The Republican Primary Race Is Filling Up

[GodFearinGunTotin]

I will agree to an extent. Some have become addicted and happy. Others can see as I said that it is poison, not candy, and they would be far better off without it, but they have to take it so long as FarmCorp is getting tons of free money.

Sure they do. It's one form of "getting some of my tax money back". A few years ago, when our heat pump went out, after some study, we decided to put a geothermal in. I guess they still do but at the time, the .gov gave us a 30% tax credit. Did we take advantage of it? You bet. Would we have bought a geothermal if there wasn't that tax credit? Who knows. How much would that system have cost if that subsidy not been out there? It's a catch-22 and they've got something for all of us.

 

[BugI02]

Oh, I can tell the difference between Indiana GOP and Indiana Dems. Rather than letting a popular Constitutional Carry bill die in the Senate because it's too controversial, and then passing an even more controversial abortion bill, an Indiana democratic super-majority + governor would repeal right to work, repeal all the pro 2A legislation enacted in the last couple of years, and in the process add many more gun restrictions.

There is a difference. It's like Hohn said. The GOP contains some collectivists but it's where the individualists tend to go. It seems the GOP is doing all it can to evict them. But there's no room in the democratic party for any thought that isn't collectivist and social justice.

Exactly. Ask Bill Clinton about how that works

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

Exactly. Ask Bill Clinton about how that works

His main complaint is that it's not just the republicans drawing the BLM ire.

 

[BugI02]

Yep. Kasich hasn't dropped out yet, even though it's mathematically impossible for him to win. I'm sure the national party would have asked or made him step aside by now, but the fact that they haven't (at least openly) means they might fully intend this to go to Cleveland with the plan to nominate him in a contested convention. Why else is he staying in the race? He cannot make a huge impact on either one's delegates. If anything he is hurting Cruz the most. Cruz needs almost 90% of remaining delegates and Trump only needs about 55%. We are going into truly Trump friendly territory in the future, so what is the point of Kasich staying in the race? He could have been told to stay in the race in the event of a contested convention. If the GOP did not want that they would have told him to bail.

I thought I read somewhere that the GOPe meets after the last primary to determine the rules for THIS convention. Might they not ammend the rules to allow Kasich to instruct his delegates to back a particular candidate if he drops out before the first round? Or is that already a possibility - I have trouble sorting thru the minutae. Surely if they have plans for Kasich (or any other 'white knight') an early order of business would be to ammend 40b

 

[BugI02]

I used to think that we should work within the party to change it from the inside. I no longer believe that is possible. We've already replaced a lot of RINOs with TEA Party Republicans and what good has it done? They do stupid **** like shutting down the government, really for no other reason than to show that they're not "establishment", so they can aspire to higher office. And then they cave in anyway.

Now a lot of people are pissed at their government because both parties have devolved into what they are now, and what they are now doesn't really represent the people. As long as there are two parties it doesn't matter if we blow up the GOP. There will be another opposition party, and perhaps it might start out as the opposition we want. But eventually it will devolve again into much of what it is now because there are only two pigeon holes into which the entire diversity of political opinion must fit. Not only must I share the party with like minded conservatarians, I must share it with the chamber of commerce types, the "social conservatives", the Fudds, and etcetera. The aggregate result of which is all the nonsense that is the Republican Party.

It is a party that is out of touch with its diverse constituency because it can't be all things to all Republicans and be faithful to any one particular group. I don't want to blow up the Republican Party. I have no faith that what takes its place would be any better. I want to blow up the thing that perpetuates the two party system. Our ideas don't fit into neat dichotomies.

Jamil, my fear is that both parties know that there is no way out of the debt hole they've dug us into, and all of the politicing is about positioning the party and oneself to be able to survive the collapse in the most comfortable way possible. Its strictly about wealth preservation

 

[IndyDave1776]

Sure they do. It's one form of "getting some of my tax money back". A few years ago, when our heat pump went out, after some study, we decided to put a geothermal in. I guess they still do but at the time, the .gov gave us a 30% tax credit. Did we take advantage of it? You bet. Would we have bought a geothermal if there wasn't that tax credit? Who knows. How much would that system have cost if that subsidy not been out there? It's a catch-22 and they've got something for all of us.

