The quandary for the trump cult

[PeacefulPartier]

Reduced? The issue is NO primaries, which gives the incumbent the advantage and throws the underdog and democracy under the bus.

My goodness. That is a loaded response.

There will be primaries for the GOP. Fewer primaries gives the underdog the advantage. They don't have to spread their money as far to win. They can concentrate on a handful of meaningful states and potentially snipe the nomination.

[neoplacebo]

Reduced? The issue is NO primaries, which gives the incumbent the advantage and throws the underdog and democracy under the bus.

My goodness. That is a loaded response.

There will be primaries for the GOP. Fewer primaries gives the underdog the advantage. They don't have to spread their money as far to win. They can concentrate on a handful of meaningful states and potentially snipe the nomination.

Perhaps I got over excited; my thoughts were that if all the states cancelled their primary elections like some have, there would be nobody to challenge the incumbent.

[Vrede too]

My goodness. That is a loaded response.

There will be primaries for the GOP. Fewer primaries gives the underdog the advantage. They don't have to spread their money as far to win. They can concentrate on a handful of meaningful states and potentially snipe the nomination.

That makes no sense. Cash-strapped underdogs already choose where to spend their money or not. If the GOP eliminates primaries in some states where the underdogs MIGHT have wanted to spend, the underdogs are necessarily hurt by it. Your logical fallacy is in thinking that an actual primary mandates candidate spending. It doesn't.

[PeacefulPartier]

My goodness. That is a loaded response.

There will be primaries for the GOP. Fewer primaries gives the underdog the advantage. They don't have to spread their money as far to win. They can concentrate on a handful of meaningful states and potentially snipe the nomination.

That makes no sense. Cash-strapped underdogs already choose where to spend their money or not. If the GOP eliminates primaries in some states where the underdogs MIGHT have wanted to spend, the underdogs are necessarily hurt by it. Your logical fallacy is in thinking that an actual primary mandates candidate spending. It doesn't.

Did you have a point?

[Vrede too]

Did you have a point?

Sigh, you really need to run things by someone literate before making such a fool of yourself. The point is that this does NOT save underdogs money. It limits their options in favor of the anointed 45SHOLE.

Are you really this dense, so cowardly when your logic fails, or is this just childish trolling? All fit a Trumpette.

[PeacefulPartier]

Did you have a point?

Sigh, you really need to run things by someone literate before making such a fool of yourself. The point is that this does NOT save underdogs money. It limits their options in favor of the anointed 45SHOLE.

Are you really this dense, so cowardly when your logic fails, or is this just childish trolling? All fit a Trumpette.

You sure do get really angry when I post. Why is that?

I asked a legitimate question. Your collection of words I to which I replied are not coherent. What was your point?

$1 to doughnuts you just reply with another personal attack.

[neoplacebo]

Did you have a point?

Sigh, you really need to run things by someone literate before making such a fool of yourself. The point is that this does NOT save underdogs money. It limits their options in favor of the anointed 45SHOLE.

Are you really this dense, so cowardly when your logic fails, or is this just childish trolling? All fit a Trumpette.

You sure do get really angry when I post. Why is that?

I asked a legitimate question. Your collection of words I to which I replied are not coherent. What was your point?

$1 to doughnuts you just reply with another personal attack.

Ok, I'll spin. You say that somehow fewer primaries are an advantage for the challengers to an incumbent. I say that fewer primaries only serve to indirectly benefit the incumbent at the expense of the challengers in that voters have no choice but to vote for the incumbent or not vote at all. What do you not understand about that? Money is not the issue; democracy is.

[PeacefulPartier]

Did you have a point?

Sigh, you really need to run things by someone literate before making such a fool of yourself. The point is that this does NOT save underdogs money. It limits their options in favor of the anointed 45SHOLE.

Are you really this dense, so cowardly when your logic fails, or is this just childish trolling? All fit a Trumpette.

You sure do get really angry when I post. Why is that?

I asked a legitimate question. Your collection of words I to which I replied are not coherent. What was your point?

$1 to doughnuts you just reply with another personal attack.

Ok, I'll spin. You say that somehow fewer primaries are an advantage for the challengers to an incumbent. I say that fewer primaries only serve to indirectly benefit the incumbent at the expense of the challengers in that voters have no choice but to vote for the incumbent or not vote at all. What do you not understand about that? Money is not the issue; democracy is.

