Image 01 Image 03

DRAMA: RNC Leadership Quashes Petition for Roll Call Vote

DRAMA: RNC Leadership Quashes Petition for Roll Call Vote

“There’s no precedent for this in parliamentary procedure.” – Sen. Mike Lee

Chaos erupted on the Republican National Committee Floor Monday afternoon when a request for a roll call vote was denied by the party chair. The vote, which likely would’ve failed, would’ve unbound delegates, freeing them to vote their conscience.

But the vote never happened.

On the roll call vote’s first introduction, the chair took a verbal vote, quickly decided the measure had failed, and attempted to move the convention forward. Delegates on the floor loudly protested. Well-known figures like Sen. Mike Lee and former Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli were involved in the floor fight. Meanwhile, the chairman and his compadres vacated the podium.

An uncharacteristically worked up Sen. Lee explained, “I’ve never seen the chair abandoned like that. There’s no precedent for this in parliamentary procedure.” He added, “this is completely surreal.”

Lee was complimentary of the musical entertainment though:

Here’s Ken Cuccinelli throwing his credentials on the floor, all rock star-like:

So then the chair comes back out to the podium, the Utah delegation moves to have a roll call vote, Sen. Lee seconds the motion, and again, chaos ensues:

No roll call vote was held as the chair said withdrawals from three states meant the petition failed to meet the threshold required for a floor vote.

The Iowa and Colorado delegations vacated the floor in protest.

Which three state’s petitions were decidedly invalid? The world may never know. The RNC is refusing to share that information.

Join us later this evening for our RNC primetime coverage…if you dare.

Follow Kemberlee on Twitter @kemberleekaye


Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.


I am not a fan of Trump, but if the #NeverTrumpsters got away with this and put in Sen. Cruz or someone else against the will of the majority of Republican voters who voted for Trump, there would be a landslide for her majesty Queen Hillary, the Senate Democrats, The House Democrats, candidates for Governor and other seats!

This crap is why people in this country are in an ever increasing angry mood!!

    Milhouse in reply to natdj. | July 18, 2016 at 6:47 pm

    The idea that primary voters have the right to dictate to the Republican Party whom it must nominate was always stupid. The whole primary system never made any sense, and was always going to lead to disaster eventually.

      myiq2xu in reply to Milhouse. | July 18, 2016 at 6:58 pm

      The problem with democracy is that the wrong people sometimes win.

        Ragspierre in reply to myiq2xu. | July 18, 2016 at 7:22 pm

        …as here.

        Two of the worst people in the country are who are vying for POTUS.

        Shit sandwich on rye or wheat. Some choice.

          myiq2xu in reply to Ragspierre. | July 18, 2016 at 8:22 pm

          Life is like a shit sandwich. The more bread you have, the less shit you have to eat.

          Anchovy in reply to Ragspierre. | July 18, 2016 at 8:34 pm

          Can you ever remember an election where there was a difficult choice because both candidates were really good and it was hard to make up your mind?

          You would think in a country with around 200+ million people we could find two that would be excellent candidates to lead this country.

        Milhouse in reply to myiq2xu. | July 18, 2016 at 8:37 pm

        Democracy would be letting the delegates vote. They are the party.

      Haverwilde in reply to Milhouse. | July 18, 2016 at 7:01 pm

      Huh? If the voters don’t have the right to dictate who should be the nominee, or who should be in office, who then should?

      If primaries don’t mean anything, then there is no sense in having them.

      Frankly, I hate the party system, it builds on a tribal mentality, and an ‘us’ vs. ‘them.’ But that is the system we have.

      Primaries are a stupid process, but then so is democracy. This election season it is particularly stupid.

        Milhouse in reply to Haverwilde. | July 18, 2016 at 8:33 pm

        Are you really this stupid? How do you not understand this? The public has the right to decide who holds public office. The public has no right to dictate to political parties which candidates they should run. How can you imagine it has such a right?

        If primaries don’t mean anything, then there is no sense in having them.

        What part of “The whole primary system never made any sense, and was always going to lead to disaster eventually” did you not understand? The purpose of primaries was supposed to be to consult the public, and get a sense of what it wanted, which the party could take under advisement, not to allow the public to dictate the nomination.

          Give it up, Milhouse. They truly don’t understand the difference between the Republican National Committee and voter affiliation. To them, if you register as–or even in your own mind identify as–a republican, you are a member of the RNC. No, they don’t bother to wonder why they have no say in who is the RNC chair (Reince just appeared out of the ether or they somehow didn’t get a ballot maybe), and they clearly don’t bother to wonder about rules or procedures (either what they are or how they are set).

          Haverwilde in reply to Milhouse. | July 19, 2016 at 11:06 am

          Bovine Scat Milhouse!
          The people ARE the party, not the demagogues who manipulate their way into positions of power in the party.
          It is interesting that you use the term ‘Stupid’ so frequently. Look in a mirror much?
          Most State parties require the delegates to be bound by the primary for at least one, and sometimes more, votes. But you would just love to have the national party thwart those rules, so your petty tyrant could take power.
          I dare say, if Trump were using the rules to steal the nomination from your candidate, the foot would be in the other shoe.
          p.s. Just quit with all the derogatory crap.

          Ragspierre in reply to Milhouse. | July 19, 2016 at 11:17 am

          “The people ARE the party, not the demagogues who manipulate their way into positions of power in the party.”

          You mean like those of us in the TEA party movement who managed to join the GOP (I’m not one, btw), and spent time, money, and effort to become delegates? By the support of “the people”?

          Those “manipulative demagogues”…???

          I really despair at the stupid I see here.

      Mac45 in reply to Milhouse. | July 18, 2016 at 7:19 pm

      So, does this mean that you are for disenfranchising the voters when it comes to political office? Should we just let Congress decide who the next president is? Think before you post.

        Ragspierre in reply to Mac45. | July 18, 2016 at 7:24 pm

        See Lincoln, Abraham convention selection, stupid.

          Mac45 in reply to Ragspierre. | July 18, 2016 at 7:39 pm

          I’m stupid? You do realize that no candidate had a majority of the votes on either the 1st or 2nd ballot at the 1860 Republican Convention, don’t you? This was the situation which the anti-Trump forces were hoping for at this convention. However, under the rules that existed when this contest began, with the first caucus in Iowa, most state delegates were required to vote, on the first ballot, for the delegate receiving the most votes/pledges in that state’s primary election or caucus either statewide, by district or some combination of those. So, if all the delegates follow the rules, which their state parties agreed to a year ago, then Trump will win on the first ballot. Then, the delegates can vote any way that they wish.

