The establishment is trying to destroy Cruz.

[Just John]

Ted Cruz isn't Abraham Lincoln.

That's for sure. They called him "Honest Abe". I don't think anyone will be calling Trump, "Honest Don".

You can't throw away the choice of the people.

At this point Trump has only about a third of the GOP support. What about the choice of the other 2/3? 

 

[Jehanne La Pucelle]

You can't throw away the choice of the people.

The open primaries make it difficult to know, "Who are the people?" Are these honest voters!

 

[praise_yeshua]

... the GOP establishment to back Cruz being elected over Trump at the convention.

Wouldn't that be wonderful!

So you're not for democracy? You'd rather let a group of "elite" power brokers decide the nominee?

It was good enough for Abe Lincoln...and 4 or 5 other GOP candidates. Rules are rules....not suggestions. Now you can moan that people won't like it and that will indeed be correct. Some won't. Others will. But it's not "stealing", "cheating" or "unfair".

Five Republicans have trailed in the convention when voting began but went onto become the nominee and President:

1860 - Lincoln on the third ballot

1876 - Rutherford B. Hayes began in the 5th spot and after 7 ballots became the nominee.

1877 - James Garfield after 2 days and on the 36th ballot....and he wasn't even running as a candidate.

1888 - Benjamin Harris was 5th place on the first ballot and nominated on the 8th ballot

1920 - Warren G Harding began in 6th place on the 1st ballot and won it on the 10th ballot. (The leader on the 1st ballot had 1/3 of the support).

Besides, we live in a republic.

I was making the point that Abrahma Lincoln wasn't in a distant position to win the primary and the delegate system was much different.

And we don't live in a Republic. We live in a Democratic Republic. Get it right. That's why delegates are largely bound by the vote of the people. That's why some states have a winner take all delegate process.

 

[The Rogue Tomato]

And we don't live in a Republic. We live in a Democratic Republic. Get it right. That's why delegates are largely bound by the vote of the people. That's why some states have a winner take all delegate process.

We are technically a constitutional republic.  In reality, we're a banana republic.

 

[praise_yeshua]

Ted Cruz isn't Abraham Lincoln.

That's for sure. They called him "Honest Abe". I don't think anyone will be calling Trump, "Honest Don".

You can't throw away the choice of the people.

At this point Trump has only about a third of the GOP support. What about the choice of the other 2/3?

Abe was anything but honest. His supporters cheated the convention. He didn't say anything against it. Just wait. Trump will show you how to be like Abe. Don't cry when he does.

 

[praise_yeshua]

And we don't live in a Republic. We live in a Democratic Republic. Get it right. That's why delegates are largely bound by the vote of the people. That's why some states have a winner take all delegate process.

We are technically a constitutional republic.  In reality, we're a banana republic.

Which simply a democratic republic that somewhat.... Limits the actions of elected officials through a constitution. That doesn't really matter anymore. Which is why call it a democratic republic.

 

[praise_yeshua]

At this point Trump has only about a third of the GOP support. What about the choice of the other 2/3?

You know he'll have more than a 1/3 at the convention. What about those voters?

 

[Just John]

And we don't live in a Republic. We live in a Democratic Republic. Get it right. That's why delegates are largely bound by the vote of the people. That's why some states have a winner take all delegate process.

We are technically a constitutional republic.  In reality, we're a banana republic.

Which simply a democratic republic that somewhat.... Limits the actions of elected officials through a constitution. That doesn't really matter anymore. Which is why call it a democratic republic.

To many it "does matter".  I agree with Rougue that we are a Constitutional Republic as we derive our rights from the constitution. True conservatism is the pursuit to hold to that foundation. From a few of our founding  fathers and the Constitution:

Thomas  Jefferson: "All the powers of government, legislative, executive, and judiciary, result to the legislative body [in the Virginia Constitution of 1776]. The concentrating these in the same hands is precisely the definition of despotic government. It will be no alleviation that these powers will be exercised by a plurality of hands, and not by a single one. 173 despots would surely be as oppressive as one."

