Quote from: zewazir on October 29, 2016, 02:50:13 PM
IF the situation is controlled by funding. OTOH, agency regulations are being rewritten, without congress - a usurpation of power which has been ongoing for a long time which has placed too much power in the hands of the executive branch. 

I think I just said that, which again, is my reason for no longer supporting the gOP.

QuoteCongress cannot impeach just because they disagree with the way the president is (or is not) running the executive branch. That is about as ignorant a statement I have seen.

Kind of makes you look the fool when making such ignorant statements. It has nothing to do with agreeing or disagreeing!
Now look up Impeachment and tell me again how ignorant I am. Even kids no this one
(Impeach: to accuse (a public official) before an appropriate tribunal of misconduct in office.)

When a new president is elected to office, he or she takes an oath that lists many heavy responsibilities. Abuse of power or failure to uphold these responsibilities cannot be tolerated. The Constitution gives the House of Representatives the right to impeach the president. Impeachment means that a charge of misconduct is filed against the president. A majority of the members of the House must vote for these charges in order to impeach the president.
Of all places, http://congressforkids.net/Executivebranch_impeachment.htm

QuoteThe authority being used to allow un-elected bureaucrats to issue regulations which have the impact of law is, indeed, a usurpation of power. And the fact that laws are written which grants such authority to the agencies or departments in question results in what is essentially an abdication of authority by congress. Such has been going on for many decades. However, these facts simply support the statement that who resides in the WH makes more of a difference than you are willing to admit. YES, Congress SHOULD be reigning in the bureaucracies of the executive branch. That does not change the FACT that in the current situation, the president DOES wield powers which, as Ted Cruz has stated, need to be kept out of Clinton's hands using any reasonable means available to us.
So your answer is to allow a full blown admitted Marxist in the Oval Office because your mad at the way the establishment kicked our feet out from under us? (Which I warned would happen a long time ago, but no one wanted to listen.)

Study the Omnibus Bill and show me where the two party's differ.

QuoteGood plan! We all know that Trump is little more than a demoncrap plant. The ENTIRE DESIGN of corrupting the primaries was to put up about the only person on the entire planet who could LOSE to Clinton. Putting Trump up as the republican nominee has one and only one purpose: put Clinton in office. This is NOT like the last two elections, where the establishment really did not care who won, since they owned them both. This time they want/need Clinton, because she is the only one corrupt enough to be willing to take the destruction of the Republic to the next level. And, like as their entire push to divide us along racial lines, their method to get what they want is DIVIDE AND CONQUER.

And you are helping them with that goal. Your answer is to GIVE THEM WHAT THEY WANT, and call it "principle!" "Gee, Mr. Establishment System, if you want Clinton in office that badly, well, just go ahead! I'll help divide your opposition vote JUST AS YOU WANT ME TO DO, so you can get what you want."

Such a well thought out plan you have.

LOL!!! And your plan is to play useful idiot and continue to empower the GOP?
Look how well that's worked over the last few decades.
What's that they say about repeating the same failure over and over again expecting different results?

Side note, I find it funny under the word "IMPEACHMENT" they have this pic.

                         IMPEACHMENT

Quote from: Solar on October 29, 2016, 03:51:52 PM
I think I just said that, which again, is my reason for no longer supporting the gOP.

You assume voting for Trump is in support of the GOPe. The problem with that assumption is the GOP has NO INTENTION for Trump to win. They never did. They WANT Trump to lose, and to lose big. They pushed Trump on us when they realized they would never get one of their own accepted. So they went dark horse, and with great fanfair, media hype, and a deliberate tight focus on conservative leaning LIVs, along with a big crossover help from willing Dims, Trump was entered into the GOP race as a democrat spoiler. The GOPe knew it then, and knows it now.

Yes, the GOPe is in league with the demoncraps, and as such is running Trump to LOSE.  Therefore, an attempt to put Trump in the winners circle is, ultimately a vote AGAINST the plans of the GOPe.  Additionally, if we are successful in preventing Clinton from taking the WH, it will give us at least the potential to come together across the nation as a unified movement (something the conservative movement has sadly failed to do - with the inevitable results of LOSING time and again...), kick the establishment to the curb, and take over the GOP, forcing them to start representing their constituency (We conservative types) by nominating real conservatives without allowing media hype to derail us.

