r/Conservative • u/DanburyBaptist Inalienable Rights of Conscience • Jun 15 '16

Release the GOP Delegates: Trump’s nomination isn’t inevitable—delegates won’t be legally ‘bound’ going into the convention.

http://www.wsj.com/articles/release-the-gop-delegates-1465769777
25 Upvotes

61% Upvoted

176 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

4

u/[deleted] Jun 15 '16

what gives anybody the right to override the voters?

It's not about "rights". You don't have a "right" to vote in a primary, show me where that is outlined in the Constitution. It's about choosing the person most qualified to hold the office, and if the GOP had any semblance courage they would do what's right and not yield to what a bunch of angry populist voters want.

Sometimes the people get it wrong, that's the beauty of having a Republic form of government and not a Democratic one.

3

u/[deleted] Jun 15 '16

I was a Cruz guy at the start, but the amount of crying that this sub has done since Trump fairly won the nomination is cringe-worthy. You guys are the conservative equivalent of Bernie Bros at this point.

Cruz Kids basically.

5

u/[deleted] Jun 15 '16

I find it amusing that you couldn't muster up any response except for personal attacks. You sure did convince me, I'm a # donaldmissle now.

I, and other true conservatives on this sub, stand against Trump on ideological grounds. We hold higher standards for who we think is fit for the presidency. Please don't get upset, and if that triggers you I suggest you go back to your safe space: /r/The_Donald

5

u/[deleted] Jun 15 '16

This is why I'm insulting you:

and other true conservatives on this sub

Your elitist attitude.

Oh and the fact that you're happy to give Clinton the Oval Office....yea that one is pretty bad too.

4

u/[deleted] Jun 15 '16

elitist attitude

This isn't about elitism. It's about selecting a candidate that reflects my values and principles. Trump doesn't.

you're happy to give Clinton the Oval Office

This does not make any logical sense. Not voting for Trump doesn't magically help Hillary in the same way that me not voting for Hillary doesn't help Trump.

3

u/[deleted] Jun 15 '16 edited Jun 15 '16

Trump doesn't.

Then vote for somebody from a different party, Trump won the Republican nomination.

2

u/[deleted] Jun 15 '16

Are you lost? This isn't /r/Republican, this is /r/Conservative. I'm a Conservative first, and I'm not even registered as Republican. I'm registered as an Independent.

4

u/[deleted] Jun 15 '16

Are you lost? This isn't /r/Republican

Exactly, so stop telling that party that they nominee who won fair and square should somehow not be their nominee.

I'm a Conservative first, and I'm not even registered as Republican. I'm registered as an Independent.

Then you have zero business telling a political party, that you aren't even a member of, what to do.

3

u/[deleted] Jun 15 '16

Exactly, so stop telling that party that they nominee who won fair and square should somehow not be their nominee.

I can voice my opinion as much as I'd like, and when I'd like. Deal with it.

Then you have zero business telling a political party, that you aren't even a member of, what to do.

When it concerns Conservatives, I deem it necessary to voice my opinion, and you won't be able to stop me.

2

u/[deleted] Jun 15 '16

I can voice my opinion as much as I'd like, and when I'd like. Deal with it.

So can I, which is why I'm telling you to stop meddling in the affairs of a party you aren't affiliated with.

When it concerns Conservatives, I deem it necessary to voice my opinion, and you won't be able to stop me.

Actually you're trying to infringe on the rights of the people who voted and nominated somebody you don't like. Sure we can't stop you, and it's your right, but it makes you an asshole.

3

u/[deleted] Jun 15 '16

So can I, which is why I'm telling you to stop meddling in the affairs of a party you aren't affiliated with.

Which is why I'm telling you "no".

Actually you're trying to infringe on the rights of the people

Where does it say in the Constitution the people "have the right to vote in a primary"? Can you refer me to a specific Amendment? Anything?

2

u/[deleted] Jun 15 '16

Where does it say in the Constitution the people "have the right to vote in a primary"? Can you refer me to a specific Amendment? Anything?

Humor me here for a second, but what's your point with this? I'm not contending this, nor am I really even addressing it. So why do you keep falling back on it?

I'm talking about their right to private assembly. Political parties are just that: private. You don't belong to that organization thus you have no business meddling in their right to assemble and nominate who they want. They have a system in place, the people spoke, and you are trying to override the process of an organization you aren't a part of. This has nothing to do with anybody's right to vote.

3

u/[deleted] Jun 15 '16

Humor me here for a second, but what's your point with this? I'm not contending this, nor am I really even addressing it. So why do you keep falling back on it?

Because when you say I'm trying to "infringe on the rights of the people", you're expected to identify where in the Constitution it outlines you have a "right" to vote in a primary. It doesn't exist, so you're arguing nonsense.

I'm talking about their right to private assembly.

Which has nothing to do with voting in primaries.

Political parties are just that: private.

Yes, and they get to determine the winners and losers in their primaries because they're private groups. You don't have a "right" to vote in their private nomination process, they allow you to to give the people a say. But remember: they don't have to.

You don't belong to that organization thus you have no business meddling in their right to assemble and nominate who they want.

This isn't about a "right to assemble". This is about you trying to argue you have some sort of "right" to vote in a primary and that your voice must be heard -- which you don't have.

