1500 People who showed up to caucus TURNED AWAY

[jeremiahj13]

Get out the vote has changed names to:

Get out the vote if there's room >_<

 

[hunter100]

This is not a public election, it is a party election. They do not have to follow any state election rules that they don't want to, which means they can exclude whoever they want to. Hopefully all the RP supporters got there early. I know I would have if I lived there.

 

[Philosophy_of_Politics]

This is not a public election, it is a party election. They do not have to follow any state election rules that they don't want to, which means they can exclude whoever they want to. Hopefully all the RP supporters got there early. I know I would have if I lived there.

A non-public party election, that requires the general public to compete in a non-public party election, in order to determine who gets to be the official representative of the party publicly in the official presidential election.

Yeah, I'm at a tipping point.

 

[TheGrinch]

This is not a public election, it is a party election. They do not have to follow any state election rules that they don't want to, which means they can exclude whoever they want to. Hopefully all the RP supporters got there early. I know I would have if I lived there.

I know I should let it go, but IMO this is what is wrong with America, that we just accept things that are blatant bullshit, because "that's jsut the way things are".... This movement exists to oppose not only the illegal, but the "legal" overreaches of government with little checks and balances.

Do you really think, regardless of legality, that people should think it's right that certain people who meet the qualifications are excluded? I mean Jesus, we used to have Jim Crow laws too. Were those okay because as you say, "the law says they can exclude whoever they want to"?

We live in America, where our country was founded on taking it very seriously when the system was used against the people. Why should it matter if it's legal when they're acting like bigots with regard to who they want to allow to voice their choice for president? Moreover, why do you feel the need to defend them doing scummy crap like this?

 

[Tudo]

In communist Vietnam everyone votes. You would think why when there's one party rule? Well, everyone must vote and if you don't show up to vote they will quickly dispatch the police, ballot in hand to your house in order to make you vote and they won't be smiling when they arrive. There's even 2 candidates although they basically say the same thing and lead in exactly the same way. That's communist vietnam.

 

[tbone717]

I know I should let it go, but IMO this is what is wrong with America, that we just accept things that are blatant bullshit, because "that's jsut the way things are".... This movement exists to oppose not only the illegal, but the "legal" overreaches of government with little checks and balances.

Do you really think, regardless of legality, that people should think it's right that certain people who meet the qualifications are excluded? I mean Jesus, we used to have Jim Crow laws too. Were those okay because as you say, "the law says they can exclude whoever they want to"?

We live in America, where our country was founded on taking it very seriously when the system was used against the people. Why should it matter if it's legal when they're acting like bigots with regard to who they want to allow to voice their choice for president? Moreover, why do you feel the need to defend them doing scummy crap like this?

But if you read the party rules, there was recourse for this, but no one took any action on it. Someone could have made a motion to split the caucus vote up into multiple sessions to accommodate the crowd, if someone seconded the motion it would have been brought to a voice vote and either pass or fail.

So this begs the question, why do I know this sitting here in PA and RP supporters who are members of the WA GOP do not know this, or failed to act on it.

 

[TurkishMarch]

You know how much complaining there would have been???? "Why do these people get to vote now, and not us" There would be such a shitfest, you don't even know.....

and it isn't bs. It IS a legal liability issue. You can't have 200% capacity. So how dare you call that bull shit.

If you are going to ask questions like that and cop an attitude, which you are seemingly doing...then I'll ask one, but I'll answer yours. Yes. I'd rather have people not vote than a fire break out and people die and then I get sued for their deaths. I'd choose that option every time.

So how about you, if you want to ask EXTREME questions. Would you rather have everyone get to vote, and have 200% capacity and people get hurt and have to assume legal liability?

If I was in the same situation, I would have done the same thing. I don't want to be attached to any liability like that. No brainer.

Are there only two possible outcomes to this scenario - one, file everyone into the same place at the same, or two, send 1500 people home? If a state can take a couple weeks to count votes all while "accidentally" "losing" "some" of them, it seems reasonable that an additional caucus location and / or time could be selected. Because you only see one alternative seems like a weak excuse to be rude to another forum member who is understandably frustrated.