Conversely, if we fail in preventing Clinton from becoming President, then say a final, sad fare-thee-well to the Republic. She takes power for four years, with nothing in Congress to hinder her (by your own admission), we will be faced with the situation that the only option left for Constitutional Conservatives is to turn to the principles of the Declaration of Independence.  And that will be bloody.

We kicked ass against the establishment in 2010 and did something no third party movement has done since the Republicans separated from the Republican-Democratic party and kicked the Whigs to the curb: we forced our own selections on the party and got a significant percentage of them in office. We did OK in 2012, getting several of our choices re-elected, though we didn't get many new names in office and failed utterly to have any influence on the presidential primaries. But we came back strong in 2014, with re-electing many of those who stayed true to our ideology and adding a few new names to the mix. This method of using our influence within the GOP proved effective, while third party approaches have always failed.

But the thing with war (and all politics is merely war without as much blood) is each side adjusts tactics and strategy according to what the other side does. So this election the GOPe was ready for us with new tactics which we failed to anticipate (in part because we still fail to unify across the nation as a cohesive movement) and handed us a big shitburger to munch on. Once again: The GOPe WANTS us to split off from them. That has been their plan, and it is working. They are marginalizing us effectively by making us angry at them so that constitutional conservatives basically go away in disgust to play in our own sandbox while they continue with their designs to reframe the republic into a system of government more favorable to those in real power behind our political system. So now is the time for TEA - and other true Conservative movements - to change tactics to adjust to their actions. But it seems to me giving them exactly what they want is NOT the proper direction to change.

Quote from: Solar on October 29, 2016, 03:51:52 PM
Kind of makes you look the fool when making such ignorant statements. It has nothing to do with agreeing or disagreeing!

It has to do with what the Constitution itself defines as reasons for removal of a president or vice president from office: "The President, Vice President and all Civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors."  I do not see anywhere in that statement that congress has the authority to impeach and convict a sitting president because he fails to operate the executive branch in a way the majority of congress agrees with.

Quote from: Solar on October 29, 2016, 03:51:52 PM
Now look up Impeachment and tell me again how ignorant I am. Even kids no this one
(Impeach: to accuse (a public official) before an appropriate tribunal of misconduct in office.)

When a new president is elected to office, he or she takes an oath that lists many heavy responsibilities. Abuse of power or failure to uphold these responsibilities cannot be tolerated. The Constitution gives the House of Representatives the right to impeach the president. Impeachment means that a charge of misconduct is filed against the president. A majority of the members of the House must vote for these charges in order to impeach the president.
Of all places, http://congressforkids.net/Executivebranch_impeachment.htm

Again: "The President, Vice President and all Civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors." In the first place, impeachment does NOT remove a president from office (just ask Slick Willy), so your focus on impeachment will not change a damned thing unless you can add conviction to the process. But even for an accusation to be levied to begin impeachment proceedings, there has to be a crime. It would be a push to call the failure to enforce the ACA as written (something Obama did no less than 5 times as various deadlines within the ACA approached and went) as treason, bribery, or a high crime or misdemeanor. No crime, no impeachment. No impeachment, no conviction, and everything stays the same. Violation of oath SHOULD be a crime, but, by itself, is not. (If it were every member of congress would have to also sit through impeachment hearings.) Violation of oath has to be associated with an action which would be criminal even without having taken an oath. That is the legal and constitutional reality of the separation of powers.

Additionally, the laws themselves are written to give various departments and agencies authority to write and enforce regulations. This has the net effect of giving agencies the equilvalent authority to write law, sonce their regulations are enforceable with associated criminal penalties. But, as written, it is NOT breaking the law, nor is the president violating law when they use that usurped authority to alter the economy or society in the manner they see fit. So, yet again, no crime, no impeachment.

