Trump daddy

Colorado GOP Braces For Trump Protests, Counter-Protests -
http://coloradopols.com/diary/82564...rotests-counter-protests#sthash.Ho4ChiL5.dpuf

by: Colorado Pols April 12, 2016 at 1:33 PM MDT

riot-246x300.jpg

Burn baby burn.

As the low-information backlash against the Colorado Republican Party by supporters of GOP presidential candidate Donald Trump rages on, a protest action is in the offing this Friday at 3:00PM outside the state party’s headquarters in Greenwood Village:

The Colorado Republican Party shamefully silenced its voters this election season. We demand that Colorado give the power to vote in the Presidential Primary to the voters. We will exercise our right to assemble and peacefully protest the corruption of the Colorado GOP and disenfranchisement that we the voters have suffered.

WE WILL:

Show the Colorado GOP how many people they have angered by silencing our voice.
Show the GOP a preview of what is to come if we come to a contested convention.
Start the process for establishing a primary vote in Colorado.

But according to local GOP radio host Jimmy Sengenberger, a pro-party counter-protest will kick off at the same time and place:


Grassroots activists will gather at 3 p.m. on Friday, April 15, to counter a protest being organized by “Colorado Votes Matter” and instant-celebrity Larry Wayne Lindsey. The rally is being planned in the wake of threats and public intimidation made against officials and staff of the Colorado State Republican Party.

“You can disagree with the caucus process and the decision not to have a binding straw poll. You can advocate for a primary in Colorado. Reasonable minds may differ on these subjects. But lying, deceiving, smearing, and threatening lives is totally unacceptable,” said organizer Jimmy Sengenberger, 25, a longtime conservative activist and a Denver radio personality. “We stand firmly with Chairman Steve House and the staff at the State Party.”

So, the most likely outcomes Friday are as follows: Trump supporters swamp the anti-Trump “counter-protest,” the counter-protest swamps the pro-Trump protest, or nobody gives up their Friday afternoon to give a crap either way. Given the level of vitriol being pumped out over every available medium by Trump’s camp over the results in Colorado, and the equal resolve with which local Republicans are standing up to defend their severely compromised presidential caucus process this year…well, there’s certainly a scenario in which this gets very nasty indeed.

Out of an abundance of caution, we intend to keep away from visible range of either crowd.
 
An interesting read on the Colorado system from Wikipedia:

History[edit]
The caucus system was adopted by Colorado voters in 1912 as part of a package of progressive reforms. It was seen as a way to limit the power of party bosses and to attract more grassroots involvement. The caucus system was abolished in favor of presidential primaries in 1992, but restored in 2002 with the defeat of Amendment 29[3] and cost considerations, the fully restored Colorado Caucus was in 2004.[4] To find your precinct number contact your Colorado County Clerk.[5]
 
NQ1965 said:
This sort of BS is the exact reason we have an non-politician outsider running and doing so well in this election.
And yet the Republican part just continues down the same path. That's insanity!

The Republican Ship is going Down.
View attachment 51781
Click to expand...
index.php


Technically this ship isn't sinking. Should upright when the tide comes in. Could make an analogy involving the Constitution...
 
What is everyones take on what happens if Trump has the most votes yet doesnt get the nomination? For or against him isnt that a mockery of our system? It shouldnt matter what party or candidate you back I believe it will prove once and for all how corrupt american politics have become.

Thoughts?
 
Crazycat259 said:
What is everyones take on what happens if Trump has the most votes yet doesnt get the nomination? For or against him isnt that a mockery of our system? It shouldnt matter what party or candidate you back I believe it will prove once and for all how corrupt american politics have become.

Thoughts?
Click to expand...
Our system is already flawed, it's already happening. The Bern beats Hellary in popular votes 8 out 9 times....yet he still is losing the war. Super Delegates....makes a lot of sense.
 
Crazycat259 said:
What is everyones take on what happens if Trump has the most votes yet doesnt get the nomination? For or against him isnt that a mockery of our system? It shouldnt matter what party or candidate you back I believe it will prove once and for all how corrupt american politics have become.