 

[Cinderella]

Roberts Rules of order should be our bible from now till November!

 

[TheGrinch]

But if you read the party rules, there was recourse for this, but no one took any action on it. Someone could have made a motion to split the caucus vote up into multiple sessions to accommodate the crowd, if someone seconded the motion it would have been brought to a voice vote and either pass or fail.

So this begs the question, why do I know this sitting here in PA and RP supporters who are members of the WA GOP do not know this, or failed to act on it.

Okay, since you're up on Washington's part ruels, maybe you can answer these questions.

Who sets the caucuses? Because obviously it was an oversight that Paul supporters didn't pick up on, but at the same time, they aren't responsible for determining turnout and setting caucuses to accomodate it, are they? The difference being, that Paul supporters simply slipped up in not double-checking everything, whereas it's conceivable that the ones who organize this anticipated bigger turnout, but did not do anything about it... Being that this appears to be a strong district for Paul, foul play could be suspected.

Foul play seems to gain even more credence, unless: Did their rules say that they had no choice but to turn all these voters away? Was there no way they could have accommodated them, such as by holding some in the parking lot or at a later time? If those options were on the table, then they chose the option that would disenfranchise the most voters, drawing more suspicion of foul play, when added to all of the other shenanigans we've seen from the GOP in every other state.

So while you may be right that Paul supporters should have been more diligent in making sure the GOP was doing it the right way, but it wasn't Paul supporters who organized it or made the call to turn voters away, and unless you can show that they had no other choice, then I'm sure not just going to accept that they were right to choose the disenfranchisement option.

 

[hunter100]

I know I should let it go, but IMO this is what is wrong with America, that we just accept things that are blatant bullshit, because "that's jsut the way things are".... This movement exists to oppose not only the illegal, but the "legal" overreaches of government with little checks and balances.

Do you really think, regardless of legality, that people should think it's right that certain people who meet the qualifications are excluded? I mean Jesus, we used to have Jim Crow laws too. Were those okay because as you say, "the law says they can exclude whoever they want to"?

We live in America, where our country was founded on taking it very seriously when the system was used against the people. Why should it matter if it's legal when they're acting like bigots with regard to who they want to allow to voice their choice for president? Moreover, why do you feel the need to defend them doing scummy crap like this?

Two points:
1: I didn't say I agreed with the practice, I just said it doesn't violate state election laws. Ron Paul chose to stay with the Republican party, therefore he and his supporters have to deal with the party BS. If you don't like the way the party is running these elections, then go support another party. That is the only right you have as a voter that they cannot control.

2: IF (a big if) it turns out that Ron Paul wins this particular caucus because the party shut out all of Romney/Santorum/Gingrich's voters, are you still going to complain and try to overturn the election result?

 

[Tyler_Durden]

American Idol text voting is counted more accurately and is less disenfranchising than the GOP.

 

[Philosophy_of_Politics]

American Idol text voting is counted more accurately and is less disenfranchising than the GOP.

I wanna' hear Ron Paul say that publicly.

 

[hunter100]

American Idol text voting is counted more accurately and is less disenfranchising than the GOP.

Ha. If they used text voting, all the old people would bitch because they don't know how too...

 

[liberty2897]

Forgot to mention another thing that bothered me at the Benton County caucus today. We were instructed at the beginning that if we were a Libertarian, that we should not participate, and we should probably just leave (I'm paraphrasing here, but pretty close to that). This was followed by applause from quite a few. That is the GOP for you.

 

[Ranger29860]

Forgot to mention another thing that bothered me at the Benton County caucus today. We were instructed at the beginning that if we were a Libertarian, that we should not participate, and we should probably just leave (I'm paraphrasing here, but pretty close to that). This was followed by applause from quite a few. That is the GOP for you.

please say someone got the audio of that

 

[UtahApocalypse]

Dear GOP,

FUCK YOU

I am voting Obama in November. I am sick of people being disenfranchised by their own party. Your party is toast. If Ron Paul is not the NOMINEE (not V.P, Sec. Treasury, ANYTHING ELSE) I will feel sick to my stomach, probably puke but vote Obama in November

 

[Gray Fullbuster]

Forgot to mention another thing that bothered me at the Benton County caucus today. We were instructed at the beginning that if we were a Libertarian, that we should not participate, and we should probably just leave (I'm paraphrasing here, but pretty close to that). This was followed by applause from quite a few. That is the GOP for you.