Quote from: Solar on October 29, 2016, 03:51:52 PM
Study the Omnibus Bill and show me where the two party's differ.

So abandoning the republican party (as opposed to working within it, as we have successfully done before) is going to change this how?

Quote from: Solar on October 29, 2016, 03:51:52 PM
LOL!!! And your plan is to play useful idiot and continue to empower the GOP?
Look how well that's worked over the last few decades.
What's that they say about repeating the same failure over and over again expecting different results?

No, my plan is to foil the establishment plans to put Clinton in power. Since the GOPe never planned for, nor wants Trump to win, a vote for Trump is quite the opposite of supporting their ultimate agenda.  Conversely, since the INTENT of the GOPe is to send true conservatives packing, when a true conservative GOES packing, it is giving them exactly what they want. And THAT is empowering them.

Quote from: Solar on October 29, 2016, 03:51:52 PM
Side note, I find it funny under the word "IMPEACHMENT" they have this pic.

                         IMPEACHMENT

Humorous, yes. Also clearly demonstrates the leanings of the author of that sight, which is rather refreshing considering what official public education sites teach our youth about the Republic. However, much of what they wrote about impeachment is a simplistic (or perhaps I should say Idealistic) view at best, and is significantly skewed away from legal reality by that idealistic bias.

There are, however, a number of things which Obama has done which could successfully be argued as treason. He and Clinton both should have gone to Club Fed for their decisions during the Benghazi crisis. His complicity in the graft and corruption behind the passage of the ACA would easily fall under the heading of bribery. He SHOULD have been impeached long ago. But the political reality is there were never enough votes in the House to impeach, even if every single 'Pub voted in favor. Plus there were never enough votes in the Senate to convict, even if every single 'Pub in the Senate voted for conviction.  Laying the lack of action in congress at the feet of the GOP, in the particular instance of removing Obama from office for his crimes, or even at the GOPe, is a claim that is not consistent with reality. The (sad) reality is that any genuine attempt to remove Obama from office would have been the political equivalent of the Charge of the Light Brigade. Had any of those elected to congress through the actions of the TEA tried to push for impeachment and conviction, we would be starting over from scratch, as every one involved would have been thoroughly vilified in the media and lost their seats in '14. Instead, we still have a number of voices on our side in congress. (Voices which, BTW, happen to have the R after their name on the congressional rosters.)

Quote from: zewazir on October 29, 2016, 10:48:19 PM
You assume voting for Trump is in support of the GOPe. The problem with that assumption is the GOP has NO INTENTION for Trump to win. They never did. They WANT Trump to lose, and to lose big. They pushed Trump on us when they realized they would never get one of their own accepted. So they went dark horse, and with great fanfair, media hype, and a deliberate tight focus on conservative leaning LIVs, along with a big crossover help from willing Dims, Trump was entered into the GOP race as a democrat spoiler. The GOPe knew it then, and knows it now.

Yes, the GOPe is in league with the demoncraps, and as such is running Trump to LOSE.  Therefore, an attempt to put Trump in the winners circle is, ultimately a vote AGAINST the plans of the GOPe.  Additionally, if we are successful in preventing Clinton from taking the WH, it will give us at least the potential to come together across the nation as a unified movement (something the conservative movement has sadly failed to do - with the inevitable results of LOSING time and again...), kick the establishment to the curb, and take over the GOP, forcing them to start representing their constituency (We conservative types) by nominating real conservatives without allowing media hype to derail us.

Conversely, if we fail in preventing Clinton from becoming President, then say a final, sad fare-thee-well to the Republic. She takes power for four years, with nothing in Congress to hinder her (by your own admission), we will be faced with the situation that the only option left for Constitutional Conservatives is to turn to the principles of the Declaration of Independence.  And that will be bloody.

War is failed politics, and we're at war with the GOP, the very party that called us the enemy, enabled the Dim party to continue to this day in it's use of the IRS as a weapon against Conservatives.