Thoughts?
Click to expand...

In front of the last rope/barrier you aren't allowed across at the convention. Open carrying. Making noise.
 
k01 said:
It's a caucus system and they've been doing it that way since I believe 1912. Trump didn't even go to speak. He's either winning or whining. Did you know that he has a larger percentage of the delegates than his percentage of actual votes.

You won't hear an decent explanation about Colorado on Fox or read it on Drudge. They're in propaganda mode. Interesting how sources are shaking out this primary season..
Click to expand...

They have flip flopped many times since then. The current system was changed last fall. And I really wonder if you can find ANY source that isnt in propaganda mode, The media is entangled with the government and elitists, corruption is the norm.
 
Crazycat259 said:
What is everyones take on what happens if Trump has the most votes yet doesnt get the nomination? For or against him isnt that a mockery of our system? It shouldnt matter what party or candidate you back I believe it will prove once and for all how corrupt american politics have become.

Thoughts?
Click to expand...

Anarchy.

If anything at least Trump has brought many problems into the mainstream media that other politicians would have kept buried.
 
Trump is putting it out there. Funny everything he says is taboo, until the other politicians see the people agree, then it is oh yeah, we feel the same way.
 
sturd said:
In front of the last rope/barrier you aren't allowed across at the convention. Open carrying. Making noise.
Click to expand...

Agreed!
It seems that public pressure and blowback is the only way to get through to the party leaders in Washington.
Their way of thinking is that "silence is acceptance", and the American general public majority is silent way too often on way too many of the issues.
 
I caught this on the PBS News Hour Tuesday night. Pretty good clip:
=========================================


Is Dodd-Frank missing some vital regulatory firewalls?

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/is-dodd-frank-missing-some-vital-regulatory-firewalls/#transcript


Investment bank Goldman Sachs became this week the last big institution to settle with the federal government for its role in the 2008 financial crisis. But in an election cycle that has seen big banks under more scrutiny than ever before, there are worries that regulations against institutions like Goldman Sachs aren’t going far enough. Lynn Stout of Cornell Law School joins John Yang.

JUDY WOODRUFF: Now to our occasional series of conversations about whether some banks and firms are too big to fail, and whether they pose a risk to the country’s financial health.

John Yang has our latest installment.

JOHN YANG: Eight years after the housing bubble exploded, investment bank Goldman Sachs this week became the last big institution to settle with the government for its role in selling bundles of bad loans to investors, which led to the financial crisis.

In this election year, there is a lot of talk about whether too many firms remain too big to fail and whether the Dodd-Frank law is working.

Lynn Stout is a Cornell University law professor who now serves on the Treasury Department’s Financial Research Advisory Committee. She has been very critical of Dodd-Frank, and she joins us now from Ithaca, New York.

Professor Stout, thanks for being with us.

Let’s start off with that Goldman Sachs settlement this week. They have agreed to pay as much as $5 billion in this settlement with the government. What does this say about accountability now among the big financial institutions after the financial crisis?

LYNN STOUT, Cornell University: I’m afraid the settlement confirms something that we have suspected for quite a long time, which is that it looks like fraudulent practices were hard-baked into the banking sector during 2008.

And, unfortunately, although $5 billion sounds like a lot of money, the settlement is actually relatively small. It’s certainly small compared to the damage that was done by these fraudulent practices, and it’s relatively small compared to some of the settlements by some of the other banks, by Citibank and by Bank of America.

So, as large as the figure may seem, I’m afraid it creates the risk that this could be business as usual, that, at the end of the day, Goldman Sachs may have found these sorts of fraudulent practices to overall profitable, even in light of the fines.

JOHN YANG: Business as usual, you say.

Now, Dodd-Frank was supposed to address all this. It was the response to all of this, the financial crisis and what brought it on. You say Dodd-Frank isn’t working. Why not? What about it isn’t working?

