rules are a noose around your own neck. Enjoy your Pyrrhic victory while it lasts, because you are just entering a vale of tears that will last until the end of your life.
Spew all your talking points. All you are doing in insureing Hillary. But you are to stupid to realize it. Never ever Cruz. Kasich is even worse. The Republican party is dead to me. I will not vote for any of them. You guys want deomcrats. That is what you will get. Let me repeat it FUCK TED CRUZ!!!!!
Copy cat:) потому что Бог хочет это тот путь
Did you eat the shit yet? Go on get to it.
You are ripping "your" chit-chat channel apart. Please take a moment and reflect on your ideals coupled with communication interchange to exchange ideas. I suggest a whiskey or two, if you have any.
Who cares. I'm about to go nuclear.
I care. As a long tymer on LF, I really care. There is no valid, rational consideration for your defensive posts revealing hostility to the members. You can perform these tirades at me but not to our members. You are destroying the channel with these antics and creating enmity. Please take a moment and reflect on your ideals and principles and recompose yourself.
Thats F'n rich. lol I'm the infidel... Allah warned you about. كافر المسلح
I knew you would enjoy my post. Did you notice that I described an objective perspective that was over your head?
Well, sort of. Members of our caucus precinct met in a classroom at the local High School. Everybody who wanted to be a delegate put their name on the board. Each delegate candidate was given an opportunity to speak and we noted who they'd support/vote for at the convention. Then we wrote our delegate choices on slips of paper and the votes were tallied. The winners were the folks who then went on to the state convention - and who then chose among themselves Colorado's delegates for the national convention. It's an odd process, but it's not accurate to say "the people didn't get to vote". We did have a straw poll FWIW - Cruz 22 Trump 6.
You now see what is behind the mask, what was always behind the mask.
I live in CO and the CO REP Party did not provide me and every other person that may have been inclined to vote in the state party's party a chance to vote for the candidate of my choice.........period....end of story.....over and out. If that isn't a system that says f*ck you to the voter nothing is. потому что Бог хочет это тот путь
Well, I think they still did back in the 2000 election. But not since. And last year, when the RNC told the states that if they held any kind of private or public vote for the nominee (like a primary or even just a non-binding "beauty contest" straw poll), they had to bind all of their delegates, the CO GOP decided just to cancel the (meaningless) straw poll. Wyoming and North Dakota chose to avoid binding delegates for much the same reason as Colorado. People in this country are so stupid they actually think a primary or caucus is an election. But they are not at all the same thing. A primary is a party affair. If you don't like what the ballot-qualified parties in your state are doing, you are expected to start your own party or run indy candidates.
How so? You were entirely free to participate in the CO GOP conventions. There will be an election in the fall. As a voter you will be able to exercise your right. If you want a party that allows you to vote for primary candidates, change the CO GOP (and the Dims who have the same system). Or go start your own party. Then try to convince the D's & R's in the CO legislature to spend the money to stage expensive primaries again as they did before the 2004 election year.
What was the result of the popular vote of the people?
Yes, minus the bullshit being spun, it is, by design, a system that says f*ck you to the voter. The system went around the voter becuase if there were a vote of the people, it would have been mandatory to bind the delegates for the first round of the convention in accord with the vote of the people. They couldn't have that, so they created a system where they could select delegates with no regard for the will of the people. They can then just lie about what they did. Their only problem is Trump (and now Drudge) is telling everybody what they did.
