G.O.P. Chief Discourages Rule Changes That Seem to Block Donald Trump

WASHINGTON — The chairman of the Republican National Committee has privately urged members of the party’s rules committee not to make changes to the guidelines governing the presidential nominating process, an effort to avoid the appearance that the party is seeking to block Donald J. Trump from becoming its nominee.

The chairman, Reince Priebus, whom associates describe as increasingly frustrated by Mr. Trump’s criticism of the delegate-selection process, sent a text message last week to multiple rules committee members strongly suggesting that they not alter the convention rules when the party convenes next week for its spring meeting in Florida, according to two who received the message.
G.O.P. Chief Discourages Rule Changes That Seem to Block Donald Trump

To those who still want to claim "Republicans and Democrats can choose a candidate any way they want to.", there are two issues to consider:

1. Both parties must follow state laws:

Do the GOP and the Democratic Party have to follow state laws?

2. Both parties must consider public relations in everything they do. Even if they can find loopholes in the current laws, for instance:

It is legal for candidates to pay delegates at a brokered convention

They still have to keep the public relations aspect of their actions in mind at every step. Otherwise, they risk losing the support of the masses.

One more thing, does anyone see a parallel between the above and the following?

Sheikh Adel Al-Kilbani, former Imam of the Grand Mosque in Mecca, admitted during a television appearance that ISIS merely shares the same beliefs as all Muslims who embrace what is contained in the Koran.

....

The cleric goes on to suggest that many Muslims agree with the Salafist philosophy behind ISIS, and that the only disagreement is with the way in which that philosophy is acted out from a public relations perspective.
“We do not criticize the thought on which it is based, such as the concept of apostasy,” states Al-Kilbani, suggesting that executions are justifiable for people who leave Islam, but that the “brutal” way in which ISIS kills people, “ruins our image in front of the world.”
“If we execute them in a way what does not show us in a bad light, then that’s fine,” he adds.
Former Grand Mosque Imam: ISIS Shares the Same Beliefs as Us

It's nothing personal, it's just business. Whether the scumbags in charge are executing religious apostates or political apostates, as long as they can handle the PR problem...it's all fine.

That's the reality of the world we live in.

It's nothing personal, it's just business. Whether the scumbags in charge are executing religious apostates or political apostates, as long as they can handle the PR problem...it's all fine.

Now extend that same thought and include all the Western Nations.

All Govts do as they wish and then control the PR.

P

a reply to: Profusion

Reince Priebus

The Repub version of Debbie Wasserman Schultz.
Take those 2 out of the picture and some candidates on both sides may have had a chance.But , thanks to them we are gonna be stuck with a Clinton- Cruz election. May the Supreme Being smile down on us and save us.....

a reply to: Profusion

…an effort to avoid the appearance that the party is seeking to block Donald J. Trump from becoming its nominee.

Mission accomplished. Trump has stolen the party and divided it against itself.

The trickster…

Who else has millions of dollars, his name on the side of buildings and yet whines how everything is so unfairrr?

a reply to: Profusion

First of all, whether something is legal is not as important as whether or not something is JUST. The power players care naught for the latter, and only worry about the former.

Furthermore, where religious matters are concerned, no one man speaks for Islam, just as no one man speaks for Christianity. Adherents to both are prone to fooling themselves into thinking otherwise, but they are just as wrong, no matter which book they take their guidance in life from.

a reply to: Profusion

People will say that political parties are a private organization and they can do what they want. That's fine, but don't stack the entire candidate selection between just two parties and than have voters think the majority vote will be selected as the nominee. There's absolutely no need for primaries if these organizations have the final say. They also shouldn't have the right to present more than one candidate to represent their party. The enormous financial support these parties get prevent other outside parties and non-affiliated party people from running!

The whole party system stinks to high heaven. There should be no outside financial influences of a candidate, no candidate running under the banner of any private party organization and no political endorsements. To have a true democratic and free election, the choice should be left to the voters and not swayed by outside organizations. Candidates should run on their personal beliefs, not conform to a political platform. This would eliminate the political divisiveness we find in our country.

a reply to: pheonix358


Why do you say 'western nations
' instead of nations? Name me any non-western nation that doesn't operate along the same line. The only variance I can see is degree...

originally posted by: WeRpeons
a reply to: Profusion

People will say that political parties are a private organization and they can do what they want. That's fine, but don't stack the entire candidate selection between just two parties and than have voters think the majority vote will be selected as the nominee. There's absolutely no need for primaries if these organizations have the final say.

The primaries are necessary because the parties must follow state laws:

THEATRE OF THE POLITICALLY ABSURD The Relationship between State Law and Party Rules and the "Punishing" of the former where violative of the latter (PART TWO)

The GOP's website explicitly says it:

A candidate must win the votes of a majority of delegates to secure the nomination. In 2016, the magic number is 1,237 (50% + 1 of the 2,472 Convention delegates). Most delegates will go to Convention “bound” to vote for a particular candidate, based on how their state or territory voted.
gop.com...

Why are you repeating the "political parties are a private organization and they can do what they want" lie?

a reply to: intrptr

The GOP did this go itself. First they make Trump pledge on paper to only run Republican and then, when he's sure to win with populous vote, they underrmine him winning.

I shudder at the thought of Pres. Trump, but c'mon. The GOP just showed all parties how our votes count for #.

a reply to: NewzNose

First they make Trump pledge on paper to only run Republican and then, when he's sure to win with populous vote, they undermine him winning.