          Ragspierre in reply to Ragspierre. | July 18, 2016 at 7:51 pm

          “I’m stupid?”

          Wul, yah. And verbose. Other than that, I love you, brother…

        Milhouse in reply to Mac45. | July 18, 2016 at 8:36 pm

        So, does this mean that you are for disenfranchising the voters when it comes to political office?

        Of course not. How could you possibly have drawn that conclusion?

        Hint: Republican candidate for president is not a political office. It is literally none of the voters’ businesss whom a party nominates for any office. And it’s stupid to let the voters imagine that it is their business.

          Zachary in reply to Milhouse. | July 18, 2016 at 9:21 pm

          Exactly. See also: open primaries. The RNC is inviting destruction on itself every year and apparently that’s good for business for some of its members. Business as usual.

          malclave in reply to Milhouse. | July 18, 2016 at 10:04 pm

          It is literally none of the voters’ businesss whom a party nominates for any office. And it’s stupid to let the voters imagine that it is their business.

          Except the party MADE it the voters’ business through the rules.

          If they want to change the rules, fine… but the change should take effect in the next cycle.

          Milhouse in reply to Milhouse. | July 18, 2016 at 10:12 pm

          The party didn’t make it the voters’ business, because every convention starts out with no rules, until it adopts a set. It has every right not to adopt the proposed rules, and to adopt different ones. Any time voters were told that delegates would be bound, there was an implied condition: “Assuming that the convention adopts a rule that says so”.

          Barry in reply to Milhouse. | July 18, 2016 at 10:44 pm

          And the party has adopted the rules it wants and you are crying about it.

          Whine, whine, whine.

          Losers. You are all sore losers.

          malclave in reply to Milhouse. | July 18, 2016 at 10:49 pm

          every convention starts out with no rules, until it adopts a set.

          Hmm, I never knew that. I can’t say I like it.

          There really needs to be some sort of continuity, so people know what to expect. Either the primary and caucus system matters, or it doesn’t.

          Milhouse in reply to Milhouse. | July 19, 2016 at 5:37 am

          And the party has adopted the rules it wants

          No, it hasn’t validly adopted them, because there was no vote.

          Barry in reply to Milhouse. | July 19, 2016 at 1:36 pm

          “No, it hasn’t validly adopted them, because there was no vote.”

          The rules allowed there not to be a vote. The rules were followed, and because it doesn’t favor your choice, you decide the rules are invalid. Crybabie.

          The convention moves on. Per the rules.

          On to the next nevertrumper meme, impeachment.

      Yep, you’re correct as to the history of some states. In 1952, Minnesota’s GOP was upset over the voter’s call for Eisenhower, he got 3rd place; in 1956, the DFL over their voter’s preference. So, presidential primaries were abandoned, since the voters did not yield to the party leadership of either party; how dare they not validate the decisions of party leadership; oops, in 2016, those tables were overturned, presidential primaries restored.

      Yep, tell the people, the nasty, dirty, unwashed hoi polloi, who they have to vote for.

      You and Obama make a great team.

        Milhouse in reply to Doug Wright. | July 18, 2016 at 8:39 pm

        Nobody’s dictating to the people whom they have to vote for. But the people have no right to dictate to the GOP convention whom it should nominate.

          Don’t know if you’re a smoker, yet, it’s obvious that you want the party to select its nominee based on what, in what little dark, dank, room? Or, perhaps, a “Ouija” board?

          Your approach worked well in 1860, at least for one party. Communications was an issue back then, knowledge and education were quite different back then.

          Things have changed greatly in that regard, but you wish to remain back in 19th Century society and its ways.

          Better get ready to scream and holler at the Hoi Polloi as they go about trying to rectify this country.

          Ps: The Bushes, and now the Cruzers, love your approach. Pity it ain’t gonna work, Ol Boy! 😉

          Milhouse in reply to Milhouse. | July 18, 2016 at 10:13 pm

          Based on the delegates’ own preferences and consciences. What a revolutionary concept!

    katiejane in reply to natdj. | July 18, 2016 at 7:50 pm

    For some reason the Never Trump crowd just cannot understand that as the most likely scenario. And even if it were to happen they appear to think it an acceptable result in their quest for a righteously proper “conservative.”

    “This crap”? What crap? A perfectly legitimate call for a roll call vote to change the rules? A call that was dismissed?

    Yeah, that’s exactly what is wrong with this country and why people are angry! /sarc

    If you think for one minute that Trump wouldn’t be taking advantage of whatever he could to get the outcome he wanted, you are not paying attention. That’s the story of his life. He may be a novice at politics and didn’t understand caucus or delegate rules, but when he does have a clue, he goes for the jugular. Heck, isn’t that what Trump fans LIKE about him?

      Fuzzy ;
      I’ve been watching the npr/PBS combined coverage to get the other sides perspective. You’ll be gratified to know David Brooks agrees with you completely.

        Zachary in reply to secondwind. | July 18, 2016 at 9:28 pm

        Oh, my! You’ve completely de-legitimized Fuzzy Slippers by association to the opinion of a Hillary sycophant! Now who will we turn to for truth on here forums? My world is shattered.

        Trump agrees with me completely, too. Read his “art of the deal” about how to take advantage of whatever he can to get his way.

        And your bizarre comment about NPR and/or PBS reflecting some “other side” makes no sense at all. How do NPR and PBS differ from any other other mainstream media outlets? Other than their funding, in part, by our tax dollars?

      “…but when he does have a clue, he goes for the jugular. Heck, isn’t that what Trump fans LIKE about him?”

      Yep, and he crushed you sore losers like bugs.

        Aw, Barry, don’t feel like you have to use your latest copy and paste insult from Trump fandom on everyone here.

        We get it. Trump won. You’re happy, you’re gloating, you’re full of yourself. Excellent.

        It’s grand that you are such a gracious winner that you insult and hector the people you defeated . . . months after having won; such sportsmanship is definitely in line with your orange godlet’s personality. You do your rude, crass, classless, undignified, petty, and nasty oompa loompa king proud.

          Aw, Fuzzy, don’t let it get you down. When you losers quit whining and act like grownups I’ll stop gloating. Until then I’ll just keep pointing out how crazy you are to keep expecting some “miracle” that will put your savior St. Ted in the Whitehouse.

          You just keep having some ridiculous hope the result is going to be different, this time. And every time you get squashed like a bug, then you are all over whining about it.

          Some people never learn.

          I’m sorry, are you seriously suggesting that you wish to control what I say? Are you saying that if I don’t conform to your idea of how I should “act” and what I should say, you will continue to harass and insult me? I want to be clear on this because it’s quite an outrageous assertion. Who on earth do you think you are?