Now, if we had what I would consider legal taxation (based on the notion that it is NOT legal to collect taxes to pay for things the government is NOT legally authorized to do), this would not be an issue because you would have had that money in your pocket in the first place to spend as you see fit without any strings attached.

 

[BugI02]

Our ideas did fit into a two party structure under the circumstances of both parties pursuing the furtherance of the constitutional republic with disagreement on how best to go about doing so. When Adams, Hamilton, et alia were headbutting Jefferson and associates, the question was not whether or not to improve the republic and its standing in the world, but how to go about it. Unfortunately, we have reached a point at which most people who aspire to leadership do not care in the least for the well-being of the republic, but rather for properly representing the interests of their owners for private gain, leaving us with a few offering a half-hearted effort to maintain the republic while the others are sharpening up the knives to cut up the corpse. The key is to treat domestic enemies of the republic and outright traitors as such, be rid of them, and replace them with people who are free to disagree about HOW TO MAINTAIN THE REPUBLIC AS THE GREAT ESTABLISHMENT IT HAS BEEN AND COULD ONCE AGAIN BE. In recent memory, I seem to recall only one person with a national platform saying much about this, and he get bricks thrown at him for not being pure enough.

Too soon?

View attachment 46532

 

[IndyDave1776]

Too soon?

View attachment 46532

Traitors and domestic enemies need it, but most of the sheep would stand back and cheerlead the criminals and bandits in office while they crushed any opposition. Hell, just look what happened with Joe the Plumber with little if any actual pushback.

 

[BugI02]

His main complaint is that it's not just the republicans drawing the BLM ire.

But he strayed from the official narrative and was duly forced to recant

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

Now, if we had what I would consider legal taxation (based on the notion that it is NOT legal to collect taxes to pay for things the government is NOT legally authorized to do), this would not be an issue because you would have had that money in your pocket in the first place to spend as you see fit without any strings attached.

I like that photo in one of the photo threads suggesting that the government ought to start GoFundMe pages for various spending endeavors.

 

[BugI02]

I wouldn't mind seeing a check off list on my return where I can at least decide what my taxes can be spent on


ETA: Binding check off list

 

[IndyDave1776]

I like that photo in one of the photo threads suggested that the government ought to start GoFundMe pages for various spending endeavors.

 

[jamil]

I like that photo in one of the photo threads suggesting that the government ought to start GoFundMe pages for various spending endeavors.

I wouldn't mind seeing a check off list on my return where I can at least decide what my taxes can be spent on


ETA: Binding check off list

I've advocated for a tax system I call, put your money where your mouth is. We'd have a small flat rate base tax that everyone pays to cover constitutionally necessary spending, then if you want to redistribute your wealth, you can opt to be taxed at a higher rate. Of course if someone is receiving your wealth redistribution, that is taxable income for them as well.

 

[Hohn]

I'm sorry, GOPe?

GOP Establishment

 

[miguel]

I wouldn't mind seeing a check off list on my return where I can at least decide what my taxes can be spent on


ETA: Binding check off list

That would be fantastic.

Just a straight up, online form. Kind of like assigning 401K investments!

"Put 50% in national defense, 25% to NASA and 25% for the National Park Service" or whatever people want.

How fast do you think SNAP, DOE and HUD would collapse in this scenario? Maybe 2.55 × 10^8 meters per second???

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/poli...ory.html?postshare=9581460253002026&tid=ss_tw

 

[IndyDave1776]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/poli...ory.html?postshare=9581460253002026&tid=ss_tw

Considering that Trump does well with actual votes and Cruz does well with caucuses and conventions that do not include any general vote, Cruz would do splendidly if the November election were decided over cigars and brandy rather than voting, irregularities notwithstanding.

 

[BugI02]

"...if the November election were decided over cigars and brandy rather than voting"


Thats a good description of how the candidate likely will be selected

 

[Timjoebillybob]

The deliberate stacking of Indiana's convention delegates seals the deal. Even if I wanted Trump to loose with all my heart, I would expect the matter to be settled by vote, not by backroom throat cutting, which seems to be the solution du jour.