QuoteWe kicked ass against the establishment in 2010 and did something no third party movement has done since the Republicans separated from the Republican-Democratic party and kicked the Whigs to the curb: we forced our own selections on the party and got a significant percentage of them in office. We did OK in 2012, getting several of our choices re-elected, though we didn't get many new names in office and failed utterly to have any influence on the presidential primaries. But we came back strong in 2014, with re-electing many of those who stayed true to our ideology and adding a few new names to the mix. This method of using our influence within the GOP proved effective, while third party approaches have always failed.

But the thing with war (and all politics is merely war without as much blood) is each side adjusts tactics and strategy according to what the other side does. So this election the GOPe was ready for us with new tactics which we failed to anticipate (in part because we still fail to unify across the nation as a cohesive movement) and handed us a big shitburger to munch on. Once again: The GOPe WANTS us to split off from them. That has been their plan, and it is working. They are marginalizing us effectively by making us angry at them so that constitutional conservatives basically go away in disgust to play in our own sandbox while they continue with their designs to reframe the republic into a system of government more favorable to those in real power behind our political system. So now is the time for TEA - and other true Conservative movements - to change tactics to adjust to their actions. But it seems to me giving them exactly what they want is NOT the proper direction to change.

The base spoke when they chose to let another lib (Mitten) rot on the podium in 2012, the base was through supporting libs and sent a clear message to the GOP, do that shit again, and become irrelevant.

QuoteIt has to do with what the Constitution itself defines as reasons for removal of a president or vice president from office: "The President, Vice President and all Civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors." I do not see anywhere in that statement that congress has the authority to impeach and convict a sitting president because he fails to operate the executive branch in a way the majority of congress agrees with.
Again: "The President, Vice President and all Civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors." In the first place, impeachment does NOT remove a president from office (just ask Slick Willy), so your focus on impeachment will not change a damned thing unless you can add conviction to the process. But even for an accusation to be levied to begin impeachment proceedings, there has to be a crime. It would be a push to call the failure to enforce the ACA as written (something Obama did no less than 5 times as various deadlines within the ACA approached and went) as treason, bribery, or a high crime or misdemeanor. No crime, no impeachment. No impeachment, no conviction, and everything stays the same. Violation of oath SHOULD be a crime, but, by itself, is not. (If it were every member of congress would have to also sit through impeachment hearings.) Violation of oath has to be associated with an action which would be criminal even without having taken an oath. That is the legal and constitutional reality of the separation of powers.

Additionally, the laws themselves are written to give various departments and agencies authority to write and enforce regulations. This has the net effect of giving agencies the equilvalent authority to write law, sonce their regulations are enforceable with associated criminal penalties. But, as written, it is NOT breaking the law, nor is the president violating law when they use that usurped authority to alter the economy or society in the manner they see fit. So, yet again, no crime, no impeachment.
So abandoning the republican party (as opposed to working within it, as we have successfully done before) is going to change this how?
No, my plan is to foil the establishment plans to put Clinton in power. Since the GOPe never planned for, nor wants Trump to win, a vote for Trump is quite the opposite of supporting their ultimate agenda.  Conversely, since the INTENT of the GOPe is to send true conservatives packing, when a true conservative GOES packing, it is giving them exactly what they want. And THAT is empowering them.
Humorous, yes. Also clearly demonstrates the leanings of the author of that sight, which is rather refreshing considering what official public education sites teach our youth about the Republic. However, much of what they wrote about impeachment is a simplistic (or perhaps I should say Idealistic) view at best, and is significantly skewed away from legal reality by that idealistic bias.

There are, however, a number of things which Obama has done which could successfully be argued as treason. He and Clinton both should have gone to Club Fed for their decisions during the Benghazi crisis. His complicity in the graft and corruption behind the passage of the ACA would easily fall under the heading of bribery. He SHOULD have been impeached long ago. But the political reality is there were never enough votes in the House to impeach, even if every single 'Pub voted in favor. Plus there were never enough votes in the Senate to convict, even if every single 'Pub in the Senate voted for conviction.  Laying the lack of action in congress at the feet of the GOP, in the particular instance of removing Obama from office for his crimes, or even at the GOPe, is a claim that is not consistent with reality. The (sad) reality is that any genuine attempt to remove Obama from office would have been the political equivalent of the Charge of the Light Brigade. Had any of those elected to congress through the actions of the TEA tried to push for impeachment and conviction, we would be starting over from scratch, as every one involved would have been thoroughly vilified in the media and lost their seats in '14. Instead, we still have a number of voices on our side in congress. (Voices which, BTW, happen to have the R after their name on the congressional rosters.)
]

Congress alone has the power to decide what rises to the definition of Crimes and Misdemeanors, in fact it is thrie responsibility to make the distinction.