          Furthermore, show me one time, one time, since Ted Cruz dropped out of the presidential primary in May that I have “expected some miracle” or expressed even a hope that Cruz would still be the nominee. I’m serious. Show me. Prove your point that you are bullying and insulting me for the reasons you state.

          Here is what you accuse me of:

          Until then I’ll just keep pointing out how crazy you are to keep expecting some “miracle” that will put your savior St. Ted in the Whitehouse.

          You just keep having some ridiculous hope the result is going to be different, this time. And every time you get squashed like a bug, then you are all over whining about it.

          Where have I said anything even remotely like this? Where? Prove. It.

          “such sportsmanship”

          Darn, missed that one. You live in an alternate world if you think you and your few nevertrumpers have shown any “sportsmanship”, class, or graciousness.

          Every response I make, is in response to the whiniest group of political people I have ever seen hanging about in one place.

          You are welcome to leave at any time, Barry. In fact, I doubt you’d be missed any more than Gary or VF are.

          “I’m sorry, are you seriously suggesting that you wish to control what I say?”

          LOL, touchy, touchy. No, I said no such thing. To put it in plainer English for you, I mock you nevertrumpers whenever you are whining, which is often. Stop whining and I’ll stop mocking. Quit acting like sore losers and I’ll make no comments about it.

          “Prove your point that you are bullying and insulting me for the reasons you state.”
          “Where have I said anything even remotely like this? Where? Prove. It.”

          I’m returning the insults you have made about anyone that supports Trump. Bullying, no. I’m sure you are a grown up and have some experience with what happens when you insult others.

          “…Trump, with Pence as VP, will be impeached the first time he steps the slightest bit out of line, and . . . voila! With bipartisan enthusiasm, GOPe Pence is president.”

          Prediction of a Trump impeachment. Silly, but there it is.

          ” What crap? A perfectly legitimate call for a roll call vote to change the rules? A call that was dismissed?”

          Whining because the R party put down the nevertrump attempt to thwart the will of the voters they invited to participate in their primary, with rules about how the nominee would be selected.

          Every time another crushing of the nevertrump brigades occur, you are all over

          “You are welcome to leave at any time, Barry.”

          Why thank you. I’m sure you would like to get rid of everyone with a different opinion than you. But I’ll stick around.

          Barry, there is no room for misunderstanding in terms of your saying that if I don’t conform to your sense of how I should act and what I should say, you will continue to attack me. Making your continued attacks on me conditional on my thoughts, words, or actions is outrageous. Period.

          Particularly as you are apparently incapable of basic reading comprehension. Since Cruz dropped out in May, I have never ever said (or even thought) that Cruz would get the nomination. Your saying I did say or that I did think that is crazy town lunacy, and your continued hectoring based on this lie you tell yourself is unwelcome and completely out of line.

          As to your examples, there is nothing that you’ve quoted that says anything at all about a “miracle” that will give Cruz the nomination or any hint that I thought that possible. You know why? Because I didn’t think it possible. As I know full well that I have not harbored a single shred of hope that Cruz would get the nomination after he dropped out in May, I knew you wouldn’t be able to “prove” that I had. Your frothing-at=the-mouth lunacy has caused you to paint with broad brush anyone you perceive as an “enemy.” It’s bizarre, simplistic, and cheap, but I guess that fits, too, with your Oompa loompa godlet.

          My note about the first call for a roll call being completely in line with acceptable action stands. It was not whining, it was fact. I didn’t comment beyond that except to note, accurately, that the call for a roll call had failed. You read “whining” because you are so caught up in your blind hatred for me, a person you do not know, that you can’t even think straight. This wasn’t a crushing blow; since Cruz dropped out, I will repeat, I never thought for a second that there would be any chance that Trump would not get the nomination this week. I never hoped for it because it wasn’t going to happen, but in your slathering fervor, you assume you know what I think. You are wrong. But then, you so often are.

          I have no problem with people who have a different opinion than I; in fact, some of my favorite people, including LI’s own Leslie, support Trump. What I do not like is your disgusting, base nastiness, bullying, and vile rants based in pure fantasy. You have become an unwelcome blowhard who copies and pastes the same insult–today’s was “crushing losers like bugs” and variations thereon–to multiple LI readers (and writers) in the same thread; you have become, in other words, a spamming troll. And no, I don’t think LI is the place for that.

          KirbySalad55 in reply to Fuzzy Slippers. | July 19, 2016 at 10:04 am

          My, my, my. Fuzzy’s frayed nerves are really showing. (See more below).

          “What I do not like is your disgusting, base nastiness, bullying, and vile rants based in pure fantasy.”

          Just a moment searching and I find the following terms you have used:

          “Trump fans are just too blind
          all the Trump loons
          your Cheeto-oompa-loompa godlet
          swooning fan bois
          your orange savior
          pushing their orange god
          your beloved oompa loompa”

          Lot of civility there…

          As for the nevertrump hopes of derailing the nomination of Trump, to try and characterize yourself as NOT being one of them is patently absurd. Perhaps, you did not think it might result in Cruz getting the nod, I’ll give you that. ther is however, this:

          “What I do know, however, is that I wouldn’t have qualm one voting for Ted Cruz. In fact, I fully plan to do just that.

          “I have no problem with people who have a different opinion than I…”

          I am not the only person that you have “suggested” move on. And for the record, I pointed out the absurdity of both the now “banned” LI supporters of Trump, on multiple occasions and have done the same with other Trump supporters.

          You, on the other hand will never find fault with a nevertrumper or suggest they should go elsewhere, no matter how vile the language or ridiculous the comment, including the “better man”, rags. It is what as known as hypocrisy.

          But hey, on to the new meme of the nevertrumpers:

          “If Trump somehow wins, he’ll be impeached. Rather quickly, too, I imagine…”

          The people who got banned got banned all on their own. I do not have, nor does anyone here have, the authority to ban a commenter. That power resides, as it should, with the prof.

          I have suggested that DaMav might prefer it over at Salon after s/he said I should write for them, and in your case, your obnoxious spamming of the same insult was . . . obnoxious and un-called for. You may not realize this, but no one, even your fellow Trump fans, want to read the same, or variations on the same, comment. It’s the sort of thing Gary and VF did for months before they were finally banned for only loosely-related reasons.

          As for the impeachment meme, that’s been part of the discussion since forever (okay, maybe no one talked about impeaching Washington, but he’s one of the few). Every single president is assessed as to their impeachability. Obama should have been impeached in 2009 and for a zillion very real offenses since, but he was not. The House is set, but the GOP does not have a supermajority in the Senate where conviction is decided, and no Democrat will vote to impeach the (first black) Democratic president (or first female president).