LYNN STOUT: The basic problem with Dodd-Frank is that it created the appearance of Congress doing something, without that appearance being backed up by reality.

What the Dodd-Frank Act did mostly was direct various regulators at the Federal Reserve, the FTC, the CFTC to draft regulations that were supposed to rein in the banks. But Dodd-Frank itself doesn’t impose many hard and fast rules, and what’s happened in all the years since is that the financial industry, through lobbying, campaign contributions, behind-the-scene actions, HAS been very effective at stymying regulators from doing anything that really crimps their style and reins them in.

JOHN YANG: Well, the banks say that they are, they are being reined in. The banks say that their profits are down, that Dodd-Frank has changed the way they do business. They’re holding more capital, they say. They’re being more closely regulated. There are things they can and they can’t do.

And, as I say, it’s cutting into their profits, they say. What do you say to that?

LYNN STOUT: Well, it’s true that bank profits are down, but I think we need to be realistic.

One of the primary reasons is that the banks basically lost the faith of their customers. They damaged their own reputations and destroyed much of their own customer base. Now, some regulation does play a role. And right now, regulators are watching the banks pretty closely, but the rules are still pretty flexible.

And we have to be concerned that in years that are coming in the future, the regulators are going to take their eye off the ball and we will be back to some of the same problems in terms of concentrations of risk and highly speculative activity that led to the 2008 collapse in the first place.

JOHN YANG: What do you think should be done?

LYNN STOUT: It’s actually very straightforward.

Up until around the year 2000, we had a bunch of banking regulations in place, including Glass-Steagall and rules against speculative derivatives trading that had proven time-tested at keeping banks from taking on excessive risks and had been very effective at keeping the financial sector stable and sound.

And most of those laws were eliminated in a — what’s turned out to be a very misbegotten profit of so-called deregulation. I think that if we put those rules back in place, experience and history suggest there’s no reason why we can’t have a safe, sound banking sector.

It’s just very hard without some of the original regulatory firewalls we used to have.

JOHN YANG: Glass-Steagall came out of the Depression and said you couldn’t — you couldn’t — had to separate commercial banking and investment banking.

The critics of that, of your assessment, say that a lot of what happened in the financial crisis had nothing to do with that. It had to do with a pure investment bank like Goldman Sachs. It had to do not with the mixing of the two. What’s your response?

LYNN STOUT: Oh, that’s true, to some extent, but Glass-Steagall wasn’t the only rule that was changed.

We also legalized over-the-counter derivatives for the first time, and we even gave a derivatives contracts priority in bankruptcy. There were lots and lots of financial rules that were changed in favor of the financial industry through a steady process of the application of campaign contributions and lobbying power.

And if we’re going to have a stable system, I think we need to find a way to get past this problem of lack of a political will to effectively regulate financial institutions.

JOHN YANG: We had Barney Frank on in one of our conversations about this, the Barney Frank of Dodd-Frank.

And he said that even if an institution were to get into trouble, that the way the law is now, there would be no government bailout, no propping up of an institution, it would have to fail, and that whatever government funds would be spent would be spent on letting it dissolve in an orderly fashion, so it wouldn’t cause a big financial problem to the rest of the economy, and that any money the government spent would have to be recovered.

Your response.

LYNN STOUT: I think that’s, shall we say, an extremely optimistic view.

And I think history has shown that the ties between the big financial institutions and Washington are so tight that the financial institutions are very good at engineering taxpayer-financed bailouts.

JOHN YANG: Lynn Stout, thanks for joining us. Thank you very much.
 
Last edited:
Double D said:
Trump is putting it out there. Funny everything he says is taboo, until the other politicians see the people agree, then it is oh yeah, we feel the same way.
Click to expand...

Totally accurate. Funny the things Ted Cruz is not talking about. He wants to build a wall too. He is talking about jobs, he is talking about foreign trade. Trump has shifted Cruz's campaign topics from the start.