GOP on Libertarians > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s1LllHjC3tE&feature=channel_video_title

 

[TheGrinch]

Two points:
1: I didn't say I agreed with the practice, I just said it doesn't violate state election laws. Ron Paul chose to stay with the Republican party, therefore he and his supporters have to deal with the party BS. If you don't like the way the party is running these elections, then go support another party. That is the only right you have as a voter that they cannot control.

2: IF (a big if) it turns out that Ron Paul wins this particular caucus because the party shut out all of Romney/Santorum/Gingrich's voters, are you still going to complain and try to overturn the election result?

1) Don't give me the "go run indy if you don't like it". If it was a viable option, Dr. Paul would do it, but currently the only 2 parties are a viable option. If people don't liek the way the GOP is running their elections, then they have every right to demand it's changed. Your attitude is the equivalent of saying "if you don't like getting raped, you need to get your orrifices sewed up, rather than trying to stop the rapists".

2) Did I ever say I'm challenging the poll results? I'm not in favor of any voters being disenfranchised. I want a fair election.. I mean, do I like that people naively and ignorantly support these other candidates without knowing what they really stand for? No, but I'll defend to death anyone's right to vote. This is absurd that because the law allows voters to be disenfranchised, we're not allowed to not like it.

 

[hunter100]

1) Don't give me the "go run indy if you don't like it". If it was a viable option, Dr. Paul would do it, but currently the only 2 parties are a viable option. If people don't liek the way the GOP is running their elections, then they have every right to demand it's changed. Your attitude is the equivalent of saying "if you don't like getting raped, you need to get your orrifices sewed up, rather than trying to stop the rapists".

Your analogy is absurd. Members of the republican party freely choose to associate with the party and attend its events while a person getting raped has no such freedom of association. Using ultra agressive, inflamatory arguments is not the way to conduct a civil debate over any topic, in my opinion (you aren't Rush Limbaugh are you?). Going "indy" as you put it is certainly a viable option. In fact, it is the only way to get a third party going.

 

[TheGrinch]

Your analogy is absurd. Members of the republican party freely choose to associate with the party and attend its events while a person getting raped has no such freedom of association. Using ultra agressive, inflamatory arguments is not the way to conduct a civil debate over any topic, in my opinion (you aren't Rush Limbaugh are you?). Going "indy" as you put it is certainly a viable option. In fact, it is the only way to get a third party going.

My analogy is not absurd, when only the 2 parties get airtime, and only the 2 parties get to participate in the general election debates. People have been working on building up the third-parties for decades, but it's clear that the political climate is not yet to the point to where enough people demand another option. Unfortunately things will probably have to be far worse before that happens (the polls back up what I'm saying), so for the time being, we have to work within the 2 dominant parties... We don't have a choice besides not voting or voting third-party, neither of which is currently going to achieve what we seek: to restore this country before it's too late.

So yes, it may technically be a "free association", since you do have the choice not to participate and let your apathy get them elected anyway, but nonetheless, they're still continually rigging the process to enure that only establishment-approved candidates have a chance... So I'm not even sure why I'm sitting here arguing semantics about legality with you, when it's clear that you're only allowed to associate with the Republican party if you vote for their guys, and not the only one who actually stands up for the fiscal conservatism they all claim to want, rather than big government in disguise. They're pulling the wool over the eyes of the voters who they allow to vote, and marginalizing those who see through it, and I'm not going to stand for it.

You're missing the point of the analogy, which is to mean that it's silly to just say, well go somewhere else if you don't like it, when our exact goal is to try to restore the party to respectability. It's to say that we don't have to be "raped" or make concessions ourselves, to be as loud as can be that what they're doing is wrong.