          The very real trouble for Trump is that he and his fans have created some very uncomfortable enemies on his own (well, for now) side of the aisle. That means that there will indeed be support on both sides to impeach Trump. Pence looks great to everyone who opposes Trump at this point, including people like me.

          Anyway, it’s all moot. He has to win first, and he will, according to him and all his fans who look forward to a 50-state sweep.

          A couple more comments and I’ll drop this.

          “Heck, isn’t that what Trump fans LIKE about him?”

          You asked a question and I responded with an answer. That was it. You didn’t like the answer so went on your irrational ranting. In my response I called the nevertrump contingent “sore losers” and you are. The R contest has been over for a long time, and none of you have gotten over it. You claim it is principles, but anyone with a few brain cells understands what it is. The supporters of Cruz that are nevertrumpers are the absolute worst. And I said Trump “crushed you like bugs”. A perfect metaphor given the high hopes of the nevertrump crowd based upon so little. The nevertrump crowd lost and continues to cry about it.

          I don’t dislike you Fuzzy. I’m sure that when it doesn’t involve Trump you are a nice person. I enjoy reading you as a contributor to this site when it is non Trump.

          But make no mistake, when it involves Trump, you are a bit overboard and see in every Trump supporter what you want to see.

          Barry, you wrote:

          “I don’t dislike you Fuzzy. I’m sure that when it doesn’t involve Trump you are a nice person. I enjoy reading you as a contributor to this site when it is non Trump.

          But make no mistake, when it involves Trump, you are a bit overboard and see in every Trump supporter what you want to see.”

          Thank you! 🙂 I love writing for LI, and I work really hard to write good posts that will be of interest to readers. I’m glad I succeed in some small part.

          I think your criticism is fair, Barry. But I also think that the same applies to you. I am genuinely confused sometimes by your comments to me because they are based not on anything I’ve expressed but on your own ideas about people who don’t support Trump. My reasons are completely alien to progressive loons like Jeb Bush and George Will or to those on the left who loathe Trump and are planning to vote for Hillary simply because she is a woman. Neither of these lines of thinking make any sense to me at all. Yet, here we all are, opposing Trump. But it’s not that unusual, the same opposite factions have opposed ObamaCare (for totally different reasons) and changing legal immigration laws (also for totally different reasons). Anyway, I do agree that I get carried away in lumping all the Trump fans into one pile; I do realize on a very real level–where my friends, family, and colleagues live–that Trump fans are not of a kind, nor are they all insane people bent on anarchy. 😉

The T-rumpian Party is dead.

Whatever emerges from this display of rule-breaking will be the better for the exercise.

Fluck Trump and the liars who support him.

For the love of God. Trump won the nomination. Stop being whiny little bitches and accept that he is the duly elected nominee of the party.

    Milhouse in reply to Olinser. | July 18, 2016 at 6:46 pm

    He’s not duly elected until the convention votes, and the delegates had the right to a vote on whether they should be bound. They were denied that vote, therefore anything that follows is illegitimate. Trump will now never be the legitimate nominee.

      Mac45 in reply to Milhouse. | July 18, 2016 at 7:26 pm

      Most of the delegates were BOUND, by party rules, BEFORE they got to the convention. Now, the candidates who lost the primary, and their supporters, want to change the rules after it is all over. Can you imagine the outrage if a Republican won the bulk of the delegates to the Electoral College and then the College changed the rules to allow the delegates to vote for anyone that they wanted and the Democrat or Libertarian candidate became President? The Republicans would scream with righteous indignation. So, what would ever possess them to think that they can justify doing the same thing to the presumptive party nominee?

        gospace in reply to Mac45. | July 18, 2016 at 7:47 pm

        They’re called faithless electors. In modern times, there have been very few. Simple fact is- in most states, the electors can vote for whomever they wish, and there’s no way to stop them. And remember Article 2 Section 1: “Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector.”

        You and I have NO RIGHT under the Constitution to vote for president, or to have our votes for President considered. The legislature of any state could, tomorrow, appoint electors and hold elections for every open office except the president and vice-president, and it would be perfectly legal. Met with uproar, but perfectly legal.

        Milhouse in reply to Mac45. | July 18, 2016 at 8:45 pm

        Each convention sets its own rules. No convention can be bound by its predecessors, just as no congress can be bound by its predecessors. Therefore the delegates are not bound until the rule binding them is adopted at the beginning of the convention. This time around that adoption was invalid because they were not allowed a vote.

        Electors are not bound. Even in those states with laws purporting to bind them, such laws are unconstitutional and of no force. Electors usually vote for their party’s candidate because they are chosen for their loyalty to their party. This time around that may not hold.

          KirbySalad55 in reply to Milhouse. | July 19, 2016 at 10:17 am

          WRONG !! As usual. Prior convention rules are in force unless and until amendments or replacement rules are adopted.

          Secondly, the Cruz whores did get a vote. They got two voice votes BOTH of which they clearly lost !!! A voice vote is a vote. They lost on changing the rules and then lost on getting a roll call vote. They LOST just like Cruz got his but whipped so bad he still hasn’t recovered his manhood and honored his pledge.

          It is a sad day for the Cruz whores when Bob Dole has to show them how to behave like men.

      malclave in reply to Milhouse. | July 18, 2016 at 10:07 pm

      and the delegates had the right to a vote on whether they should be bound.

      Changing the rules mid-game has always left a bad taste in my mouth.

UT Sen Mike Lee says GOP “needs” people it shut down on rules vote “to win in Nov..we need to have respect for each other’s opinions”

— Chad Pergram (@ChadPergram) July 18, 2016

Hey Mikey how about respecting the opinions of all those primary voters who overwhelmingly chose Trump?

    Ragspierre in reply to RodFC. | July 18, 2016 at 6:55 pm

    Including the Deemocrat wreckers.

    You’re an idiot. Typical T-rump cultist, though.

      Fantastic, Rags, you’re upholding your principles. Must be tough to find out some people disagree with your sainted views on everything.

      Pity! Boo, hoo, cry us a river of Rags’ tears. 😉

      Also, get a life! 🙂

        Zachary in reply to Doug Wright. | July 18, 2016 at 9:26 pm

        Nah it’s easy, all he has to do is go to ANY message board overrun with Trumpkins and alt-reichs. Which is pretty much all of them. I hope your internet campaign produces results. You’re not very persuasive but miracles do happen.

    Paul in reply to RodFC. | July 18, 2016 at 7:41 pm

    Overwhelmingly? Math is hard, huh?

Trump is the legitimate candidate, millions, record breaking millions, came out to vote just for him. Get use to it,
President Trump 2016..

