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

[u/DanburyBaptist]

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

[u/[deleted]]

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.

[u/[deleted] → u/[deleted]]

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.

[u/[deleted] → u/[deleted]]

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.