I think you need to complete your thought. There are leaps of logic here that I think I know what you mean, but I don't want to put words in your mouth.

[neoplacebo]

Did you have a point?

Sigh, you really need to run things by someone literate before making such a fool of yourself. The point is that this does NOT save underdogs money. It limits their options in favor of the anointed 45SHOLE.

Are you really this dense, so cowardly when your logic fails, or is this just childish trolling? All fit a Trumpette.

You sure do get really angry when I post. Why is that?

I asked a legitimate question. Your collection of words I to which I replied are not coherent. What was your point?

$1 to doughnuts you just reply with another personal attack.

Ok, I'll spin. You say that somehow fewer primaries are an advantage for the challengers to an incumbent. I say that fewer primaries only serve to indirectly benefit the incumbent at the expense of the challengers in that voters have no choice but to vote for the incumbent or not vote at all. What do you not understand about that? Money is not the issue; democracy is.

I think you need to complete your thought. There are leaps of logic here that I think I know what you mean, but I don't want to put words in your mouth.

My thought is complete; primary elections are for the purpose of deciding who the best candidate is for the office in question. If those primary elections are canceled, by default the incumbent in that office is assured continuance in that office. This denies the voters the chance to select a candidate that they may prefer over the incumbent. I don't know how to make it any simpler than that.

[GoCubsGo]

[Vrede too]

GoCubsGo, That's about the most charitable explanation possible. Any other is even sadder.

$1 to doughnuts you just reply with another personal attack.

My thought is complete; primary elections are for the purpose of deciding who the best candidate is for the office in question. If those primary elections are canceled, by default the incumbent in that office is assured continuance in that office. This denies the voters the chance to select a candidate that they may prefer over the incumbent. I don't know how to make it any simpler than that.

Just don't post about that "idiot conservative majority in Congress" like Ulysses did.
http://www.blueridgedebate.com/forum/vi ... es#p101868
You'll bizarrely get accused of calling delicate PP names.

[neoplacebo]

That scene of the trolls on the train is a good explanation of how trump fixes his hair; he sits with his back to an industrial fan and once the hair is dry he then combs it around on the sides until he's satisfied with it. Opinions as to how long this takes vary from fifteen minutes to two hours.
Every day.

[PeacefulPartier]

Sigh, you really need to run things by someone literate before making such a fool of yourself. The point is that this does NOT save underdogs money. It limits their options in favor of the anointed 45SHOLE.

Are you really this dense, so cowardly when your logic fails, or is this just childish trolling? All fit a Trumpette.

You sure do get really angry when I post. Why is that?

I asked a legitimate question. Your collection of words I to which I replied are not coherent. What was your point?

$1 to doughnuts you just reply with another personal attack.

Ok, I'll spin. You say that somehow fewer primaries are an advantage for the challengers to an incumbent. I say that fewer primaries only serve to indirectly benefit the incumbent at the expense of the challengers in that voters have no choice but to vote for the incumbent or not vote at all. What do you not understand about that? Money is not the issue; democracy is.

I think you need to complete your thought. There are leaps of logic here that I think I know what you mean, but I don't want to put words in your mouth.

My thought is complete; primary elections are for the purpose of deciding who the best candidate is for the office in question. If those primary elections are canceled, by default the incumbent in that office is assured continuance in that office. This denies the voters the chance to select a candidate that they may prefer over the incumbent. I don't know how to make it any simpler than that.

What if the challenger uses his/her funds to persuade delegates? State delegates can still vote as they wish. Remember, there were delegates that voted against Hillary because of the way the DNC did Bernie. I think your assumption that the incumbent gets the votes is inaccurate. It probably isn't unreasonable to make that assumption, but it is very possible for a challenger to sway votes. All he/she would have to do is win a few states and then make the case that the states that cancelled would have voted for the challenger. Also, if there was a late breaking scandal, it would make the challenger's job easier.

As it stands right now, Trump will win every single state in a Republican primary. Jesus himself could run against Trump and would lose. A reduced number of primaries will not change that.

Further, choosing a candidate is not a democratic process. It is a private entity process. Publicly any candidate can run if he/she can get enough signatures on a petition in each state. So the process of picking a President follows democratic principles, but the process of picking a nominee for each party is wholly up to them. They can do it by seniority, lottery, primary or any other method they like.

[neoplacebo]

You sure do get really angry when I post. Why is that?