If this is how Trump went after conservatives at the convention, imagine what he would do in the White House.

Paul In Sweden | July 18, 2016 at 7:09 pm

Not the whole story as I heard it. The NeverTrumps had gathered by some reports 8 delegations(the required) to up to 11 delegations to demand a roll call vote.

When the measure was made, the chair went around to the different delegations and reduced the number of delegations demanding a roll call down to seven. Do not remember which of the many streams I heard it by that it how I heard it. So the way it was said when the chair disappeared he was sending whips around to NeverTrump delegations getting them to tear up their demands for a roll call and when the number was reduced enough he rammed a voice vote which we have seen done in congress many times.

The rank and file of the NeverTrump faction just grew nationally. Not covered here was whether or not we are talking Robert’s Rules of Order or House Parliamentary procedures. Methinks that RRO was not adopted so that the old “ayes have it” is available to the Chair after fake voice votes.

    Barry in reply to gad-fly. | July 18, 2016 at 10:52 pm

    “The rank and file of the NeverTrump faction just grew nationally.”

    LOL, you crushed bugs must now number 100.

    My understanding is that they are operating under the House of Representative Rules. But, my understanding is that they violated THOSE rules too.

    Now, it’s been a LONG, LONG time since I worked for Congress, so my information may be antiquated, but last time I knew House parliamentary procedure, a recognized speaker’s call for a roll-call vote was a privileged motion not subject to debate and if if not GRANTED by unanimous consent was ITSELF subject to immediate roll call vote of the assembly present. That way there was no anonymity to hide if you didn’t want to VOTE on the issue or not.

    Further, the presiding officer, under House of Representative Rules is supposed to be IMPARTIAL. If he wants to go out and whip votes, he’s SUPPOSED to install a Speaker-Pro-Tempore while he’s away from the gavel.

    Sen. Lee is right: The fact that the chair ACTUALLY LEFT THE PODIUM while the proceedings were underway and physically vacated the chair (literally) without suspending, recessing or adjourning the proceedings or providing for a Speaker-Pro-Tempore to manage ongoing proceedings has NO PRESIDENT in House of Representatives history or in Convention history (Republican or Democrat) as far as I can find.

It’s their party and they will cry if they want to. At least Democrats are a party with “benefits”, notwithstanding the steep demand to sell your soul, and a peculiar quasi-religious obsession with carbon sequestration (e.g. global warming, abortion rites, eugenics).

“I was on the Trump finance committee and I just resigned because that bully tactic is absurd,” Emineth said. “I just texted them right now. Why can’t the people be heard? I’ve been texting Reince for 10 minutes. He said we didn’t have the votes. We had 10, 11 states. They peeled people back. They were calling delegations asking people to step off the committee. You don’t do this in America. You do this in other countries.”

Yep. Like you’d have with any anti-Constitutional puke.

DieJustAsHappy | July 18, 2016 at 8:25 pm

Mr. I’ll-do-as-I-damn-well-please has had mostly his way for 7 1/2 years. Now, they’re at the convention and they want to “play by the rules.”

    That’s part of the problem. They ACTUALLY ARE NOT following the rules of the House of Representatives upon which the convention rules are based. The literal vacating of the chair in the midst of proceedings and the ignoring of privileged motions by claiming there were no longer enough delegations requesting them (and then hiding the delegations which were peeled off) is a BIG violation of House parliamentary procedure.

      DieJustAsHappy in reply to Chuck Skinner. | July 19, 2016 at 5:40 am

      I had hoped that, as the present administration came to an end, so,too, would my head-shaking at their words, deeds, and decisions. Now, it appears it will continue into the next one.

      Maybe, matters have to really get worse before they get better.

The whine of the crybabies is sweet music.

We always knew all you “principled” nevertrumpers would act the part of the left, and cry and scream when the very rules they so assiduously assured us were important when they seemed to favor Cruz, are now used to once again, crushhhh the nevertrumptard fools and morons.

    Ragspierre in reply to Barry. | July 18, 2016 at 9:30 pm

    Again, you just lie like a dirty sow in her filth, Butt-hurt Barri.

    The rules in state primaries…where you and Donelle T-rump were squealing about “rigged”…are completely different from the rules Der Donald and his myrmidons are now breaking.

    You T-rump sucking bitch.

Common Sense | July 18, 2016 at 9:27 pm

Nothing but stupid drama from the #nevertrump losers.

Trump won the primary popular vote.
Trump won the delegate vote.

The #nevertrump got beat on every amendment they
tried to pass in the rules committee.

It’s over! Trump is the nominee!


    Ragspierre in reply to Common Sense. | July 18, 2016 at 9:33 pm

    Common, Dense…

    No. You’ll find out shortly that “it isn’t over”. There will be hell to pay.

      Queer Pierre ;
      You have yet to address my long-standing question. Where the hells Canadian Cruz? Your champions Mikey & Kenny held down the fort over releasing the delegates today but no show Teddy couldn’t bother to show up yet again.

      Could it be he’s cut a deal? Could it be he’ll endorse Trump during his moment in the Sun at the convention?
      Then what will you fools do?

        Another ridiculous serious of questions. Did Ted Cruz ever say that he would NOT endorse Trump? As far as I know, he’s not responded at all to that question or has stated that he’s “not ready” to endorse Trump.

        The real question here is why are you so fixated on Ted Cruz? What is it about your candidate, the orange godlet, that you can’t get behind? What is it that your Cheeto king lacks that makes you need to continue to tear down someone who has already lost this primary? You do see how peculiar this rabid Trump fan obsession with Ted Cruz is, right? You do grasp that it makes you all look uncertain, scared, and deeply worried about your horrendous choice. To make yourselves feel better, you just keep bashing Cruz. It’s quite clear that your only reason to do that given that he’s no threat at all to your chosen candidate is that you can’t get 100% behind Trump.

        And why Cruz? Why not Kasich? Or Jeb? Or any of the others who ran for president this cycle? Could it be that Cruz is the only one you see as a threat? So you have to keep kicking him while he’s down? Smacks of the lamestream media’s continued attacks on Sarah Palin long after McCain lost and she made it clear she had no intention to run for president. The left just kept at her, though, for years. They knew she was a threat, and they showed it by their continued paranoia about her. They tried to sing awful Obama’s praises, but it fell flat, so back to attacking and mocking Sarah. I dunno, you Trump fans remind me of that . . . a lot.

          PhillyGuy in reply to Fuzzy Slippers. | July 19, 2016 at 8:39 am

          We don’t actually care about Cruz or Bush or Kasich or Rubio. They signed a pledge to support the nominee. They should honor that.