Like they let a trojan horse in the gate, sort of?

imo

Why are you repeating the "political parties are a private organization and they can do what they want" lie?

a reply to: Profusion

Because that's exactly what they've been saying to justify manipulating the delegates.

originally posted by: WeRpeons

Why are you repeating the "political parties are a private organization and they can do what they want" lie?

a reply to: Profusion

Because that's exactly what they've been saying to justify manipulating the delegates.

I know that they can manipulate delegates but they still have to follow state and territorial laws.

Despite suspending his campaign, Sen. Marco Rubio is attempting to keep every delegate he won while running for president.

The unusual move reflects preparations for a contested convention this summer — and comes as Donald Trump backed away from an earlier pledge to support the Republican party's nominee if he is treated unfairly after winning more delegates than his rivals.
Rubio Makes Unprecedented Bid to Keep Delegates for Contested Convention

The Republican party via Rubio is attempting to petition US states and territories to change the way they allocate delegates. Isn't that proof that the states and territories are in control of the matter and not the Republicans?

What they claim obviously is nothing compared to what they actually do. And Rubio's letter tells the whole story IMHO.

a reply to: WeRpeons

It's Very Simple . Our Founding Fathers Made Clear that The PEOPLE Elect their President , Not Special Interests that Control Political Parties . Somewhere in the Last 200 Years that Simple Fact has been Lost......

yeah go ahead and do that RNC and you`ll lose at least %20 of your votes. Trump will go independent and take at least %20 of the republican vote with him,remember when perote went independent and took %19 of the vote? and Trump is a lot more popular than Perote was.even if Trump doesn`t go independent the republicans will lose a lot of trump voters who just won`t vote at all rather than vote for the RNC nominated poster boy.

originally posted by: Zanti Misfit
a reply to: WeRpeons

It's Very Simple . Our Founding Fathers Made Clear that The PEOPLE Elect their President , Not Special Interests that Control Political Parties . Somewhere in the Last 200 Years that Simple Fact has been Lost......

No they didn't. They made it clear that the EC elects the President, go read the Constitution, no where in it do you even have the right to vote. In this case however you're not even voting for President, you're voting for whose name goes on the ballot.

originally posted by: Aazadan

originally posted by: Zanti Misfit
a reply to: WeRpeons

It's Very Simple . Our Founding Fathers Made Clear that The PEOPLE Elect their President , Not Special Interests that Control Political Parties . Somewhere in the Last 200 Years that Simple Fact has been Lost......

No they didn't. They made it clear that the EC elects the President, go read the Constitution, no where in it do you even have the right to vote. In this case however you're not even voting for President, you're voting for whose name goes on the ballot.

Scholar Hans von Spakovsky of the conservative Heritage Foundation and author of Who’s Counting?: How Fraudsters and Bureaucrats Put Your Vote at Risk.

"It is correct that there is not an explicit provision in the Constitution guaranteeing the right to vote," he said, "but several amendments guarantee the right to vote at age 18, free of racial discrimination, and protected by the Equal Protection doctrine."

Also the Electors are to be decided BY the people to do their will. The Elctoral college is a perversion of that.

Political parties are private organizations and can choose a candidate however they want. So says the Supreme Court, " Justice Scalia went on to state for the Court that Proposition 198 takes away a party's "basic function" to choose its own leaders" If the parties have voting as part of the primary system then states do have some powers under election laws, deciding when it happens and if it is open or closed and how some of the initial delegates are bound if at all. Also if the parties chose to have primary voting they also have to follow some federal laws like they can not ban you from voting do to race, religion sex etc. However state and federal election laws do not have any power if the parties chose caucuses or another way beyond voting.

What is interesting in the OP is the GOP pretty much has no rules for going after delegates. Some state and federal election laws have rules, like buying them off with bribes for ones that were in primaries that have voting. In the second round when everybody is pretty much unbound then things get real crazy and the GOP itself does not have much in the way of rules about how delegates chose.

If Trump fails to get the needed to delegates to win in the first round and that seems likely then he needs a strong plan and solid organization to win in the second or third. The problem being in every state where he has needed that he has done very poorly. And still no matter who takes the nomination it will be somebody whom has less than half the support of GOP voters. I do not see how the GOP can come out of this without it being a train wreck.

The GOP is the smaller party. To find a win in the national election they need a candidate that can win the entire GOP and take a decent percentage of independent and Democrat voters. It is possible to win without full GOP support if the candidate is very popular among independent and democrat voters. The problems with both Trump and Cruz as they are not well liked in their own party and greatly disliked by independents and democrats. If the GOP sticks in somebody else not even in the primaries they have to hope it is somebody that can win so many independents and democrats that it will make up for a good part of the GOP sitting at home. And I do not know anybody like that.

I do not know what the GOP should do. Just let it roll, take the beating and hope the party can make a come back down the road or make a move and still take a beating and hope the party can make come back down the road. The only positive side to make a move on Trump is the DNC can not make him the face of the party for next decade and use it as a weapon forever.

a reply to: intrptr

No, like that made him swear to stay on the Republican ticket just to dump him.

It's probablyy in response to this.

Personal Letter from Donald Trump to The American People
"Let me ask America a question: How has the “system” been working out for you and your family?

I, for one, am not interested in defending a system that for decades has served the interest of political parties at the expense of the people. Members of the club—the consultants, the pollsters, the politicians, the pundits and the special interests—grow rich and powerful while the American people grow poorer and more isolated."

a reply to: Chickensalad

Excellent link.
Everything Trump says in that letter is true.
All who keep saying Trump is whining about the rules need to read that. Finally, someone is standing up for voters.

Everything he says there is why I will never vote for Cruz or any other candidate they try to force in violation of the voters choice.