Yes, and I am entirely free to run for Congress, the Senate, Governor, even POTUS. Wow, lucky me. It is just my own damn fault that I didn't run for any of theses offices that I free to do. "There will be an election in the fall. As a voter you will be able to exercise your right." There was just an election in CO in which as a voter I did not have the chance to vote for the candidate of my choice. The RNC will do to all of the voters what the CO REP Party did to those of us in CO. F*ck the REP Party, f*ck the RNC, f*ck all those "elected" REP federal officials that lied to us every bit a much as the Emperor Obama and gave Obama everything he wanted. F*ck them all. потому что Бог хочет это тот путь
WHAT Colorado did, WHY they did it, and an EDITORIAL ABOUT it. http://www.denverpost.com/news/ci_28700919/colorado-republicans-cancel-2016-presidential-caucus-vote Move makes Colorado only state to date to opt out of early nomination process By John Frank EDITOR'S NOTE: This story was first published on Tuesday, Aug. 25, 2015 at 2:06 p.m. Please see Angry Donald Trump blasts Colorado GOP results as "totally unfair," published on Sunday, April 10, 2016. Colorado will not vote for a Republican candidate for president at its 2016 caucus after party leaders approved a little-noticed shift that may diminish the state's clout in the most open nomination contest in the modern era. The GOP executive committee has voted to cancel the traditional presidential preference poll after the national party changed its rules to require a state's delegates to support the candidate who wins the caucus vote. The move makes Colorado the only state so far to forfeit a role in the early nomination process, according to political experts, but other caucus states are still considering how to adapt to the new rule. "It takes Colorado completely off the map" in the primary season, said Ryan Call, a former state GOP chairman. Republicans still will hold precinct caucus meetings in early 2016 to begin the process of selecting delegates for the national convention — but the 37 delegates are not pledged to any specific candidate. The Democratic Party still will hold a presidential straw poll March 1 — a Super Tuesday vote in a key swing state that is attracting attention from top-tier candidates. For Republicans, no declared winner means the caucus will lack much of its hype. The presidential campaigns still may try to win delegate slots for their supporters, but experts say the move makes it less likely that candidates will visit Colorado to court voters. The Colorado system often favors anti-establishment candidates who draw a dedicated following among activists — as evidenced by Rick Santorum's victory in 2012 caucus. So the party's move may hurt GOP contenders such as Donald Trump, Ben Carson and Rand Paul, who would have received a boost if they won the state. State Republican Party Chairman Steve House said the party's 24-member executive committee made the unanimous decision Friday — six members were absent — to skip the preference poll. The move, he said, would give Colorado delegates the freedom to support any candidate eligible at the Cleveland convention in July. Republican National Committee officials confirmed that the change complies with party rules. "If we do a binding presidential preference poll, we would then pledge our delegates ... and the candidates we bind them to may not be in the race by the time we get to the convention," House said in an interview Tuesday. The caucus is likely to occur in February, but party officials will meet next month to finalize the date. In 2008 and 2012, die-hard Republican voters gathered at caucus meetings to begin the delegate-selection process of selecting delegates to the national convention and voice support for presidential candidates in a straw poll. The votes, however, didn't require Colorado delegates to support any particular candidate at the national conventions. This allowed for delegates that supported a losing candidate to vote for the nominee and demonstrate party unity at the convention. But the freedom also opened the door for political mischief, as Colorado saw in 2012 when Ron Paul supporters managed to win a significant portion of the delegate slots, even though Paul finished far behind other candidates in the Colorado caucuses. The RNC tightened the rules in 2012 to eliminate nonbinding straw polls and help prevent similar stunts in the future, forcing Colorado Republicans to re-evaluate their process. An effort earlier this year to switch to a presidential primary system failed amid party infighting. "It's an odd scenario," said Josh Putnam, a political science lecturer at the University of Georgia who runs a popular blog on the presidential nominating process. "It's not to say the campaigns won't be there. ... But you won't have a good reflection of support at the caucuses, much less Colorado Republicans as a whole." Other caucus states are grappling with the rule change in different ways as they finalize their plans before the deadline at the end of September, Putnam said, but he is not aware of any state that has abandoned the presidential caucus vote. With the change, the only way Colorado Republican delegates would remain relevant is the remote chance that no candidate emerges as a clear winner in the primary contest. In this case, the state's unbound delegates would receive significant attention and may hold the key to victory in a floor fight. "If there's the potential for a brokered convention in any way, the unaffiliated delegates become extremely important," said Joy Hoffman, the Arapahoe County GOP chairwoman who attended the party meeting. "If there is someone who becomes a front-runner, ... then nobody's important. So I think the view became that if we were not bound, it's not the worse thing that could happen." http://www.denverpost.com/editorials/ci_29563108/colorado-gop-blundered-2016-presidential-caucus Colorado GOP blundered on 2016 presidential caucus Republicans made big mistake in abandoning presidential tally By The Denver Post Editorial Board Posted: 02/27/2016 05:00:00 PM MST The Colorado Republican Party's decision last summer to jettison a presidential poll at its caucus on Tuesday looks worse with every passing day. Except for the actual delegates to July's national convention, Colorado Republicans who want to have a say in the future of their party have mostly been stripped of a role in the most interesting and surprising nominating struggle in decades. They'll stand on the sidelines on Super Tuesday while other states determine whether Donald Trump continues his march toward a possible nomination or whether his rivals can slow him down. Meanwhile, local airwaves have been featuring ads on behalf of Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders, since the Democrats are still holding a traditional caucus at which participants get to signal their support for a candidate. It's known as democracy. The Colorado Republican executive committee needs to reacquaint itself with the concept. GOP leaders have never provided a satisfactory reason for forgoing a presidential preference poll, although party chairman Steve House suggested on radio at one point that too many Republicans would otherwise flock to their local caucus. Imagine that: party officials fearing that an interesting race might propel thousands of additional citizens to participate. But of course that might dilute the influence of elites and insiders. You can see why that could upset the faint-hearted. By contrast, far-sighted party leaders should have welcomed the extra attention to their caucus and the potential activism on the party's behalf it would have spawned. Admittedly, one thing has changed since the GOP executive committee made its decision on a preference poll: It appears somewhat more likely today that no candidate will have wrapped up the nomination by convention time. But even if that ends up being the case, it will be no great boon to Colorado's uncommitted delegates. If no candidate has enough votes on the first ballot to secure the nomination, delegates will be free to vote for anyone they like anyway. It's bad enough the two parties in Colorado don't have presidential primaries in which many more voters would participate. The caucuses already limit participation to a narrow slice of the electorate. But the fact that the Republican leadership then took matters a step further and deprived even that narrow slice of voters a voice in one of the most competitive, consequential political nominations in memory - and perhaps in history - is mindboggling. It's likely that some Republicans who show up Tuesday will be surprised to learn their presidential preference is of no consequence. Perhaps someone should be on hand to explain to them why party democracy is apparently too disruptive and unpredictable to be trusted.