    So why do you care what we #NeverTrump people say or do? You’ve won. Your guy is going to go on and win by an historic landslide . . . all 50 states, the last I heard. Trump himself said he doesn’t need us, he’s a winner who will win. It’s going to be historical and good. Nothing can stop the Trump train; he’s a winner who wins.

    It’s curious to me that so many Trump fans are fretting about what a handful of #NeverTrumpers think, say, or do. Gosh, if I was so certain of a 50-state landslide victory, I’d be dancing in the street and singing a happy song. The last thing I’d do is waste my time berating anyone who didn’t get how marvelous and wonderful my fabulous 50-state landslide candidate is. What would be the point? Just to rub it in? To be obnoxious? To accomplish what? It seems the only motivation for all the Trump fan vitriol is mean-spirited nastiness. Unless you don’t believe your guy will win that 50-state landslide? Insecurity and self-doubt sure can make a person ornery.

      Fuzzy :
      If Trump is to win it will be because he’s attracted the support of the people out in the streets waging the war on statism & internationalist fascism. We’re been out there for the last 8 years, some of us longer. Your side has done nothing but dismiss & belittle our effort.

      Trump isn’t winning by his own efforts alone. I’ve tried to bring serious discussion to this site as have others. You #never T-rumpers had the run. You’ve had the run for over 30 years. You’ve consistently lost. All of you have had nothing to do with what’s now happening.

      Just as you’ll have nothing to do with what will now happen. Go back to your offices, climb up on your barstools, & tell the bartender you’ll have a double.

        Oh my goodness! Did you really just say that Trump is waging a war against statism and fascism? TRUMP? The guy who proudly brags about buying and selling politicians? The guy who said that two of the three top priorities of federal government are health care and education? The guy who stated that the Chinese government didn’t take a hard enough line against the Tiananmen Square protestors? The guy who wants to limit the freedom of the press and “open up” libel laws? The guy who wants to manage what Americans say so they don’t “insult” and “provoke” Islamist attacks? The guy who uses the power of government to try to take an old woman’s home to create a limo parking lot for his casino? The guy who thinks the military will follow his unlawful orders? Yeah, that’s a guy who’s totally against statism and fascism.

        Cheeto boy isn’t the savior you think he is, and it will be interesting to see how you react when that becomes crystal clear to you.

          tom swift in reply to Fuzzy Slippers. | July 19, 2016 at 4:48 am

          Are you seriously trying to claim that all that lightweight fluff means that Trump is some sort of fascist wannabe? That’s like mistaking a phone book for serious literature.

          You’re obviously not doing historical fascism proper justice.

          But, credit where it’s due—you’re doing a bang-up job of exposing the irrational animus so characteristic of the TDS types.

          Fuzzy :
          My response to Chuck S. below applies to you also. You people make some kind of a contest out of all this. It’s not, & I no longer think many of you will ever see this.

          Dragging Gary, & V F into this as you did earlier was a cheap shot. They’ve been banned & can’t defend themselves as you well know.


        Telling the Conservatives to sit the election out is an extremely unwise position of the Trump support movement. Let me say this clearly, so that there is no possibility of misunderstanding:

        Donald Trump CANNOT win if he does not have the support of the Conservative movement. PERIOD.

        Strangely, you claim Trump is the candidate of the people waging war on Statism and internationalist fascism (although I think you mean “Globalists”). It’s strange because Trump is, at heart, a STATIST (someone who believes in the power of big government creating UTOPIA) and a FASCIST (someone who believes authoritarian nationalism, with the goal of Autarky [national self-sufficiency] through protectionist and interventionist economic policies). Really though, up until last year, Trump WAS a “Globalist.”

        Do not make the mistake of lumping the Conservatives who have valid, well-founded concerns regarding Trump due to his past anti-Conservative, pro-Statist and yes now Pro-Fascist tendencies in with the Establishment GOP and the wishy-washy MORONS that gave us John McCain and Mitt Romney the last two election cycles. THAT would be a mistake, and would fail to recognize the point of the exercise.

        Trump won the primary because he pulled in non-aligned voters in states that had open primaries (in addition to stupid candidates that split the vote KNOWING they could not win hanging on far, far beyond their shelf-life). Part of that problem is that he did so largely in states which will NOT vote Republican in the General Election.

        In a very few months, we’ll see exactly how well that works out for Trump, because if he continues to alienate the Conservatives he will have to rely on those non-aligned voters in the election. And believe me, there are LESS of those non-aligned voters than Conservative voters.

        ~I~ don’t think that those non-aligned voters will turn out to vote for Trump (and I think that will be a tragedy).

          Chuck S.
          One thing I can always count on on this site is those of you who oppose what I say will tell me what I just said. And from that, all of you in opposition to what they interpret from my statement, can take the high ground over me.

          I’d like to say I get tired of your little games but that gives you control over perception of who I am. I’ve said this to others before you. Now I’m saying it to you.
          I don’t give a damn what any of your type say. You’ll say what you’ll say, believe what you’ll believe, debating with you is a waste of effort.
          You people in your little cliques aren’t the only people reading this. All of you think this is about yourselves. Your own little pissing contests to show you’re the winner.

          Globalism is internationalist fascism. It’s thousands of pages of regulations determining how trade will be conducted, who will benefit, what will be covered, how what isn’t covered will be brought under coverage later. Tribunals, courts of jurisdiction ; it’s all either there or how it will be brought into compliance later.

          And you fools think it’s “free trade.” Cruz voted for T.P.A. which sets it all up. With that vote he ceded American sovereignty to internationalist fascism.

          Do with that what you will.

          Ragspierre in reply to Chuck Skinner. | July 19, 2016 at 9:52 am

          Poor, insane doublesucks.

          Cruz killed TPP. Look it up.

          Pence was all in for it. Look it up.

          T-rump is an economics idiot who has a trade policy identical to Bernie Sanders and the AFL-CIO. Look it up.

          I know he voted against T.P.P., after voting for T.P.A., & as usual you’re to stupid to realize the significance.

          You going to have the professor look into all our credentials? Frankly the professor with his Family medical issues doesn’t need your “assistance”. It’s his site, he’ll do what he thinks is best.

          Mr. assistant prosecutor.


          Did I miss something? Perhaps you mistake me: I am NOT a #NeverTrump individual. In fact, I have said multiple times here that I will happily vote for Trump if he is the nominee. However that does not mean that I am blind (willfully or otherwise) to his flaws and past statements, as many of the Trump supporters herein have been.

          I’m not taking high-ground or low ground on anything. I made a simple, straight-forward observation in response to your statement to Fuzzy Slippers, which was:

          Just as you’ll have nothing to do with what will now happen. Go back to your offices, climb up on your barstools, & tell the bartender you’ll have a double.