It is true, if Trump was NOT in this election, I don't think immigration would even be discussed. It is a topic most politicians do not want to touch with a 100 foot pole.......because they are pandering for votes.
 
hershey said:
They have flip flopped many times since then. The current system was changed last fall. And I really wonder if you can find ANY source that isnt in propaganda mode, The media is entangled with the government and elitists, corruption is the norm.
Click to expand...
The RNC did it's best to front load the primary system, thinking big money would leave Jeb with a comfortable lead. They didn't consider that possibility that the base could have other ideas. Lol! With the crowded field, Trump really benefited in the early delegate count. That's why complaints from Trump about Colorado ring totally hollow with many. Maybe because things have changed with the current small field? Did the Trump campaign just blow it in Colorado (the rules were known) and placing blame is easier than living up to that fact? Or is this a super clever ploy to further enrage Trump supporters to increase their loyalty?
 
k01 said:
The RNC did it's best to front load the primary system, thinking big money would leave Jeb with a comfortable lead. They didn't consider that possibility that the base could have other ideas. Lol! With the crowded field, Trump really benefited in the early delegate count. That's why complaints from Trump about Colorado ring totally hollow with many. Maybe because things have changed with the current small field? Did the Trump campaign just blow it in Colorado (the rules were known) and placing blame is easier than living up to that fact? Or is this a super clever ploy to further enrage Trump supporters to increase their loyalty?
Click to expand...

A little of both. But the point still being that its becoming evident that voters dont count. Maybe more so now it is obvious because Trump is winning in popular votes and the establishment is doing its best to do something different in terms of a candidate. When the establishment and the voters agree no issue has surfaced.
 
k01 said:
The RNC did it's best to front load the primary system, thinking big money would leave Jeb with a comfortable lead. They didn't consider that possibility that the base could have other ideas. Lol!
Click to expand...

Yea, the party lords definitely had all their chips bet on Bush and certainly didn't anticipate an early failure. The Irony is that Bush, Carson, Rubio all bailed because they saw no mathematical possibility of success, but yet Kasich has been in last place since the beginning, has absolutely no mathematical chance, but won't get the hell out. My suspicion is that he is being told by the party boss's to stay in the race, and they'll try to force it all his way. They would much rather have a sitting Governor than a hack outsider.

k01 said:
Did the Trump campaign just blow it in Colorado (the rules were known)
Click to expand...

Makes absolutely no difference. Bottom line is the WE THE PEOPLE were intentionally and defiantly denied a voice!
 
Last edited:
I would love to read where the money is coming from to keep a candidate in a race that has NO chance of winning any other states, nor getting to 1237. Typically the money starts drying up, and that forces a candidate to let staff go, etc. That would be the tell tale sign. My guess is that the money is coming to Kasich from Sorros (it was reported he even gave Kasich like $200,000), and establishment republicans.

The establishment on both sides are scared. Scared not of what policy trump will bring to the table, not of the wall, not of trade, not of court appointees. They are all scared he is going to expose all the political corruption inside DC. Most congressman go to congress of moderate means. They all leave millionaires. Does no one else besides me scratch your head bout that?
 
Are you sure exposure is the issue, there's plenty of that. It's in the news everyday.
If the general public chooses silence, amnesia, and withdraw, corruption and bribery will always prevail.

On my earlier comments about the WE THE PEOPLE being denied a vote and voice, more thought on it tells me that we actually aren't denied a vote. We always have the right to NOT vote Republican, and choose a vote against the party.

Reince Priebus just officially put everybody on notice, that the Republican party is not "Your Party", it's "Their Party! Their party, they make the rules.
 
Rush said today the Republican Party wants Cruz to win cuz they know Hellery with beat him. They do not want Trump to be president.
 
NQ1965 said:
Makes absolutely no difference. Bottom line is the WE THE PEOPLE were intentionally and defiantly denied a voice
Click to expand...
Good of you to speak for the folks in Colorado.
Seriously, l'll say it again, any real change needs to come from the state level, at least while the Constitution still has some standing.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top