John Witherspoon: ?pure democracy cannot subsist long nor be carried far into the departments of state ? it is very subject to caprice and the madness of popular rage.? - See more at: http://madisonproject.com/page/4/?s=republic#sthash.rq0l2xfW.dpuf

James Madison: An elective despotism was not the government we fought for; but one which should not only be founded on free principles, but in which the powers of government should be so divided and balanced among several bodies of magistracy, as that no one could transcend their legal limits, without being effectually checked and restrained by the others.

Benjamin Franklin: "It's a republic, if you can keep it.

Article 4 section 4 of the Constitution -  ?the United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican form of Government.?

Because we have become untethered from the foundation doesn't mean we trash the foundation and render it irrelevant. We should seek to regain our footing.

 

[Just John]

At this point Trump has only about a third of the GOP support. What about the choice of the other 2/3?

You know he'll have more than a 1/3 at the convention. What about those voters?

If at the convention he has the necessary amount of the delegates by the rules of the party he has chosen to  run with, then he wins.

 

[praise_yeshua]

And we don't live in a Republic. We live in a Democratic Republic. Get it right. That's why delegates are largely bound by the vote of the people. That's why some states have a winner take all delegate process.

We are technically a constitutional republic.  In reality, we're a banana republic.

Which simply a democratic republic that somewhat.... Limits the actions of elected officials through a constitution. That doesn't really matter anymore. Which is why call it a democratic republic.

To many it "does matter".  I agree with Rougue that we are a Constitutional Republic as we derive our rights from the constitution. True conservatism is the pursuit to hold to that foundation. From a few of our founding  fathers and the Constitution:

Thomas  Jefferson: "All the powers of government, legislative, executive, and judiciary, result to the legislative body [in the Virginia Constitution of 1776]. The concentrating these in the same hands is precisely the definition of despotic government. It will be no alleviation that these powers will be exercised by a plurality of hands, and not by a single one. 173 despots would surely be as oppressive as one."

John Witherspoon: ?pure democracy cannot subsist long nor be carried far into the departments of state ? it is very subject to caprice and the madness of popular rage.? - See more at: http://madisonproject.com/page/4/?s=republic#sthash.rq0l2xfW.dpuf

James Madison: An elective despotism was not the government we fought for; but one which should not only be founded on free principles, but in which the powers of government should be so divided and balanced among several bodies of magistracy, as that no one could transcend their legal limits, without being effectually checked and restrained by the others.

Benjamin Franklin: "It's a republic, if you can keep it.

Article 4 section 4 of the Constitution -  ?the United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican form of Government.?

Because we have become untethered from the foundation doesn't mean we trash the foundation and render it irrelevant. We should seek to regain our footing.

It doesn't matter because BOTH sides ignore the constitution when it pleases them to do so. The Supreme Court is also rewriting the constitution without the due process of amending it.

That is the only reason I said "it doesn't matter anymore".

 

[praise_yeshua]

At this point Trump has only about a third of the GOP support. What about the choice of the other 2/3?

You know he'll have more than a 1/3 at the convention. What about those voters?

If at the convention he has the necessary amount of the delegates by the rules of the party he has chosen to  run with, then he wins.

They amended the rules for Romney or Romney would have faced a brokered convention. Why can't they amend it if Trump is a couple dozen short?

 

[Just John]

At this point Trump has only about a third of the GOP support. What about the choice of the other 2/3?

You know he'll have more than a 1/3 at the convention. What about those voters?

If at the convention he has the necessary amount of the delegates by the rules of the party he has chosen to  run with, then he wins.

They amended the rules for Romney or Romney would have faced a brokered convention. Why can't they amend it if Trump is a couple dozen short?