          That statement appeared to be telling the Conservative movement: “We don’t need you.” If I misinterpreted you meaning, I apologize, but you should be able to see how I would have drawn that conclusion of your meaning.

          That observation was that Trump cannot win without the support of the Conservative movement. That is not a particularly earth-shattering revelation or fringe concept.

          I then pointed out that there is a dichotimy between what what Trump is saying ~NOW~ and what he has done in the recent past (and even his statements DURING the campaign) regarding STATISM.

          Trump IS a Statist. If you believe otherwise, you are in for a very nasty shock when/if he becomes President. And it makes sense, from a certain point of view: the person in control of an organization is going to bring the power of that organization to bear on the problems or tasks of that organization. However, GOVERNMENT is not like BUSINESS. The awesome power of the State requires a level of restraint which ~generally~ makes a business mogul a bad fit for that position. Where a business mogul like Trump would think “We can, we SHOULD” a principled Conservative would say “We CAN, but we should NOT because that is not our ROLE in the Civil Society.”

          Further, I pointed out the use of the oxymoron of “International Fascism.” Apparently I touched a nerve, not by being arrogant, but because I am being precise. You, separately in shame and annoyance, lash out becaue I am not guilty of your sin. You can’t name an internationalist structure with a nationalist label. The definitions are mutually exclusive. I know the Anarchist anti-Global trade groups prefer to use the term “Fascist” wherever they may because of the negative connotation in the public mind. However it is inaccurate and inarticulate. The proper term is “Globalist” or “Globalism.”

          Trump was, until VERY recently, a Globalist. Look through his business dealings and his public statements prior to declaring his candidicy and with a straight face tell me otherwise.

          I, on the other hand, am NOT a Globalist. In addition to my Law Practice, I and my family proudly own a United States based manufacturing firm, manufacturing components for Automotive, Aerospace, Firearms, Telecommunications, National Defense, Nuclear Regulatory and Medical/Dental implant technology. If you own a car, or have flown on a plane in the last 25 years, you have done so because my company manufactured a component for that car or airplane.

          Further: I DO understand the difference between Trade Promotion Authority (TPA, formerly known as “fast track” authority) and the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP, a free-trade deal between the North American countries and the Pacific Rim countries). One is a POLICY as to WHO gets to make the decision on the OTHER, which is a individual TRADE DEAL. TPA does NOT cede ANYTHING to “International Facism” but merely cedes AUTHORITY to the President to NEGOTIATE the deal and force the Senate to vote it up-or-down without amendment. Again, BE ACCURATE.

          But, then in your response to my comment, you double-down on your oxymoron use.

          Do with that what you will.

          I am. I’m saying stop using an oxymoron to describe a concept which is correctly and aptly described by a different term. Stop being one with the Anarchist Mob that can’t think their way out of a wet paper bag. Be precise in your naming of concepts, because those of us who are ACTUALLY trying to have a discussion regarding the concepts herein involved prefer NOT to have to clean up the inarticulate language used by careless commentators who spout platitudes without accuracy.

        “Internationalist fascism”? What is that? Germany, Italy and Japan and, oh, the Westernmost tip of Ukraine?
        Or, as Chuck pointed out above, you were too shy to say “globalism” because it’s too uncomfortably close to “rootless cosmopolitans”? See here:

          Edge :
          And now it’s you. If you’d bothered to read my earlier response to Chuck S. above you’d know what I meant. Good news, you’re fully Americanized. You see what you want to see. Just like Raggsie, J. J., Fuzzy & the rest.

Nobody’s coming to save us. When Cruz conceded the contest ended and the Republicans will run Trump. There are third parties of course and the MSM will do its best to highlight the Libertarians I’m sure.

The irony of Trump support: a man who is as baseless and unprincipled as Trump, who wants to “win” at any cost, is exactly like Hillary Clinton in character.

Beyond being “statist” and “fascist” and clearly narcissistic Trump is absolutely the wrong face to put on American values or free market capitalism, for that matter. America “wins” nothing when you front Trump as your “fixer.”

    tom swift in reply to jennifer a johnson. | July 19, 2016 at 5:07 am

    is exactly like Hillary Clinton in character.

    Do you think a lesser being will do?

    “If they bring a knife to the fight, we bring a gun.” The D’rats are bringing Hillary. What are you going to bring?

    To keep the Clinton Crime Machine out of the White House, I’d vote for the Destroyer of Worlds … were he running. But he isn’t, so I’ll have to settle for next best.

      Clichés are what Trump and Trumpists are all about: Don’t think. Cliché your way to the top – to “win”- your precious “gun” fight.

      From what I read here every day, Trumpists think clichéd thinking beats Hillary. Trumpists think being a**holes beats Hillary. And beating Hillary is all consuming to Trumpists. “We don’t care what happens to the country just so we beat ‘crooked Hillary’.”

      Go ahead, bring your a**hole temperament to the fight, Trumpists. You are certainly not much different than what is happening in the streets right now, waving your RNC banner. You want your share of attention like all the other whiney groups.

      I noticed also that Trumpians shout down anything to do with Conservative values and Christianity. That is why I am an Independent and NOT a Republican. Trump is a Neo-Establishment Grandiose Secularist waiting for you to crown him lord of all.

      Trumpists better get busy weaving some more clichés for that crown.

        VaGentleman in reply to jennifer a johnson. | July 19, 2016 at 2:14 pm

        jennifer, it’s not just cliches, we also have a candidate!

          …who is a cliché.

          VaGentleman in reply to VaGentleman. | July 19, 2016 at 3:37 pm

          So says the incompetent fool who doesn’t even have a cardboard cutout of a candidate to offer. FYI – no state will have a line on the ballot where you can vote to elect #NeverTrump. It’s NOT a candidate, it’s your new religion. You prostitute yourself before the golden calf of self righteousness while worshipping a mythical, unnamed perfect candidate. You are what you claim to despise. You offer no positive message, only anger and hatred – then claim they are virtues. Your position is so weak that you won’t even tell us who your candidate is or how you will get him elected.

          This is an election. You have to have a candidate to play. Those are facts, jennifer. If you deny them you deny reality. Who is your candidate?

          My candidate…is Not Trump and is every conservative down ticket, if they are still conservative. And while I realize you Trumpists are adamant about having a god to fall down and worship in front of in the public square I do not worship any candidate.

          I am an independent. I vote for the candidates that best represent and uphold conservative principles. I will not vote for charlatans like your candidate.

          From reading the unspectacular regurgitated hackneyed comments of Trumpists I realize that what I just said will probably make no sense to the TV intelligentsia. Tant pis.

