RE: Roger Stone threatening Delegates in Cleveland?

RE: Roger Stone threatening Delegates in Cleveland? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

DesideriScuri -> RE: Roger Stone threatening Delegates in Cleveland? (4/10/2016 6:06:24 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Zonie63 quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: ORIGINAL: Hillwilliam quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri He's not exactly a Republican, and doesn't support all the Republican party planks. Paul Ryan said something to the effect that it's important that the GOP nominates a Republican, and shouldn't grant the nomination to someone who doesn't measure up. If the people support someone who does not support the planks, then maybe they should take a hint and change the planks. I disagree. I think it's better to stand for something and let the votes fall where they may. Don't nominate a guy simply because he's popular, or resonates with a particular electorate. Nominate who stands for the party's values. Let that other guy find the party he actually fits in. Who should determine the party's values - other than the people who are actually IN the party? If the majority of party members say what their values are, isn't it up to the party to reflect that in their platform? Should the Democrats be allowed to join the GOP without adopting the GOP's party planks? Party leadership should determine the party planks. It should be up to the party leadership, too, to not nominate a candidate that stands for the party planks. Hell, any candidate that doesn't stand for the party planks shouldn't have even been allowed to run for the party's nomination.

DesideriScuri -> RE: Roger Stone threatening Delegates in Cleveland? (4/10/2016 6:14:17 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Termyn8or What do you want ? for new political parties to spring up because the old ones have lost so much popular support ? Actually I am for that, but they can't get on the fucking ballot ! We need some serious election reform in this country. So you say they should stick to the party line, fine. but let there be more parties so the People have real choices. We are tired of voting against people. There are more parties. People do have real choices. I, too, am tired of voting against a candidate. I've decided to only vote for the candidate that I feel best represents me. If that candidate ends up being the GOP nominee, that's who I'm voting for. If that candidate ends up being the Democratic nominee, that's who I'm voting for. If that candidate ends up being the <insert party name here> nominee, that's who I'm voting for. If no one is willing to vote for a third (or fourth, or fifth, etc.) party, we will never have a strong third, fourth, fifth, etc. party. Yes, we may get some shitty leadership until the general public follows suit, but how else is it going to get done? We'll be better, as a country, for it in the end.

Termyn8or -> RE: Roger Stone threatening Delegates in Cleveland? (4/10/2016 6:34:07 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: ORIGINAL: Zonie63 quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: ORIGINAL: Hillwilliam quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri He's not exactly a Republican, and doesn't support all the Republican party planks. Paul Ryan said something to the effect that it's important that the GOP nominates a Republican, and shouldn't grant the nomination to someone who doesn't measure up. If the people support someone who does not support the planks, then maybe they should take a hint and change the planks. I disagree. I think it's better to stand for something and let the votes fall where they may. Don't nominate a guy simply because he's popular, or resonates with a particular electorate. Nominate who stands for the party's values. Let that other guy find the party he actually fits in. Who should determine the party's values - other than the people who are actually IN the party? If the majority of party members say what their values are, isn't it up to the party to reflect that in their platform? Should the Democrats be allowed to join the GOP without adopting the GOP's party planks? Party leadership should determine the party planks. It should be up to the party leadership, too, to not nominate a candidate that stands for the party planks. Hell, any candidate that doesn't stand for the party planks shouldn't have even been allowed to run for the party's nomination. Have to partly agree. People have to have something to count on. but these planks are WRONG and must be changed. Who is to change them ? Well I think if someone gets elected President he might just be qualified to change the planks. You know, if Trump gets the chair, and doesn't start the religious shit about abortion and all that, he could revitalize the republican party. They aren't that great but they know math. No President can do whatever they want. For example, Obama could write an EO right now banning all guns in private possession. Know what would happen ? Fucking nothing. First of all, there would be no budget to confiscate them, second of all the courts have already ruled and it would be immediately struck down. I know very few EO have been struck down by the courts, but this one surely would be. Know what surprises me ? Nixon's wage and price freeze. Remember that ? Totally unconstitutional, but legal under Admiralty Maritime Jurisdiction. Which we have been since the 1930s. There is no Constitution, and the only hand you hold in court is to threaten to reveal that fact. I have told of that concept before and will not reiterate it now. Bottom line, the President is not a dictator, though the candidates might not know this. Checks and balances. And now, some people complain becasue republican congress has up and just said "We ain't approving ANYONE you propose for the supreme court". I believe that they believe that they are doing the job for which they were elected. And maybe they are. If not we could lose our guns and a bunch of other rights. That court is what keeps the legislature and regulatory agencies in check. Without them we would be as fucked as Europeans. No freedom of speech, telly taxes, no guns even though there are animals running around. Fuck all that, we got this country BECAUSE we wanted away from that shit. And I intend to keep it that way. And if they are afraid to come here GOOD. Stay home. If you want to buy a 1970s or 1960s car with a big block V8 and soup it up and drive like a maniac, and buy a gun and learn how to shoot, ad get like a thousand watt stereo and go drinking, come on over. But if you don't wat that life, stay where you are. And I wish you well, I really do. Just keep your ideology there. You come here you adapt to us. T^T

