Trump releases his 2nd amendment stance
0
-
quote:Originally posted by Don McManus
quote:Originally posted by Rack Ops
quote:Originally posted by Don McManus
Trump keeps bragging how he has been supported by non Republicans like it is a good thing. What it has done, is corrupt the process by giving a result that does not necessarily reflect the will of the party. Wether one agrees with it or not, a majority support of non-republicans in a Republican primary car and perhaps should be ignored, particularly if the candidate does not support the traditional party platform.
I find it difficult to believe this is the position you would be taking if Ron Paul was the presumptive nominee.
And if it really is your position, why bother to have a primary at all? We could have save ourselves lots of trouble just by naming Jeb! the nominee right off the bat and rallying around him.
If I believed the presumptive nominee would respect the Constitution and believed in a Constitutionally limited Federal Government, it would be a different story, and I would probably support him, regardless of who he was.
This is not the case today. The people voted for candidates who advocated extra-constitutional positions in every election cycle in recent memory, and we are then stuck with them when the actual voting takes place in November. There is nothing legally binding about a primary election vote, and a party should retain the power to select who is to be their standard bearer, particularly when many of the votes and being placed by people that have never been and are not even now members of the party.
The primaries, as it seems many people are just figuring out, are where the party selects who it wants to represent it in the general. Primary votes do not matter in that sense, and suggesting they should ignores the very reason for the existance of a party and a party platform. Insisting that primary votes be legally binding sets up a scenario whereby 20% of the voting public can dictate who is going to voted upon for President.
One needs to ask if an uninformed 20% is really that much better than the party bosses of old. They might be, but given the last few cycles, there is room for doubt.
I don't intend to put words into your mouth, but it appears that your postion can be summed up thusly: The parties can and should have the ability to reject an insurgent candidate...unless the insurgent candidate is someone that you support.
Or am I mistaken?0
Please sign in to leave a comment.
Comments
91 comments