QuoteThere is no authoritative pronouncement, other than the text of the Constitution itself, regarding what constitutes an impeachable offense, and what meaning to accord to the phrase "other high Crimes and Misdemeanors." When he was a Congressman, Gerald R. Ford advocated the ultimately unsuccessful impeachment of a Supreme Court Justice by defining an impeachable offense as anything on which a majority of the House of Representatives can agree. As impeachment is understood to be a political question, Ford's statement correctly centers responsibility for the definition of "high Crimes and Misdemeanors" in the House. The federal courts have thus far treated appeals from impeachment convictions to be nonjusticiable. Nixon v. United States (1993). Even if the issue of impeachment is nonjusticiable, it does not mean that there are no appropriate standards that the House should observe.

http://www.heritage.org/constitution/#!/articles/2/essays/100/standards-for-impeachment

Quote from: zewazir on October 29, 2016, 10:48:19 PM
Yes, the GOPe is in league with the demoncraps, and as such is running Trump to LOSE.

I see more than half of my post disappeared, (user error) total frustration!
However I find your take on this interesting. I absolutely agree, the GOP is just another arm of the Dim party, but you are the first to broach the subject as to whether or not they wanted to win, or are merely helping the Marxists. And yes, there are Marxists in the GOP.
What we do know for a fact is they didn't want a Conservative to win, which begs the question, why even entertain the idea of getting involved in their scam of getting Hillary elected?
What it does tell them, is there are plenty of gullible people willing to pull the lever for a lying lib, just because they have an (R) next to their name.

Why even add to their delusion that they have you wrapped around their finger? But the even bigger question would be, why do you delude yourself in believing you are outwitting the GOP at their own game?
Kind of like trying to outwit cancer by smoking more. Though I do understand your logic, the odds are completely against you considering the base refuses to vote for another GOP lib selectee.
Their game is over, they've been exposed as frauds, so you'd be better off joining the majorities cause in not enabling their game.

All the GOP sees are raw numbers in the end, and not your intent, so in the end, they'll look at these numbers and see they were still able to fool a large portion of their constituency.

Cruz write in votes tell a completely different story in that we send a solid message of revolt.

Quote from: Solar on October 30, 2016, 09:35:15 AM
I see more than half of my post disappeared, (user error) total frustration!
However I find your take on this interesting. I absolutely agree, the GOP is just another arm of the Dim party, but you are the first to broach the subject as to whether or not they wanted to win, or are merely helping the Marxists. And yes, there are Marxists in the GOP.
What we do know for a fact is they didn't want a Conservative to win, which begs the question, why even entertain the idea of getting involved in their scam of getting Hillary elected?
What it does tell them, is there are plenty of gullible people willing to pull the lever for a lying lib, just because they have an (R) next to their name.

Why even add to their delusion that they have you wrapped around their finger? But the even bigger question would be, why do you delude yourself in believing you are outwitting the GOP at their own game?
Kind of like trying to outwit cancer by smoking more. Though I do understand your logic, the odds are completely against you considering the base refuses to vote for another GOP lib selectee.
Their game is over, they've been exposed as frauds, so you'd be better off joining the majorities cause in not enabling their game.

All the GOP sees are raw numbers in the end, and not your intent, so in the end, they'll look at these numbers and see they were still able to fool a large portion of their constituency.

Cruz write in votes tell a completely different story in that we send a solid message of revolt.

In the end it is a rigged game with no way to win.  Vote for Trump, you're "playing their game" and voting for whom they allow you to vote for.  DON'T vote for Trump and you've basically marginalized yourself, which is exactly what they want.  It lose lose, because the PTB's have American politics tied up in a neat package called the Party National Committees.

