1500 People who showed up to caucus TURNED AWAY

[Ranger29860]

I truly do not give a rats ass about what loophole they devised, to avoid accountability.

Who are they accountable to? There members right? And if there members are so pissed about this then they should no longer donate to them. Without money they cant function. Thats how you hold PRIVATE organizations accountable.

 

[tbone717]

I truly do not give a rats ass about what loophole they devised, to avoid accountability.

It's not a loophole. You are trying to cast an entirely different definition of a caucus on it than it is. A caucus is not a state election, like the general election is. It is essentially, a private event. Members of a party determining who they wish to elect to be the nominee for President at a party convention. None of this involves the state.

 

[sailingaway]

I suppose so, third parties do have a lot easier time working at the state level, but the LP and CP have really failed in their attempt to gain status as a legitimate alternative. You need to take that up with them. I have had my day trying to work with them, I have no plans to do so again - it's like talking to a wall.

I couldn't care less about them, I care about US. We should pass this to Santorum supporters and get all parts of the grass roots which have been kept out of it to protest the monopoly barriers.

the TEA PARTY (such of the original as still exists) should care.

 

[Ranger29860]

No, we get it, but as you've already agreed, it certainly doesn't make that right...

And "no implicit right to vote for president"? For registered voters? Are you kidding me? Just because they do things to not have to recognize that right by technically not breaking the law, does not mean that registered voters don't have the right to vote.

Thus, I'm not sure what your argument is, when you agree that it's not right and they should have done something about... So no, we can't sue or prosecute them, but that doesn't mean people should take 1,500 voters getting turned away lightly... Whether legal, planned or unplanned, disenfranchising voters is never okay.

I never once said it was OK but when you have people saying we should sue them or they should get in trouble at a federal level you have to explain why that would never happen. And the right to vote issue helps explain that.

like i said in a previouse post .. them members of that district should stop supporting them financially thats how you hurt them the most.

 

[Philosophy_of_Politics]

It's not a loophole. You are trying to cast an entirely different definition of a caucus on it than it is. A caucus is not a state election, like the general election is. It is essentially, a private event. Members of a party determining who they wish to elect to be the nominee for President at a party convention. None of this involves the state.

Could our candidate have a shot in a general election without attending this "private event?" If the answer no, this means the party has too much influence on official elections. Therefore, we can conclude, that they should be subjected to normal Election laws.

 

[tbone717]

I couldn't care less about them, I care about US. We should pass this to Santorum supporters and get all parts of the grass roots which have been kept out of it to protest the monopoly barriers.

the TEA PARTY (such of the original as still exists) should care.

That's fine because at the end of the day this is a matter that needs to be taken up with the WA State GOP, not the Secretary of State.

 

[Ranger29860]

Could our candidate have a shot in a general election without attending this "private event?" If the answer no, this means the party has too much influence on official elections. Therefore, we can conclude, that they should be subjected to normal Election laws.

Think about what your asking... The guys who stack the rules should be subject to the rules they created so that they can no longer stack the rules in their favor? Do they have to much power? YES but is this avenue of approach ever going to go anywehre NO

 

[tbone717]

Could our candidate have a shot in a general election without attending this "private event?" If the answer no, this means the party has too much influence on official elections. Therefore, we can conclude, that they should be subjected to normal Election laws.

Yes he could. Any candidate can file to run as an Independent on the ballot, get the required number of signatures, raise the ample amount of funds needed and have a shot. There is nothing legally preventing anyone from doing this. That does not of course mean that he has a realistic chance of winning, but he does have the ability to enter the race however he wants.

Are you suggesting that we are supposed to have equalization of outcomes for anyone who wants to run for office? Sort of an "affirmative action plan" for candidates that do not have enough funds or support to win?

 

[sailingaway]

That's fine because at the end of the day this is a matter that needs to be taken up with the WA State GOP, not the Secretary of State.

It needs to be take up as a legislative cause to change ballot access laws, and as a debate threshold.

 

[rpwasright]

Why on earth are any of you suprised at this? It has been happening since this whole election got started. This whole damn thing is rigged. From the primary to the general, representation by the people is a joke in this country as it is in all democracies. This election has made me firmly a an-cap. I'll still vote for Paul just to at least spit in the elites of this countries face but it won't make one bit of difference in the destruction that is facing this country. We will change when we lose the world reserve currency. Until then its just going to get worse.

 

[sailingaway]

Yes he could. Any candidate can file to run as an Independent on the ballot, get the required number of signatures, raise the ample amount of funds needed and have a shot. There is nothing legally preventing anyone from doing this. That does not of course mean that he has a realistic chance of winning, but he does have the ability to enter the race however he wants.

Are you suggesting that we are supposed to have equalization of outcomes for anyone who wants to run for office? Sort of an "affirmative action plan" for candidates that do not have enough funds or support to win?

the 'sore loser laws' ballot access, threshold of 15% to get INTO the debate... these things are only accepted by the public because by and large they think the only reason they aren't being represented is because they didn't work at it through the process. Show that isn't true, and that thinking can change.

 

[TheGrinch]

I never once said it was OK but when you have people saying we should sue them or they should get in trouble at a federal level you have to explain why that would never happen. And the right to vote issue helps explain that.

like i said in a previouse post .. them members of that district should stop supporting them financially thats how you hurt them the most.