          “Principles be damned. We must “win,” because to beat Hillary is to “win.” (even when you and Trump become like Hillary to do so).

          VaGentleman in reply to VaGentleman. | July 19, 2016 at 7:22 pm

          Jennifer, for someone who says she doesn’t have a dog in the fight you sure spend a lot of time and ink attacking the integrity and intelligence of those who are engaged in the contest.

          I also question your commitment to conservative principles, since you seem so willing to throw them under the bus. Let me explain. I believe that in an imperfect world, we are frequently called on to settle for the best we can do and not the perfect answer. But we have to try. The next president will not be a dictator. Even Obama, as willing as he has been to ignore the constitution, has not been able to get all he wanted. The next president will also be constrained. In our system we have only one group with dictatorial powers – the Supreme Court. There is no appeal from their judgements. And, the court comes from nominees chosen by the president. The Senate can turn down a nominee, but can’t propose one. Only the president chooses the candidates. The next president could appoint 3 or 4 justices. We know what kind of judges a Pres Hillary will appoint. Even if we keep the senate and it vetoes a selection, she will choose another from the same group until she gets a win. She would have the potential to set the court on a far left progressive agenda for 30-40 years. This is reality. If she is elected, the conservative principles you claim to care about will be trashed. Conservative leaning laws that future congresses pass (if any) will be overturned. Rights will be restricted and revoked. Free speech will be circumscribed by hate speech laws. And this will happen. They’ve told us so. Every day we see more and more evidence of her corruption and lack of morality. If God, or providence or just circumstance ever sent a nation a message, this is it. Do you really think Trump’s choices will be that bad?

          You say you are going to work to get downstream conservatives elected. OK, but why? Do you think they will have more of their bills vetoed by a President Trump or a President Clinton? Whose AG is more likely to defend conservative legislation in court? Who will work with them to get bills passed? Who will use the bully pulpit to help them? Does it matter if Clinton wins?

          If you study morality, you soon encounter the case of 2 babies with a truck careening down a hill toward them. Both will die if you don’t act, but you can only save 1. Which one do you save? It’s a trick question. Saving either one is morally correct. Not acting because you have 2 imperfect choices is the immoral choice.

If I have to choose between #NeverTrump or #NeverClinton, it’s a no-brainer. No, Trump isn’t my candidate of choice but I’m not going to throw a childish hissy fit and escort Hillary into the oval office. He may not win but if he doesn’t it won’t be because I did everything in my power to put another democrat in the white house.

DieJustAsHappy | July 19, 2016 at 5:29 am

It’s probably way off the charts and no I haven’t been into the Four Roses.
With Trump’s selection of Pence as his VP, wouldn’t it be something, as well as contrary to the words spoken by Melania last night, if Trump did resign and we did end up with a President Pence. (I’ve even thought that this might have been his intent all along, or at least as it became in the realm of possibility of his winning the nomination.)

    Milhouse in reply to DieJustAsHappy. | July 19, 2016 at 6:12 am

    If I thought that would happen I’d support the ticket; but I don’t. At this point the best I can hope for is that Trump wins, and is then impeached and convicted at the first opportunity. I wonder whether he’s thought of that, and whether his plan is to fire Pence as soon as he no longer needs him. I wonder when he will find out that he can’t fire Pence. I’m reasonably sure he doesn’t know it now.

      DieJustAsHappy in reply to Milhouse. | July 19, 2016 at 6:32 am

      Every President has to deal with the limits of the Office. Even Obama, who has had his share of having it his way, had to come to terms with certain realities of D.C.

      Trump, if he is to survive, will have to deal with them as well. Whether he will be able to do so, should he win the election (I still have doubts about this), is questionable in my mind.

      Our Caesar-wannabe may have well picked his very own Brutus.

Your use of “whore” reminds me a great deal of Gary Britt.

The Prof. should look into where your ISP is located.

    KirbySalad55 in reply to Ragspierre. | July 19, 2016 at 11:22 am

    Comparing me to Gary Britt is quite a compliment. Thanks. I enjoyed his posts and how he took the fight to you and your cadre of sycophants and protectors. I am just myself.

    I do like the fact that you are so threatened by my posts that you choose not to try and compete with them in the world of ideas and thought but instead seek to have me banned. Such is the known character of the Ragspierre and his protectors.

      Gary and demons, you are filthy and an accurate representation of all that is profane about the orange Moloch you so dutifully sacrifice your life and words to.

      And you have reminded us that you know all about whoring from your time spent with Babylon the Great, the Abomination of the Earth.

K. S. 55
I was about to respond to Fuzzy in a similar way. You saved me the bother. Thank you.

I’ll only add, “round-n-round Fuzzy goes, & where she’ll stop, nooobody knows.”

All of this acrimony based on ignorance. All of this ignorance due to schools driving civics out of thr classroom. Add to that a dollop of 24 hour news from infinite sources, from sources with no interest in facts but clicks, views, and/ or ratings.

It is so woefully unknown to our failed American citizenry that political party organizations are private institutions, the official members and leadership of which set 100% of their own rules and regulations. If you do not understand that what Fuzzy is saying is correct, then you have a lot of reading to do about political party candidate selection process.

The importance of and weight allocated to state primary elections, caucuses etc., in the delegate selection process varies from state to state. The only constant is the cultural misunderstanding of how vastly primaries/ delegates differs from general elections/ electors.

On top of that, how delegates get to vote is strongly influenced by the national parties.

Notwithstanding my deficiency in communicating these ideas using a mobile device properly, if you do not understand, believe or “agree” (because ou cannot disagree with a truth) the nuances here, you need to do some reading.

Yes, you do.

If you then decline to do the reading, then you prove yourself to be a part of the problem in our country: citizens unwilling to put in the time and effort to understand how our political system works, so that you may utilize it to effect the changes in government that you claim to support.

Yep. That’s just how Der Donald rolls. Always has.

    Barry in reply to Ragspierre. | July 19, 2016 at 4:45 pm

    LOL, shorter version of the linked article:

    “The Republican National Commitee crushed our neverTrump-InforHillary hopes like bugs on a concrete floor. Cry, Cry, Cry.”

    Life is so unfair to those that live in a dream.

      Ragspierre in reply to Barry. | July 19, 2016 at 8:50 pm

      As our host has said…

      we don’t want this guy in power. Last I looked, he was a never T-rump person, as well.

      Look it up.

        Barry in reply to Ragspierre. | July 19, 2016 at 10:56 pm

        “As our host has said…”

        I like our host, even when he is wrong. I suspect I even like you.

        That does not mean you are not dead wrong. You are the one that said I was “your enemy”. I just respond in kind.