The CO REP Party has a history of screwing the pooch in recent U.S. Senator and Governor races. There was no way that Senator Bennet should have won in 2010 but the REP f*cked up and put up a total loser to run against Bennet. They did even worse with their candidate for Governor that year. CO easily could currently have two REP Senators and a REP Governor. It would be charitable to believe that they were just the gang that couldn't shoot straight but there is something fundamental wrong, if not corrupt, with the CO REP Party PTB. потому что Бог хочет это тот путь
Trump didn't win Colorado because he was too lazy to go there and too disorganized to field a qualified ground team. So now the entire GOP is corrupt and evil and the RNC is plotting against poor Donald.
Wasn't that the Tancredo disaster where the CO GOP lost major party status for an election cycle? You're leaving a lot out of your account of the CO GOP.
There is only one election this year and it will be held in November, just as it always has been. You chose not to participate in Colorado's GOP caucus, unlike 65,000 Colorado Republicans who did choose to participate. But that caucus is not and never has been an election. And it was not an election even in 2000 and earlier Colorado primaries where the entire public was allowed to vote.
These caucuses are private events by a private party, the Republican party of Colorado. Voters have no right to intrude on a private party's functions. The voters will, as always, be entitled to participate in the election which will be held, as always, in November. Primaries and caucuses are not elections. They are private party events. In most states, the parties do allow the public to participate. In some states, they are closed (Republicans-only), partially-open (to Republicans and indies) , or fully open (to Republicans, Dems, indies). In others, they have caucuses which are private party events.
you like Trump and Hillary because there is very little difference there. "If you do not take an interest in the affairs of your government, then you are doomed to live under the rule of fools." Plato
you are backing Trump which means you definitely want a Dem. "If you do not take an interest in the affairs of your government, then you are doomed to live under the rule of fools." Plato
I've been labeled all over the spectrum by people who don't know what they are talking about . In the other forum I was on ,they thought I was to the right of Ghengis Khan. "If you do not take an interest in the affairs of your government, then you are doomed to live under the rule of fools." Plato
I heard estimates that up to 60,000 Republicans participated in the conventions around the state . "If you do not take an interest in the affairs of your government, then you are doomed to live under the rule of fools." Plato
Trump was certainly suprised by the process . Completely unacceptable from someone who is running on a record of winning and competent leadership. "If you do not take an interest in the affairs of your government, then you are doomed to live under the rule of fools." Plato
Did you attend your precinct caucus and vote for your precinct's delegates to the state convention in Colorado Springs?
That was part of the same election. The CO REP Party appears to be tightly controlled by a handful of people that do not want We The People looking over their shoulder or bothering them in any way. The process is what it is. Trump screwed the pooch here, that's on him. But as for the REP Party representing the people, that is a farce. CO's population is about 5.6 million. Even if only 1/4 are registered REPs that's 1.4 million. If only 1/4 of those would actually vote that would be 350,000 - far more than the reported 65,000, which is less than 1.2% of the state's population and less than 5% of the state's registered REPs. IMO that is pure BS. It is a process designed to keep tight control on the doings of the party, nothing else. потому что Бог хочет это тот путь
"TRUTH IS GREAT AND WILL PREVAIL" Stupid American founders - what did they know about building brothels in Moscow anyhow.
How did they control your neighborhood caucus?
The result was that we sent our neighbors to represent us as per the framework of laws/rules set in place to govern the process. It's a REPUBLIC - not a Tyranny of the Majority, Comrade.
Comments (53 - 72) not displayed.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/LatestShe's not trying to screw Sanders out of states he won.
#13. To: tomder55 (#12)
Neither is Cruz . He is playing by the rules that were established before the contest began.
#14. To: tomder55 (#12)
But the real question is ;does this demonstrate Trump's lack of interest in doing the things necessary to run the country ? I believe it does.