It will be settled by vote, if a candidate gets 1263 delegates before the convention they are it. If not there will be votes at the convention to determine who is it. Any delegates Trump gets in IN will be bound to him for how ever many votes per IN GOP rules, I think it's one but not sure. It doesn't matter if they love him or hate him, they are required to vote for him. After that they are free to vote for who they wish. Cruz has the much better teams working on that. Also on getting his delegates on the committees that are setting the rules for the convention, for instance in LA his delegates have 5 out of 6 committee seats, Rubio iirc has 1.

Yep. Kasich hasn't dropped out yet, even though it's mathematically impossible for him to win. I'm sure the national party would have asked or made him step aside by now, but the fact that they haven't (at least openly) means they might fully intend this to go to Cleveland with the plan to nominate him in a contested convention. Why else is he staying in the race? He cannot make a huge impact on either one's delegates. If anything he is hurting Cruz the most. Cruz needs almost 90% of remaining delegates and Trump only needs about 55%. We are going into truly Trump friendly territory in the future, so what is the point of Kasich staying in the race? He could have been told to stay in the race in the event of a contested convention. If the GOP did not want that they would have told him to bail.

According to Trump Kasich is hurting him worse. His whining about it was almost comical. How is the GOP supposed to make him step aside? If they could do it to Kasich couldn't they do it to any candidate? Trump included? And I disagree that he cannot make a huge impact. Take NY for instance, if a candidate gets 50% of the vote it's winner take all if not it's proportional. Right now Trump is polling above 50% but within the MoE to be under, if Kasich drops out...

Indeed so. What really irritated me is that I heard him on the radio the other day making the comment that he knew he can't win, but his goal is not the nomination but to gather as many delegates as possible, or in other words, to skew the outcome as much as possible. When someone makes it clear that he is doing nothing but serving as an obstruction to my getting what I vote for, I have no use for him (as if I would otherwise).

I would say that you are right that his hope is to be the last man standing when the backroom throat cutting is finished.

He knows he can't win outright by delegate count on the first vote, at a brokered convention it is possible.

Kasich's remaining in the race is an ego play only. It's selfish and should completely disqualify him from national nomination in perpetuity.

But flattering his ego is a useful means of playing him like a fiddle, which is what the GOPe is doing.

See above.

I thought I read somewhere that the GOPe meets after the last primary to determine the rules for THIS convention. Might they not ammend the rules to allow Kasich to instruct his delegates to back a particular candidate if he drops out before the first round? Or is that already a possibility - I have trouble sorting thru the minutae. Surely if they have plans for Kasich (or any other 'white knight') an early order of business would be to ammend 40b

Yes the rules for this convention are set at the beginning of this convention. What happens to a candidates delegates if they drop out is set at the state level though, not the national convention. For instance in some states if a candidate drops out his delegates are redistributed either proportionally or winner take all, others remain bound to the candidate no matter what for the set number of votes, others the candidate can release them if they wish, others they are automatically unbound, and in at least one it's up to the delegates by vote among themselves if they wish to remain bound. And there quite possibly are other variations as well.

Once delegates are unbound, they are free to vote for who they wish. A former candidate (or one still in the running for that matter) can ask the delegates that were bound to them to vote a certain way but they are not required to. The rules committees at the national convention cannot change that.

Considering that Trump does well with actual votes and Cruz does well with caucuses and conventions that do not include any general vote, Cruz would do splendidly if the November election were decided over cigars and brandy rather than voting, irregularities notwithstanding.

Caucuses include a general vote, just not in the same way as a primary. The registered votes instead of going to a polling location, casting their vote and walking out like here in IN, go to their district caucus location. The candidates supporters are allowed to make a short speech and for the GOP a written vote is taken and counted(for Dem they gather in groups and are counted), if no candidate gets 50%+1 it starts over and continues until one candidate does. The district delegates selected then go to the county caucus and the process is repeated, then on to the state convention. It does vary some by state but that is the gist of it.

 

[BugI02]

Very good, very useful information. Thank you for researching and presenting it

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to Timjoebillybob again. Grrrrr