The Drudgereport.com stated that Colorado GOP primaries and the caucus were cancelled and that they gave Ted Cruz all the delegates – a “win” – without the voters having any say.
If true, the GOP voters have less blood on their hands than they would if they’d elected someone.
Some non-Cruz voters want Cruz to refuse Colorado’s “win.” Some Ted Cruz supporters want Cruz to refuse Colorado’s “win” so it doesn’t set a precedent.
His “win” occurred because the Colorado GOP’s Republican Party leaders cancelled the primary and caucus elections for President.
Basically, it’s reported that Ted Cruz was appointed. He was declared the winner.
Does Ted Cruz and His Appointment Bode Badly for Future (and Worse) Candidates?
I understand their sentiment.
Those opposed to Ted Cruz – aka, Donald Trump supporters – want an election. Donald Trump appears to have a edge in the populace vote.
Some Ted Cruz supporters are opposed to the Colorado’s GOP move too. Their argument appears reasonable: They often say, “If Cruz supporters allow this to be a precedent, then the next time the GOP appoints a winner without listening to the voters, there’s nothing Cruz or his supporters will be able to say or do without being labeled obvious hypocrites.”
Is It Even Legal?
The GOP is wicked. The Demoncrats are wicked too. Unlike the GOP, the wicked Demoncrats are fairly smart, typically not hypocrites, and never compromise. The GOP is usually weak and compromising and fairly stupid in their actions.
Still, the GOP isn’t going to make such a major in-your-face move if it isn’t legal. My friend Darrell Birkey, wrote a good Facebook post explaining how election rules completely allow the GOP to do this.
Note: Let’s admit it. In spite of the fact that election rules are set up for an electoral college and not for a populace-based win, all but a handful of elections in the past have been determined by the populace vote. People expect it, it’s what’s been the case for almost all elections, and a populace winner is the de facto way of determining elections.
Is it wise for the GOP to do this? Should Ted Cruz supporters stand for this or oppose it so future precedence is not set?
What is somebody far worse than Hillary or Obama, such as Mitt Romney, is appointed next time? Will Cruz supporters have any right to complain?
When Tulsa Voters Weren’t Allowed to Vote
I’m unsure why we only let the inmates run the asylum when what’s at stake is the leadership of one of the most powerful nations on earth. Majority rule, aka a “democracy” or “a republic” (kissing cousins), loves it when the majority trample the few. The inmates (masses) set the asylum rules.
Anyway, a few years ago Tulsa, Oklahoma elected for a second time a wicked Mayor named Roger Randall. After he won, he stepped down, took a job at a wicked government university (sorry to be redundant), and Mrs. Grant Hall was appointed Mayor-ette for the remaining term.
Note: Mrs. Grant Hall, the now-divorced wife of Grant Hall, publicly went by the name Susan Savage. Her husband is an earth-worshiping beta male and she probably didn’t want to be linked to him. Plus, she has no respect for the “Noble Savages” known as Injuns so she stole their “savage” moniker as if her blue-eyed, fake-frosted haired self was a Noble Savage Squaw. Plus, she loved the alliteration in the name Susan Savage.
Note: For High School English teachers, ask a home-educated 12-year old what alliteration means. He or she can explain it and clear up your confusion.
Many Tulsans were outraged! How dare they just appoint Mrs. Grant Hall Mayor-ette without holding an election to let the people decide who the next mayor or mayor-ette would be!
In the next election cycle, Mrs. Grant Hall ran for Mayor-ette and won. The people decided.
My Take, Of Course, Is Different from Yours
The appointment of the wicked Mayor-ette, Mrs. Grant Hall, was wicked because she is wicked.
A year or two later, the election of the wicked Mayor-ette, Mrs. Grant Hall, was far more wicked because the majority voted to keep her in office as Mayor-ette.
Sin is never divided among participants. Sin is always multiplied by the number of participants. Susan Savage’s appointment was done by the powers that be. That was wrong but much less wicked than letting the voters give her more time in the Mayor-ette’s office.
What about Ted Cruz?
I’m all for leaders being appointed. It’s far less wicked than the majority getting to choose wickedness.
My two-word argument against majority rule is: Barack Obama.
I have another two-word argument against majority rule: Bill Clinton.
Both were elected by the populace. Twice.
If Ted Cruz turns out to be appointed the winner of the office of President, against the populace’s wishes, and he turns out to be wicked, the blood is not on the hands of the American public. That is a much better result than if the populace elected him.
If Donald Trump is unfit to lead (he is unfit to lead because he does not understand right from wrong), then an appointment of Donald Trump would be far less wicked than the populace putting Trump in office.
If Ted Cruz is appointed as winner and turns out to be a good President, then random chance happened to cause the GOP to appoint a good president. Just as if the populace voted Ted Cruz into office and he turns out to be a good President. That would also be random chance.
Jesus taught that the majority is almost always overwhelmingly wrong.
All of God’s Word shows us the almost every leader in history is elected.
I prefer a wicked leader who is appointed as opposed to one who is elected. Either way, we get wickedness. But far less blood is on the hands of the populace when we have no say.
I see appointments as protecting people from themselves. I’m all for it.