I asked a legitimate question. Your collection of words I to which I replied are not coherent. What was your point?

$1 to doughnuts you just reply with another personal attack.

Ok, I'll spin. You say that somehow fewer primaries are an advantage for the challengers to an incumbent. I say that fewer primaries only serve to indirectly benefit the incumbent at the expense of the challengers in that voters have no choice but to vote for the incumbent or not vote at all. What do you not understand about that? Money is not the issue; democracy is.

I think you need to complete your thought. There are leaps of logic here that I think I know what you mean, but I don't want to put words in your mouth.

My thought is complete; primary elections are for the purpose of deciding who the best candidate is for the office in question. If those primary elections are canceled, by default the incumbent in that office is assured continuance in that office. This denies the voters the chance to select a candidate that they may prefer over the incumbent. I don't know how to make it any simpler than that.

What if the challenger uses his/her funds to persuade delegates? State delegates can still vote as they wish. Remember, there were delegates that voted against Hillary because of the way the DNC did Bernie. I think your assumption that the incumbent gets the votes is inaccurate. It probably isn't unreasonable to make that assumption, but it is very possible for a challenger to sway votes. All he/she would have to do is win a few states and then make the case that the states that cancelled would have voted for the challenger. Also, if there was a late breaking scandal, it would make the challenger's job easier.

As it stands right now, Trump will win every single state in a Republican primary. Jesus himself could run against Trump and would lose. A reduced number of primaries will not change that.

Further, choosing a candidate is not a democratic process. It is a private entity process. Publicly any candidate can run if he/she can get enough signatures on a petition in each state. So the process of picking a President follows democratic principles, but the process of picking a nominee for each party is wholly up to them. They can do it by seniority, lottery, primary or any other method they like.

You miss the point or are just dancing around it. What I am talking about is VOTERS, you know, citizens, people like us not being able to vote in a state primary if that primary election is cancelled. Forget about money, signatures, delegates, etc. The fact IS that if a state cancels its primary election, it deprives the electorate of choices they would normally have. Oh, and abortion also has nothing to do with this, either.

[PeacefulPartier]

Ok, I'll spin. You say that somehow fewer primaries are an advantage for the challengers to an incumbent. I say that fewer primaries only serve to indirectly benefit the incumbent at the expense of the challengers in that voters have no choice but to vote for the incumbent or not vote at all. What do you not understand about that? Money is not the issue; democracy is.

I think you need to complete your thought. There are leaps of logic here that I think I know what you mean, but I don't want to put words in your mouth.

My thought is complete; primary elections are for the purpose of deciding who the best candidate is for the office in question. If those primary elections are canceled, by default the incumbent in that office is assured continuance in that office. This denies the voters the chance to select a candidate that they may prefer over the incumbent. I don't know how to make it any simpler than that.

What if the challenger uses his/her funds to persuade delegates? State delegates can still vote as they wish. Remember, there were delegates that voted against Hillary because of the way the DNC did Bernie. I think your assumption that the incumbent gets the votes is inaccurate. It probably isn't unreasonable to make that assumption, but it is very possible for a challenger to sway votes. All he/she would have to do is win a few states and then make the case that the states that cancelled would have voted for the challenger. Also, if there was a late breaking scandal, it would make the challenger's job easier.

As it stands right now, Trump will win every single state in a Republican primary. Jesus himself could run against Trump and would lose. A reduced number of primaries will not change that.

Further, choosing a candidate is not a democratic process. It is a private entity process. Publicly any candidate can run if he/she can get enough signatures on a petition in each state. So the process of picking a President follows democratic principles, but the process of picking a nominee for each party is wholly up to them. They can do it by seniority, lottery, primary or any other method they like.

You miss the point or are just dancing around it. What I am talking about is VOTERS, you know, citizens, people like us not being able to vote in a state primary if that primary election is cancelled. Forget about money, signatures, delegates, etc. The fact IS that if a state cancels its primary election, it deprives the electorate of choices they would normally have. Oh, and abortion also has nothing to do with this, either.

It deprives them of nothing. The primary process is extra-constitutional. There is nothing mandating a primary. Anyone can run, assuming they are eligible.

[neoplacebo]

I think you need to complete your thought. There are leaps of logic here that I think I know what you mean, but I don't want to put words in your mouth.