That's pretty misleading. Romney went to the convention with 431 delegates more than enough needed to win the nomination.  He was never in danger of not having enough delegates on the first vote to win. Because Romney had so many delegates they held sway in the rules committee which meets at the beginning of every convention.  Right or wrong, their goal was to come out of the convention "united" as a party. One of the conditions of Ron Paul speaking at the convention was that he would endorse the nominee. He declined.  There were some of Ron Paul's 177 delegates that wanted to place his name in nomination but it would have been only symbolic hence the rules committee changed a rule that to be placed in nomination a candidate must have won a plurality  in five states to eight states.  While it wasn't a wise thing to do IMO,  it had no bearing on who would be the nominee.

 

[praise_yeshua]

That's pretty misleading. Romney went to the convention with 431 delegates more than enough needed to win the nomination.  He was never in danger of not having enough delegates on the first vote to win. Because Romney had so many delegates they held sway in the rules committee which meets at the beginning of every convention.  Right or wrong, their goal was to come out of the convention "united" as a party. One of the conditions of Ron Paul speaking at the convention was that he would endorse the nominee. He declined.  There were some of Ron Paul's 177 delegates that wanted to place his name in nomination but it would have been only symbolic hence the rules committee changed a rule that to be placed in nomination a candidate must have won a plurality  in five states to eight states.  While it wasn't a wise thing to do IMO,  it had no bearing on who would be the nominee.

You're only telling part of the story. Some states do not require their delegates to be bound to the vote of the people on the first ballot. We know that Ron Paul had gotten the majority of Nevada delegates to vote for him. We don't know how many MORE would have flipped to Ron Paul. The "powers that be" made it so it was impossible to tell. They excludes Ron Paul from even being eligible.

PLUS.... the minimum delegate count is higher because the GOP has award more delegates in this election than in 2012. In 2012 , the simple majority was 1,144. Which TRUMP will have and more.... at the 2016 convention.

I'm glad you're actually discussing the "Ron Paul" rule. Right now, there is very little chance that Cruz will get past the Ron Paul rule. He will not even be eligible if the GOP leaves the rule in place. However, the convention rules committee is already signaling that will not have the rule in place for 2016.

http://www.infowars.com/rnc-confirms-rules-changed-to-prevent-trump-from-winning-republican-nomination/

What a bunch of buffoons....

 

[Just John]

That's pretty misleading. Romney went to the convention with 431 delegates more than enough needed to win the nomination.  He was never in danger of not having enough delegates on the first vote to win. Because Romney had so many delegates they held sway in the rules committee which meets at the beginning of every convention.  Right or wrong, their goal was to come out of the convention "united" as a party. One of the conditions of Ron Paul speaking at the convention was that he would endorse the nominee. He declined.  There were some of Ron Paul's 177 delegates that wanted to place his name in nomination but it would have been only symbolic hence the rules committee changed a rule that to be placed in nomination a candidate must have won a plurality  in five states to eight states.  While it wasn't a wise thing to do IMO,  it had no bearing on who would be the nominee.

You're only telling part of the story. Some states do not require their delegates to be bound to the vote of the people on the first ballot. We know that Ron Paul had gotten the majority of Nevada delegates to vote for him. We don't know how many MORE would have flipped to Ron Paul. The "powers that be" made it so it was impossible to tell. They excludes Ron Paul from even being eligible.

PLUS.... the minimum delegate count is higher because the GOP has award more delegates in this election than in 2012. In 2012 , the simple majority was 1,144. Which TRUMP will have and more.... at the 2016 convention.

I'm glad you're actually discussing the "Ron Paul" rule. Right now, there is very little chance that Cruz will get past the Ron Paul rule. He will not even be eligible if the GOP leaves the rule in place. However, the convention rules committee is already signaling that will not have the rule in place for 2016.

http://www.infowars.com/rnc-confirms-rules-changed-to-prevent-trump-from-winning-republican-nomination/

What a bunch of buffoons....