I do not think I am "outwitting" anyone. But I do look at what the aim of the principals are, and then go against those aims.  Currently, from all information and rhetoric available, I have come to the conclusion that BOTH parties aim is to get Clinton elected.  Therefore I will oppose that aim in the best manner available to me by voting for the only name which has a non-zero chance of defeating their intent of putting Clinton in office.  In the end, I am tilting at a windmill.  And so are you. And so is every individual true conservative whose purpose of political activity is to return our government to the Constitutional Republic in its original design.

Quote from: zewazir on October 30, 2016, 02:20:15 PM
In the end it is a rigged game with no way to win.  Vote for Trump, you're "playing their game" and voting for whom they allow you to vote for.  DON'T vote for Trump and you've basically marginalized yourself, which is exactly what they want.  It lose lose, because the PTB's have American politics tied up in a neat package called the Party National Committees.

I do not think I am "outwitting" anyone. But I do look at what the aim of the principals are, and then go against those aims.  Currently, from all information and rhetoric available, I have come to the conclusion that BOTH parties aim is to get Clinton elected.  Therefore I will oppose that aim in the best manner available to me by voting for the only name which has a non-zero chance of defeating their intent of putting Clinton in office.  In the end, I am tilting at a windmill.  And so are you. And so is every individual true conservative whose purpose of political activity is to return our government to the Constitutional Republic in its original design.

Quote from: zewazir on October 30, 2016, 02:20:15 PM
In the end it is a rigged game with no way to win.  Vote for Trump, you're "playing their game" and voting for whom they allow you to vote for.  DON'T vote for Trump and you've basically marginalized yourself, which is exactly what they want.  It lose lose, because the PTB's have American politics tied up in a neat package called the Party National Committees.

I do not think I am "outwitting" anyone. But I do look at what the aim of the principals are, and then go against those aims.  Currently, from all information and rhetoric available, I have come to the conclusion that BOTH parties aim is to get Clinton elected.  Therefore I will oppose that aim in the best manner available to me by voting for the only name which has a non-zero chance of defeating their intent of putting Clinton in office.  In the end, I am tilting at a windmill.  And so are you. And so is every individual true conservative whose purpose of political activity is to return our government to the Constitutional Republic in its original design.

I get your point and in theory agree, however, Trump hasn't a prayer of winning, add to that, Trump is in on the scam as evidenced by his actions every time Hillary gets in a jam, Trump fumbles right on cue, so he'll do whatever it takes to help Clinton win.
So I see no need to waste my vote and support the GOP in the process of destroying this Nation further. Therefore I vote in protest of the GOP/Enemy and vote for the candidate that they fear the most, that being Cruz..

Quote from: Solar on October 30, 2016, 03:05:29 PM
I get your point and in theory agree, however, Trump hasn't a prayer of winning, add to that, Trump is in on the scam as evidenced by his actions every time Hillary gets in a jam, Trump fumbles right on cue, so he'll do whatever it takes to help Clinton win.
So I see no need to waste my vote and support the GOP in the process of destroying this Nation further. Therefore I vote in protest of the GOP/Enemy and vote for the candidate that they fear the most, that being Cruz..

And I can see your point.  I believe you live in CA?  No way a protest vote will make a difference since the blue cities have CA tied up for the jackass party anyway.

Meanwhile, I am keeping an eye on the trend in Montana. Currently we are listed as solidly red, in which case I just may take advantage that our three electoral votes are slated for Trump and go ahead with my own protest vote. The idea of a protest vote makes me nervous, though, because I did so back in '92, and (along with a whole bunch of others) ended up putting Slick Willy in office. If the numbers get close before election day, I will vote AGAINST Clinton in the (sadly) only significant way the establishment has left open for me.

Quote from: zewazir on October 30, 2016, 03:40:24 PM
And I can see your point.  I believe you live in CA?  No way a protest vote will make a difference since the blue cities have CA tied up for the jackass party anyway.