My thought is complete; primary elections are for the purpose of deciding who the best candidate is for the office in question. If those primary elections are canceled, by default the incumbent in that office is assured continuance in that office. This denies the voters the chance to select a candidate that they may prefer over the incumbent. I don't know how to make it any simpler than that.

What if the challenger uses his/her funds to persuade delegates? State delegates can still vote as they wish. Remember, there were delegates that voted against Hillary because of the way the DNC did Bernie. I think your assumption that the incumbent gets the votes is inaccurate. It probably isn't unreasonable to make that assumption, but it is very possible for a challenger to sway votes. All he/she would have to do is win a few states and then make the case that the states that cancelled would have voted for the challenger. Also, if there was a late breaking scandal, it would make the challenger's job easier.

As it stands right now, Trump will win every single state in a Republican primary. Jesus himself could run against Trump and would lose. A reduced number of primaries will not change that.

Further, choosing a candidate is not a democratic process. It is a private entity process. Publicly any candidate can run if he/she can get enough signatures on a petition in each state. So the process of picking a President follows democratic principles, but the process of picking a nominee for each party is wholly up to them. They can do it by seniority, lottery, primary or any other method they like.

You miss the point or are just dancing around it. What I am talking about is VOTERS, you know, citizens, people like us not being able to vote in a state primary if that primary election is cancelled. Forget about money, signatures, delegates, etc. The fact IS that if a state cancels its primary election, it deprives the electorate of choices they would normally have. Oh, and abortion also has nothing to do with this, either.

It deprives them of nothing. The primary process is extra-constitutional. There is nothing mandating a primary. Anyone can run, assuming they are eligible.

The whole idea of a primary election is to NARROW the field of candidates, not increase it. And the concept of primary elections was to give the PUBLIC the right to choose candidates instead of the hacks of the party organization choosing them for us. You can choose to believe otherwise, but I don't see why. The only statement you made that I can agree with is that primaries are not mandated; that's why a state can cancel one, which was the original issue; is it "right" for a state to do so.

[Vrede too]

You miss the point or are just dancing around it. What I am talking about is VOTERS, you know, citizens, people like us not being able to vote in a state primary if that primary election is cancelled. Forget about money, signatures, delegates, etc. The fact IS that if a state cancels its primary election, it deprives the electorate of choices they would normally have. Oh, and abortion also has nothing to do with this, either.

Good on you for hanging in there. It's not possible to explain it more clearly than we already have. In 1996, 2004 and 2012 not one long shot opponent said that cancelled primaries helped them, not one. PP is just lying. What we are witnessing here is that PP is so desperate to defend anti-democratic 45SHOLE and Repugs no matter what that s/he doesn't mind making a complete fool of her/himself over and over and over.

[neoplacebo]

You miss the point or are just dancing around it. What I am talking about is VOTERS, you know, citizens, people like us not being able to vote in a state primary if that primary election is cancelled. Forget about money, signatures, delegates, etc. The fact IS that if a state cancels its primary election, it deprives the electorate of choices they would normally have. Oh, and abortion also has nothing to do with this, either.

Good on you for hanging in there. It's not possible to explain it more clearly than we already have. In 1996, 2004 and 2012 not one long shot opponent said that cancelled primaries helped them, not one. PP is just lying. What we are witnessing here is that PP is so desperate to defend anti-democratic 45SHOLE and Repugs no matter what that s/he doesn't mind making a complete fool of her/himself over and over and over.

Well, I did sort of contradict myself in the sense that primaries generally are to weed out the less popular candidates, but in the case of an incumbent president, not allowing voters to choose among trump, jesus, and the other GOP challengers (an increase in candidates) is to my way of thinking depriving voters the opportunity to express their dissatisfaction with the incumbent. The four states that have cancelled their GOP presidential primaries have done this; like what a fascist state would do.

[PeacefulPartier]

My thought is complete; primary elections are for the purpose of deciding who the best candidate is for the office in question. If those primary elections are canceled, by default the incumbent in that office is assured continuance in that office. This denies the voters the chance to select a candidate that they may prefer over the incumbent. I don't know how to make it any simpler than that.

What if the challenger uses his/her funds to persuade delegates? State delegates can still vote as they wish. Remember, there were delegates that voted against Hillary because of the way the DNC did Bernie. I think your assumption that the incumbent gets the votes is inaccurate. It probably isn't unreasonable to make that assumption, but it is very possible for a challenger to sway votes. All he/she would have to do is win a few states and then make the case that the states that cancelled would have voted for the challenger. Also, if there was a late breaking scandal, it would make the challenger's job easier.