#15. To: A K A Stone (#13)
You're a fucking soviet moron.
#16. To: buckeroo (#9)
Don't ya kinda thunk you are abit cocky while not wearing your Christian halo?
#17. To: A K A Stone (#11)
The people didn't' get to vote comrade.
#18. To: tomder55 (#17)
#19. To: A K A Stone (#14)
I believer you're a fucking idiot.
#20. To: tomder55 (#12)
He is playing by the rules that were established before the contest began. The difference is that Cruz studied the rules and prepared .
#21. To: tomder55 (#19)
#22. To: A K A Stone (#21)
Let me repeat it FUCK TED CRUZ!!!!!
#23. To: SOSO (#22)
Let me repeat it FUCK TED CRUZ!!!!! Copy cat:)
#24. To: A K A Stone, tomder55 (#18)
blah blah blahblah. You're [tomder55] a soviet wannabe.
#25. To: buckeroo (#24)
You are ripping "your" chit-chat channel apart.
#26. To: A K A Stone (#25)
(Edited)
Who cares. I'm about to go nuclear.
#27. To: buckeroo (#26)
You are destroying the channel with these antics and creating enmity. Please take a moment and reflect on your ideals and principles and recompose yourself.
#28. To: GrandIsland (#27)
Thats F'n rich.
#29. To: A K A Stone (#11)
(Edited)
The people didn't' get to vote comrade.
#30. To: buckeroo, redleghunter (#9)
Don't ya kinda thunk you are abit cocky while not wearing your Christian halo? I mean, like WoW, pal ... too much and very impressive post.
#31. To: VxH, A K A Stone, TooConservative (#29)
It's an odd process, but it's not accurate to say "the people didn't get to vote".
#32. To: tomder55 (#17)
The Republicans of Colorado have never had a vote that meant a damn in the delegate selection process.
What they had was a non-binding straw poll.
#33. To: SOSO (#31)
If that isn't a system that says f*ck you to the voter nothing is.
#34. To: VxH (#29)
It's an odd process, but it's not accurate to say "the people didn't get to vote".
#35. To: SOSO, VxH, A K A Stone, TooConservative (#31)
f that isn't a system that says f*ck you to the voter nothing is.
#36. To: tooconservative (#33)
You were entirely free to participate in the CO GOP conventions.
#37. To: SOSO, VxH, A K A Stone, TooConservative (#31)
Colorado Republicans cancel presidential vote at 2016 caucus
The Denver Post
Posted: 08/25/2015 02:06:20 PM MDT
Updated: a day ago [captured 4/12/2016] Editorials
Updated: about a month ago [captured 4/12/2016]
#38. To: nolu chan, VxH, A K A Stone, TooConservative (#37)
Imagine that: party officials fearing that an interesting race might propel thousands of additional citizens to participate. But of course that might dilute the influence of elites and insiders. You can see why that could upset the faint-hearted.
#39. To: nolu chan, VxH, SOSO (#34)
(Edited)
What was the result of the popular vote of the people?
#40. To: SOSO (#38)
They did even worse with their candidate for Governor that year.
#41. To: SOSO (#36)
There was just an election in CO
#42. To: nolu chan (#35)
Yes, minus the bullshit being spun, it is, by design, a system that says f*ck you to the voter.
#43. To: Vicomte13 (#20)
And y'know what? I'm good with that. Because, you see, I like Trump a lot, but I agree with a great deal of Hillary's economics, and I've always said I don't care about gun control either way.
#44. To: A K A Stone (#21)
The Republican party is dead to me. I will not vote for any of them. You guys want deomcrats
#45. To: buckeroo, A K A Stone (#24)
blah blah blahblah. You're [tomder55] a soviet wannabe.
#46. To: tooconservative (#33)
If that isn't a system that says f*ck you to the voter nothing is...... How so? You were entirely free to participate in the CO GOP conventions.
#47. To: nolu chan, TooConservative (#37)
It's likely that some Republicans who show up Tuesday will be surprised to learn their presidential preference is of no consequence.
#48. To: SOSO (#31)
I live in CO and the CO REP Party did not provide me and every other person that may have been inclined to vote in the state party's party a chance to vote for the candidate of my choice..
#49. To: tooconservative (#40)
Wasn't that the Tancredo disaster where the CO GOP lost major party status for an election cycle?
#50. To: tooconservative (#39)
(Edited)
Trump didn't win Colorado because he was too lazy...
--Thomas Jefferson, 1786
#51. To: SOSO (#49)
The CO REP Party appears to be tightly controlled by a handful of people
#52. To: nolu chan (#34)
(Edited)
What was the result of the popular vote of the people?
.
.
.
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]