NY compliant AR's & AK's

[The_Field_Ager]

Back to politics in 2016:

 

Rule GOP Establishment Wrote to Block Ron Paul Now Prevents Them from Blocking Trump

 

 

 

Hogan Gidley, who served as national communications director for Mike Huckabee’s presidential campaign, appeared on Wednesday’s edition of Breitbart News Daily with SiriusXM host Stephen K. Bannon to discuss a crucial aspect of the Republican primary: the previously obscure, but increasingly notorious, Rule 40.

Technically, most of the analysts citing Rule 40 are referring to the current version of Rule 40(, which sets a certain minimum threshold for candidates at the Republican National Convention. According to this rule, candidates must arrive at the convention with a majority of the delegates from eight states or territories, or else they are disqualified from the first round. In most elections, this is a mere formality because the clear winner of the nomination is well-known before the convention begins, making the convention an extended infomercial for the party and its nominee.

Of course, there is good reason to suspect the Republican convention will be rather more exciting this year. Gidley noted there is apprehension among front-runner Donald Trump’s supporters that the GOP Establishment will use some “shenanigans” to “steal” the nomination from him at the convention. Among those shenanigans could be changing Rule 40 to bring candidates who don’t meet the established minimum threshold into the game.

There are two ghosts from the 2012 election haunting the Shakespearean drama of the 2016 primary, and Gidley invoked them both in a single breath: Ron Paul and Mitt Romney.

“This is actually called the ‘Ron Paul Rule.’ The Romney people put this in place,” Gidley explained. “The Establishment hurt Ron Paul, but I think this Establishment rule will actually help Donald Trump.”

 

 

 

http://www.breitbart.com/2016-presidential-race/2016/03/16/gidley-political-jihad-will-erupt-if-gop-changes-rules-to-steal-nomination-from-trump/

[BellR]

Oh here we go. You come on here, Lording it over everyone , accusing people of being liars, pretending to be some kind of strict Constitutional expert. I provide 2/3 perfectly reasonable rebuttals to your views and now all of a sudden you have gone deaf or can no longer read. Take your BS off somewhere else. Another one for the ignore list.

 

No, I said that people who were repeating that claim were either lying or ignorant because it was wrong.  Which is true.  There is nothing wrong with being ignorant.  I was until I did some research about the subject.  I'm sorry that your arguments don't actually address the issues presented but the fact is that every argument you have typed there is a counter for, and you have yet to answer the counter.  I can read your responses just fine, but if they don't address the issue I will ignore them.

 

So, let me restate my argument. 

 

Yes, there is no set timeline in the constitution to consider judicial appointments.  If you want to argue that that means that the Senate can decide to delay based on their own whim, then you still haven't answered if you think it would be just fine if Democrats refused to consider an appointment for the whole time that there was a Republican president. It falls under the same argument that there is no clearly defined timeline to consider appointments. 

 

If the answer is you wouldn't support such obstructionism, then the only other answer is you are a hypocrite.  I'm fine with the Senate considering the appointment and turning him down on his stance on gun control.  What I'm not fine with is the obstructionism and simple refusal to do the job they were elected to.  

 

If you want to block me because I propose an argument based on facts to your blind fanaticism that's fine.  It goes to show just how "open minded" you are and how much you drink the Kool-Aid.   

 

 

Edited March 17, 2016 by BellR