As it stands right now, Trump will win every single state in a Republican primary. Jesus himself could run against Trump and would lose. A reduced number of primaries will not change that.

Further, choosing a candidate is not a democratic process. It is a private entity process. Publicly any candidate can run if he/she can get enough signatures on a petition in each state. So the process of picking a President follows democratic principles, but the process of picking a nominee for each party is wholly up to them. They can do it by seniority, lottery, primary or any other method they like.

You miss the point or are just dancing around it. What I am talking about is VOTERS, you know, citizens, people like us not being able to vote in a state primary if that primary election is cancelled. Forget about money, signatures, delegates, etc. The fact IS that if a state cancels its primary election, it deprives the electorate of choices they would normally have. Oh, and abortion also has nothing to do with this, either.

It deprives them of nothing. The primary process is extra-constitutional. There is nothing mandating a primary. Anyone can run, assuming they are eligible.

The whole idea of a primary election is to NARROW the field of candidates, not increase it.

Obviously.

And the concept of primary elections was to give the PUBLIC the right to choose candidates instead of the hacks of the party organization choosing them for us.

Nope. The primary system was designed to find a candidate for the party that gave them the best chance to win. In many states, only party members can vote.

You can choose to believe otherwise, but I don't see why.

I like reality. It is fun.

The only statement you made that I can agree with is that primaries are not mandated; that's why a state can cancel one, which was the original issue; is it "right" for a state to do so.

The state cannot cancel a primary. The party can. To my knowledge, Kansas, Nevada and South Carolina will have primaries. Just not GOP primaries.

[neoplacebo]

What if the challenger uses his/her funds to persuade delegates? State delegates can still vote as they wish. Remember, there were delegates that voted against Hillary because of the way the DNC did Bernie. I think your assumption that the incumbent gets the votes is inaccurate. It probably isn't unreasonable to make that assumption, but it is very possible for a challenger to sway votes. All he/she would have to do is win a few states and then make the case that the states that cancelled would have voted for the challenger. Also, if there was a late breaking scandal, it would make the challenger's job easier.

As it stands right now, Trump will win every single state in a Republican primary. Jesus himself could run against Trump and would lose. A reduced number of primaries will not change that.

Further, choosing a candidate is not a democratic process. It is a private entity process. Publicly any candidate can run if he/she can get enough signatures on a petition in each state. So the process of picking a President follows democratic principles, but the process of picking a nominee for each party is wholly up to them. They can do it by seniority, lottery, primary or any other method they like.

You miss the point or are just dancing around it. What I am talking about is VOTERS, you know, citizens, people like us not being able to vote in a state primary if that primary election is cancelled. Forget about money, signatures, delegates, etc. The fact IS that if a state cancels its primary election, it deprives the electorate of choices they would normally have. Oh, and abortion also has nothing to do with this, either.

It deprives them of nothing. The primary process is extra-constitutional. There is nothing mandating a primary. Anyone can run, assuming they are eligible.

The whole idea of a primary election is to NARROW the field of candidates, not increase it.

Obviously.

And the concept of primary elections was to give the PUBLIC the right to choose candidates instead of the hacks of the party organization choosing them for us.

Nope. The primary system was designed to find a candidate for the party that gave them the best chance to win. In many states, only party members can vote.

You can choose to believe otherwise, but I don't see why.

I like reality. It is fun.

The only statement you made that I can agree with is that primaries are not mandated; that's why a state can cancel one, which was the original issue; is it "right" for a state to do so.

The state cannot cancel a primary. The party can. To my knowledge, Kansas, Nevada and South Carolina will have primaries. Just not GOP primaries.

Yep, the original concept behind primary elections was to allow citizen input instead of just the party hacks; go and read a definition of US primary elections from an encyclopedia or wiki and you will learn this. This whole topic is about the GOP presidential primaries; I did not mean to suggest a state can decide to cancel all primaries; just the GOP in certain states did this. I apologize for the ambiguity on that. And, again, the initial topic is about GOP primaries being cancelled so that trump will have no competition from jesus or the other GOP long shots, thus preventing unsatisfied GOP primary voters being able to voice their displeasure with the incumbent GOP president. Those primary voters that would vote for someone other than trump (so far in four states) cannot now do that because those primaries will not happen.