I have not seen 1 post where someone suggested suing them. Care to show me where anyone is saying anything more than it's simply not right?

Most everyone here realizes that we have to play this game by the GOP's rules, but that in no way means we're just going to accept that they choose to run it in an irresponsible way that disenfranchises 1,500 voters... I don't give a rats ass if it's legal or not... It's also legal for the media to ignore and marginalize Dr. Paul as long as it's not blatant hard-to-prove libel, but that doesn't mean I have to somehow appreciate that their irresponsible reporting is well within their legal right.

What is legal is not necessarily moral, and that's the entire point.... There are literally tons of things that are legal that no reasonable person should accept... This would be one of them.

 

[DerailingDaTrain]

I'm sure those 1500 were mostly RP supporters. Bastards

 

[Chowder]

I have not seen 1 post where someone suggested suing them. Care to show me where anyone is saying anything more than it's simply not right?

Most everyone here realizes that we have to play this game by the GOP's rules, but that in no way means we're just going to accept that they choose to run it in an irresponsible way that disenfranchises 1,500 voters... I don't give a rats ass if it's legal or not... It's also legal for the media to ignore and marginalize Dr. Paul as long as it's not blatant hard-to-prove libel, but that doesn't mean I have to somehow appreciate that their irresponsible reporting is well within their legal right.

What is legal is not necessarily moral, and that's the entire point.... There are literally tons of things that are legal that no reasonable person should accept... This would be one of them.

ROTFLMAO!

I love your avatar! ha ha ha!

Rep! +

 

[gorgonzola]

and so it begins!

It will not go unnoticed this time. The black out stops here and now!

Rise up WA !!!

Next stop ...Alaska!!!!

 

[Ranger29860]

I have not seen 1 post where someone suggested suing them. Care to show me where anyone is saying anything more than it's simply not right?

Most everyone here realizes that we have to play this game by the GOP's rules, but that in no way means we're just going to accept that they choose to run it in an irresponsible way that disenfranchises 1,500 voters... I don't give a rats ass if it's legal or not... It's also legal for the media to ignore and marginalize Dr. Paul as long as it's not blatant hard-to-prove libel, but that doesn't mean I have to somehow appreciate that their irresponsible reporting is well within their legal right.

What is legal is not necessarily moral, and that's the entire point.... There are literally tons of things that are legal that no reasonable person should accept... This would be one of them.

Im not sure how to quote from 2 diffrent places

this is from philosophy of politics from a few pages ago and the person I was replying to. *POP tthi is not me going after you only making a point to grinch*

"Their rules are irrelevant. The people have the right to vote, assuming that they're legal to vote, and properly registered. Their laziness, and negligence, is not a great enough excuse to deprive Washington Citizens the right to vote. It's your constitutional right, to participate in a fair election. That's why we have laws intended to criminalize voter/election fraud. This forum alone, people have already voiced several alternative ways to handle this overflow crowd. Simply because they didn't want it to take time, or delay the tabulation, is a faulty argument.

State Bureau of Elections, and then the Town & County Clerks, get ahold of them."

 

[Philosophy_of_Politics]

Think about what your asking... The guys who stack the rules should be subject to the rules they created so that they can no longer stack the rules in their favor? Do they have to much power? YES but is this avenue of approach ever going to go anywehre NO

Yeah. It's whatever. Someone better get to these people, before I do. That's all I can say.

 

[Ranger29860]

Yeah. It's whatever. Someone better get to these people, before I do. That's all I can say.

end of the day we all hate the establishment

 

[Philosophy_of_Politics]

Im not sure how to quote from 2 diffrent places

this is from philosophy of politics from a few pages ago and the person I was replying to. *POP tthi is not me going after you only making a point to grinch*

"Their rules are irrelevant. The people have the right to vote, assuming that they're legal to vote, and properly registered. Their laziness, and negligence, is not a great enough excuse to deprive Washington Citizens the right to vote. It's your constitutional right, to participate in a fair election. That's why we have laws intended to criminalize voter/election fraud. This forum alone, people have already voiced several alternative ways to handle this overflow crowd. Simply because they didn't want it to take time, or delay the tabulation, is a faulty argument.

State Bureau of Elections, and then the Town & County Clerks, get ahold of them."

Fair enough. I just don't see how an entity that has had this much power over the voting process, and even has personnel in States, which pretty much require someone to run in their party; cannot be subjected to election/voting laws.

This is equivalent to votes for 1 party, being counted by a foreign enemy, where U.S. Law does not apply to them.

 

[liberty2897]

I'm sure those 1500 were mostly RP supporters. Bastards

Yep, I think so. I didn't see very many young people inside at all. The local news paper just said Caucus starts at 10:00am. I told everyone I know to get there earlier and they all got in (barely). All the establishment GOP at my table didn't feel one bit sorry about people being locked out. They said they should have got there by 8:00 or 8:30. Oh well, I made it though the process with senior perfume permeating the air. I hope the rest of the state did better. I know this is a GOP event and they do things their way, but I definitely left with a feeling like this process was rigged to some degree. I'm not surprised.