Oh, now you are at the level of quoting from Alex Jones' Infowars site.  LOLOL. Not sure which is more laughable, that or the Nat'l Enquirer. But Trump's boy Roger Stone does spend a lot of time on Alex Jones' Infowars program.  :

 

[praise_yeshua]

That's pretty misleading. Romney went to the convention with 431 delegates more than enough needed to win the nomination.  He was never in danger of not having enough delegates on the first vote to win. Because Romney had so many delegates they held sway in the rules committee which meets at the beginning of every convention.  Right or wrong, their goal was to come out of the convention "united" as a party. One of the conditions of Ron Paul speaking at the convention was that he would endorse the nominee. He declined.  There were some of Ron Paul's 177 delegates that wanted to place his name in nomination but it would have been only symbolic hence the rules committee changed a rule that to be placed in nomination a candidate must have won a plurality  in five states to eight states.  While it wasn't a wise thing to do IMO,  it had no bearing on who would be the nominee.

You're only telling part of the story. Some states do not require their delegates to be bound to the vote of the people on the first ballot. We know that Ron Paul had gotten the majority of Nevada delegates to vote for him. We don't know how many MORE would have flipped to Ron Paul. The "powers that be" made it so it was impossible to tell. They excludes Ron Paul from even being eligible.

PLUS.... the minimum delegate count is higher because the GOP has award more delegates in this election than in 2012. In 2012 , the simple majority was 1,144. Which TRUMP will have and more.... at the 2016 convention.

I'm glad you're actually discussing the "Ron Paul" rule. Right now, there is very little chance that Cruz will get past the Ron Paul rule. He will not even be eligible if the GOP leaves the rule in place. However, the convention rules committee is already signaling that will not have the rule in place for 2016.

http://www.infowars.com/rnc-confirms-rules-changed-to-prevent-trump-from-winning-republican-nomination/

What a bunch of buffoons....

Oh, now you are at the level of quoting from Alex Jones' Infowars site.  LOLOL. Not sure which is more laughable, that or the Nat'l Enquirer. But Trump's boy Roger Stone does spend a lot of time on Alex Jones' Infowars program.  :

So you're actually saying they'll leave the Ron Paul rule in place for 2016? If so, then Kasich nor Cruz will be eligible for the ballot.

 

[Just John]

So you're actually saying they'll leave the Ron Paul rule in place for 2016? If so, then Kasich nor Cruz will be eligible for the ballot.

The rule change in 2012 was to do two things really, (1) deny Ron Paul "causing trouble" when there was no way he could have possibly won and (2) had Romney won the election it would have virtually stopped a primary challenge against him. It was indeed short-sighted as, unless the rules committee has changed it since the 2012 convention, to have your name on the first ballot you have to have the plurality of voters in 8 states (or even the old standard of 5). That being the case, at this point no one will qualify so unless someone hits 1,273 something will have to happen. (It's unusual for the rules to change in between elections but the committee in 2012 voted themselves the power to do so on this provision...of course  Trump was not an issue at the time).

 

[praise_yeshua]

So you're actually saying they'll leave the Ron Paul rule in place for 2016? If so, then Kasich nor Cruz will be eligible for the ballot.

The rule change in 2012 was to do two things really, (1) deny Ron Paul "causing trouble" when there was no way he could have possibly won and (2) had Romney won the election it would have virtually stopped a primary challenge against him. It was indeed short-sighted as, unless the rules committee has changed it since the 2012 convention, to have your name on the first ballot you have to have the plurality of voters in 8 states (or even the old standard of 5). That being the case, at this point no one will qualify so unless someone hits 1,273 something will have to happen. (It's unusual for the rules to change in between elections but the committee in 2012 voted themselves the power to do so on this provision...of course  Trump was not an issue at the time).

You didn't answer the question. Do you believe they will leave the requirement in place. Don't point to another requirement to answer my question about the Ron Paul rule...

Also, why more delegates this time? We're not talking about just a few more. Its hundreds more issued. Why?

 

[Just John]

So you're actually saying they'll leave the Ron Paul rule in place for 2016? If so, then Kasich nor Cruz will be eligible for the ballot.