Zonie63 -> RE: Roger Stone threatening Delegates in Cleveland? (4/10/2016 7:50:04 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: ORIGINAL: Zonie63 quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: ORIGINAL: Hillwilliam quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri He's not exactly a Republican, and doesn't support all the Republican party planks. Paul Ryan said something to the effect that it's important that the GOP nominates a Republican, and shouldn't grant the nomination to someone who doesn't measure up. If the people support someone who does not support the planks, then maybe they should take a hint and change the planks. I disagree. I think it's better to stand for something and let the votes fall where they may. Don't nominate a guy simply because he's popular, or resonates with a particular electorate. Nominate who stands for the party's values. Let that other guy find the party he actually fits in. Who should determine the party's values - other than the people who are actually IN the party? If the majority of party members say what their values are, isn't it up to the party to reflect that in their platform? Should the Democrats be allowed to join the GOP without adopting the GOP's party planks? Party leadership should determine the party planks. It should be up to the party leadership, too, to not nominate a candidate that stands for the party planks. Hell, any candidate that doesn't stand for the party planks shouldn't have even been allowed to run for the party's nomination. What do you mean "allowed"? Anyone is allowed to join any political party they wish, no matter if they adopt the party planks or not. There's no test or anything - just fill out a simple form and you're in. Of course, I can't say why anyone would join a party if they didn't agree with their values and party platform. But even then, people aren't required to support the party planks just because they belong to a party. That's why we see a lot of dissension within political parties, such as with the Democrats in '68. That's how splinter parties get formed, along with crossover voters in the general election. If a Republican gets elected in a district with a Democratic majority, then that means that some Democrats must have voted for a Republican. Should they be "allowed" to do that?

WickedsDesire -> RE: Roger Stone threatening Delegates in Cleveland? (4/10/2016 8:42:04 AM)
Picks his nose and eats it it needed saying....cant just be me. Ah buffoonery and his weak minion versus lady liberty herself its a catsphprer, gpopher bloody wine Natural corruption Its a catastrophe

DesideriScuri -> RE: Roger Stone threatening Delegates in Cleveland? (4/10/2016 4:21:24 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Zonie63 What do you mean "allowed"? Anyone is allowed to join any political party they wish, no matter if they adopt the party planks or not. There's no test or anything - just fill out a simple form and you're in. Of course, I can't say why anyone would join a party if they didn't agree with their values and party platform. But even then, people aren't required to support the party planks just because they belong to a party. That's why we see a lot of dissension within political parties, such as with the Democrats in '68. That's how splinter parties get formed, along with crossover voters in the general election. If a Republican gets elected in a district with a Democratic majority, then that means that some Democrats must have voted for a Republican. Should they be "allowed" to do that? If a Democrat voted for a Republican solely because the candidate was a Republican, then, I don't think that Democrat is really a Democrat, and didn't vote wisely (voting party rather than voting candidate/beliefs). If a Democrat voted for a Republican because he/she thought the Republican candidate was a better representative of his ideals, then that's what should happen. I have no problem with a party's planks actually changing to accurately represent the beliefs of those in the party. That's to be expected, but that's not what's happening here. Party leadership clearly believe the way Trump does on many things. Nominating Trump plainly states that the GOP is best represented by Trump. If Trump's ideas and beliefs truly have traction with the general public, then, perhaps another party that holds those same beliefs will stand up, and we'll have a third party.

Zonie63 -> RE: Roger Stone threatening Delegates in Cleveland? (4/10/2016 5:56:14 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: ORIGINAL: Zonie63 What do you mean "allowed"? Anyone is allowed to join any political party they wish, no matter if they adopt the party planks or not. There's no test or anything - just fill out a simple form and you're in. Of course, I can't say why anyone would join a party if they didn't agree with their values and party platform. But even then, people aren't required to support the party planks just because they belong to a party. That's why we see a lot of dissension within political parties, such as with the Democrats in '68. That's how splinter parties get formed, along with crossover voters in the general election. If a Republican gets elected in a district with a Democratic majority, then that means that some Democrats must have voted for a Republican. Should they be "allowed" to do that? If a Democrat voted for a Republican solely because the candidate was a Republican, then, I don't think that Democrat is really a Democrat, and didn't vote wisely (voting party rather than voting candidate/beliefs). If a Democrat voted for a Republican because he/she thought the Republican candidate was a better representative of his ideals, then that's what should happen. I have no problem with a party's planks actually changing to accurately represent the beliefs of those in the party. That's to be expected, but that's not what's happening here. Party leadership clearly believe the way Trump does on many things. Nominating Trump plainly states that the GOP is best represented by Trump. If Trump's ideas and beliefs truly have traction with the general public, then, perhaps another party that holds those same beliefs will stand up, and we'll have a third party. I'd like to see a third (or even a fourth party) reach greater prominence among the electorate. I also think the nomination process should also be more democratic. I've always believed that they should do away with conventions altogether and have a national primary for all states on the same day, no more than 90 days before the general election. But that'll never happen, because the system is too corrupted. I never liked Trump, but one thing I would note is that the party's national committee has the option of cutting off funding to any candidate they don't like. I remember they did that with Randy Graf, when he ran against Giffords in 2006. Graf was too much of a kook; he supported the Minutemen and other ideas that were not in line with the national GOP. So, the national committee cut him off, and he could only use whatever he could get from local donations for his campaign. As a result, he lost the election. But now, they can't really do that with Trump, since he has too much of his own money he can use.

Page: << < prev 1 [2]

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.0625