Meanwhile, I am keeping an eye on the trend in Montana. Currently we are listed as solidly red, in which case I just may take advantage that our three electoral votes are slated for Trump and go ahead with my own protest vote. The idea of a protest vote makes me nervous, though, because I did so back in '92, and (along with a whole bunch of others) ended up putting Slick Willy in office. If the numbers get close before election day, I will vote AGAINST Clinton in the (sadly) only significant way the establishment has left open for me.

Strangely enough Ca is one of those States that allot for a write in for POTUS, and though in the big picture of things, it's akin to voting for the Freedom party, still, the GOP/RNC pay close attention to trends in the State and where their party is leaning.

Quote from: Shooterman on September 24, 2016, 09:48:01 AM
Hell, the GOP was started on leftism.

Shooter!

Quote from: Solar on October 30, 2016, 09:35:15 AM
I see more than half of my post disappeared, (user error) total frustration!
However I find your take on this interesting. I absolutely agree, the GOP is just another arm of the Dim party, but you are the first to broach the subject as to whether or not they wanted to win, or are merely helping the Marxists. And yes, there are Marxists in the GOP.
What we do know for a fact is they didn't want a Conservative to win, which begs the question, why even entertain the idea of getting involved in their scam of getting Hillary elected?
What it does tell them, is there are plenty of gullible people willing to pull the lever for a lying lib, just because they have an (R) next to their name.

Why even add to their delusion that they have you wrapped around their finger? But the even bigger question would be, why do you delude yourself in believing you are outwitting the GOP at their own game?
Kind of like trying to outwit cancer by smoking more. Though I do understand your logic, the odds are completely against you considering the base refuses to vote for another GOP lib selectee.
Their game is over, they've been exposed as frauds, so you'd be better off joining the majorities cause in not enabling their game.

All the GOP sees are raw numbers in the end, and not your intent, so in the end, they'll look at these numbers and see they were still able to fool a large portion of their constituency.

Cruz write in votes tell a completely different story in that we send a solid message of revolt.

More and more reps coming home to Trump. Haley Barbour was on Cavuto saying he is voting Trump and also we now see a never trumper come home.

Hugh Hewitt Flip-Flops On Trump, Now Says He's 'Inclined To Cast' His Vote For Him http://bit.ly/2fFyiZQ  (VIDEO)

Quote from: ldub23 on November 02, 2016, 04:09:54 PM
More and more reps coming home to Trump. Haley Barbour was on Cavuto saying he is voting Trump and also we now see a never trumper come home.

Hugh Hewitt Flip-Flops On Trump, Now Says He's 'Inclined To Cast' His Vote For Him http://bit.ly/2fFyiZQ  (VIDEO)

Haley Barbour, who was part of the whole Cochran/McDaniel crap...  who cares.

Quote from: ldub23 on November 02, 2016, 04:09:54 PM
More and more reps coming home to Trump. Haley Barbour was on Cavuto saying he is voting Trump and also we now see a never trumper come home.

Hugh Hewitt Flip-Flops On Trump, Now Says He's 'Inclined To Cast' His Vote For Him http://bit.ly/2fFyiZQ  (VIDEO)

Meh, neither of which could be classified as actual Conservatives, especially Barbour.

Quote from: Solar on November 02, 2016, 04:32:17 PM
Meh, neither of which could be classified as actual Conservatives, especially Barbour.

There is also this. Ted Cruz joining Mike Pence to close out campaign.

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/11/ted-cruz-mike-pence-230657?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter

Quote from: ldub23 on November 02, 2016, 04:49:04 PM
There is also this. Ted Cruz joining Mike Pence to close out campaign.

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/11/ted-cruz-mike-pence-230657?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter

"after pressure from fellow Republicans, and meeting privately with Pence in Washington, Cruz endorsed Trump on Sept. 23 in a Facebook post."

This means absolutely nothing. If they really wanted to make a difference, he needed to campaign with Trump, not Pence.
All this does is change Trumpanzees minds about Cruz and getting in their better graces, but it means nothing to Conservatives, Trump's still a lib, that will never change.