The rule change in 2012 was to do two things really, (1) deny Ron Paul "causing trouble" when there was no way he could have possibly won and (2) had Romney won the election it would have virtually stopped a primary challenge against him. It was indeed short-sighted as, unless the rules committee has changed it since the 2012 convention, to have your name on the first ballot you have to have the plurality of voters in 8 states (or even the old standard of 5). That being the case, at this point no one will qualify so unless someone hits 1,273 something will have to happen. (It's unusual for the rules to change in between elections but the committee in 2012 voted themselves the power to do so on this provision...of course  Trump was not an issue at the time).

You didn't answer the question. Do you believe they will leave the requirement in place. Don't point to another requirement to answer my question about the Ron Paul rule...

Also, why more delegates this time? We're not talking about just a few more. Its hundreds more issued. Why?

You should be more informed and less conspiratorial.

I can't even speculate on what the rules committee will do. The primaries help in part to decide who will be on the rules committee.  :

Why more delegates? The Republican Party allocates each state ten delegates, plus three for each congressional district, and bonus delegates for states that contributed electoral votes to the party in the previous presidential election, as well those that elected Republicans to high offices. As maybe you can see, this means the number of allotted delegates are not the same each cycle because of bonus delegates based on individual state elections. This year the nominee needs to win 129 more delegates but it's proportional to how many more are available. No tricks.

The primary rules for this year were set up to help select a nominee earlier in the process. As a result it has benefited Trump rather than hurt him but he likely will still not win enough delegates before the convention, 

 

[praise_yeshua]

So you're actually saying they'll leave the Ron Paul rule in place for 2016? If so, then Kasich nor Cruz will be eligible for the ballot.

The rule change in 2012 was to do two things really, (1) deny Ron Paul "causing trouble" when there was no way he could have possibly won and (2) had Romney won the election it would have virtually stopped a primary challenge against him. It was indeed short-sighted as, unless the rules committee has changed it since the 2012 convention, to have your name on the first ballot you have to have the plurality of voters in 8 states (or even the old standard of 5). That being the case, at this point no one will qualify so unless someone hits 1,273 something will have to happen. (It's unusual for the rules to change in between elections but the committee in 2012 voted themselves the power to do so on this provision...of course  Trump was not an issue at the time).

You didn't answer the question. Do you believe they will leave the requirement in place. Don't point to another requirement to answer my question about the Ron Paul rule...

Also, why more delegates this time? We're not talking about just a few more. Its hundreds more issued. Why?

You should be more informed and less conspiratorial.

I can't even speculate on what the rules committee will do. The primaries help in part to decide who will be on the rules committee.  :

Translation, I have opinion but I don't want to share it.....

Why more delegates? The Republican Party allocates each state ten delegates, plus three for each congressional district, and bonus delegates for states that contributed electoral votes to the party in the previous presidential election, as well those that elected Republicans to high offices. As maybe you can see, this means the number of allotted delegates are not the same each cycle because of bonus delegates based on individual state elections. This year the nominee needs to win 129 more delegates but it's proportional to how many more are available. No tricks.

This doesn't account for a roughly 260 delegate increase from 2012.

as well those that elected Republicans to high offices

How is this fair?

The primary rules for this year were set up to help select a nominee earlier in the process. As a result it has benefited Trump rather than hurt him but he likely will still not win enough delegates before the convention,

Explain to me how its benefited Trump? There are more delegates need this cycle than previous cycles? You're failing miserably to answer my question.

 

[Just John]

The primary rules for this year were set up to help select a nominee earlier in the process. As a result it has benefited Trump rather than hurt him but he likely will still not win enough delegates before the convention,

Explain to me how its benefited Trump? There are more delegates need this cycle than previous cycles? You're failing miserably to answer my question.

You could try to understand or do a little research of your own:

https://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R42533.pdf

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2014/01/24/gop-adopts-changes-to-2016-presidential-primary-process/

http://frontloading.blogspot.com/2016/03/2016-republican-delegate-allocation_8.html