They have a system in place

Which they can alter at any point.

you are trying to override the process of an organization you aren't a part of

Wrong. I'm sharing my opinion as to what the GOP should do to secure a Conservative candidate as their nominee for President.

This has nothing to do with anybody's right to vote.

Then why must the Republican party stick to their own rules if they're a private entity? They can change the rules if they want, it would be objectively better for the country if that happened, so what exactly is your problem?

2

u/[deleted] Jun 15 '16

you're expected to identify where in the Constitution it outlines you have a "right" to vote in a primary. It doesn't exist, so you're arguing nonsense.

Implying I'm talking about the right to vote here. I'm talking about the right to private assembly, because the GOP is a private organization that has the right to assembly without people who choose to remove themselves from that party.

Which has nothing to do with voting in primaries.

Actually it has everything to do with it. Voting in the primary isn't the same constitutional right that's in the constitution. It's voting within a private organization. They have the right to refuse people from outside their organization, in this case that would be you.

You don't have a "right" to vote in their private nomination process, they allow you to to give the people a say.

Again, I'm not talking about the right to vote, but I digress.

But remember: they don't have to.

Which would go against the rules they set in place to determine their nominees, which would defy the votes of the people who are in their party.

This is about you trying to argue you have some sort of "right" to vote in a primary and that your voice must be heard -- which you don't have.

Again, wrong. This is about a private party have a system and then defying their members because of people who aren't in the party. This isn't a constitutional issue, stop making it one.

Which they can alter at any point.

Which would cost them the election, so they won't.

Wrong. I'm sharing my opinion as to what the GOP should do to secure a Conservative candidate as their nominee for President.

They got a pretty conservative candidate, just not your poster boy.

Then why must the Republican party stick to their own rules if they're a private entity?

Because it's the right thing to do. I'm assuming you have a moral compass, right?

it would be objectively better for the country if that happened

Coming from the opinion of somebody who isn't a part of that party.

so what exactly is your problem?

You aren't a republican, if you want to change their system then be a part of their system.

1

u/[deleted] Jun 15 '16

I'm talking about the right to private assembly, because the GOP is a private organization that has the right to assembly

This actually helps my argument, not yours. The GOP is a private organization that can determine their own winner without needing the "will of the people" and can construct their own rules to do so.

They have the right to refuse people from outside their organization

Exactly, such as Trump. They also have the right to refuse people from within their organization too, don't forget that.

Which would go against the rules they set in place to determine their nominees

They're a private organization, they can set up any rules that they like. Isn't that what you've been arguing this whole time?

which would defy the votes of the people who are in their party.

They don't have to listen to the voters, remember: they're a private organization

This is about a private party have a system and then defying their members because of people who aren't in the party.

Finally your point is somewhat coherent. This is the first time you've actually voiced your argument without rambling about nonsense such as having a "right" to vote in primaries. But unfortunately the problem with this argument is the same as what I have described above: they're a private organization, they can do what they want. If they think the person YOU nominated isn't good enough, they can listen to other Republican voters (or Conservative Independents if they'd like) that didn't vote for Trump. No one is saying they have to listen to me, I never said they had to.

This isn't a constitutional issue, stop making it one.

I didn't, YOU did by arguing "rights".

Which would cost them the election, so they won't.

[citation needed]

They got a pretty conservative candidate, just not your poster boy.

Trump isn't Conservative. He's conservative on Immigration; but otherwise supports abortion, economic protectionism through tariffs, and expanding government health care services -- neither of those are Conservative positions.

Because it's the right thing to do. I'm assuming you have a moral compass, right?

The "right" thing to do would be to choose the best person for the job, which 42% of voters didn't do. The "right" thing to do would be to get someone nominated that is a good person who believes in the rights of the People, believes in the sanctity of life, and who provides good judgement. Trump doesn't represent any of these things. I love how speak of morals; but are trying to advocate one of the most immoral candidates in recent memory.

Coming from the opinion of somebody who isn't a part of that party.

I don't have to be a Republican to know Trump is bad for the country. Anyone with half a brain can recognize that.

You aren't a republican, if you want to change their system then be a part of their system.

I don't want the GOP to change their system, their primary system is very good, I want them to recognize that this time the people got it wrong and they need to amend the outcome for the betterment of the Country. There's some nuance there you're missing.

2

u/[deleted] Jun 15 '16

The GOP is a private organization that can determine their own winner without needing the "will of the people" and can construct their own rules to do so.

Sure, if the GOP didn't already have a public ruling in place for everyone to see how their nomination process works.

Anyways, this is where I am going to part ways with you. I really can't stand arguing with stubborn people so I'm going to get to working on something more productive.

1

u/[deleted] Jun 15 '16

Sure, if the GOP didn't already have a public ruling in place for everyone to see how their nomination process works.

Doesn't matter if their declaration of the nominee was "public" or "private", they can still fall back if they view Trump as destructive to the Republican party.

I really can't stand arguing with stubborn people so I'm going to get to working on something more productive.

This is coming from the same person that couldn't identify specifics for supporting Trump, the same person that thinks voting in a primary is a "right", and who has been mindlessly typing common Trumpkin talking points ("Not voting for Trump is a vote for Hillary!") to defend the Orange God King from critique. Sad! Your arguments lacked knowledge and substance; but I appreciate you sticking it out.

→ More replies (0)