Why can't I vote for both Republican and Democratic candidates in Texas primary elections?
Questions like this make my head explode. The fact that it's even asked displays what today is common, but in my day would have been unforgivable ignorance about how the government - and even life in general - works. The parties are NOT part of the government. They are PRIVATE entities. The relationship to the government they have is somewhere between symbiotic and parasitic.Here is how parties came to be. Shortly after the nation was born it was realized the folks with common interests could not get their agendas passed because of normal, human social interaction. Those people who actually lived in Philadelphia, and later Washington, had disproportionate power, not because of any political atvantage, but social advantage. They could discuss their wants and needs at dinner parties and such with the actual people who make the laws. This was not intended, it's just the social nature of humans. So, groups who did not have that advantage, rural farmers for example, found that if they could band together for their own common interest they could vote as blocks to put leaders predisposed to their leanings in office. These became organized campaigns, and once in place, it was easier for other interests to graft their needs to the existing party rather then create their own from the ground up.So, you see, the Parties are not, and never were intended to be 'democratic' they were mechanisms for given interests to advance their cause. Only those interests were invited to vote if the candidates of the party (we call these primaries today), because the whole thing becomes pointless otherwise. The parties are not there to serve the people. They are there to serve the interests.
Are liberals and the democratic party anti Christian?
Well, I happen to be Christian AND a socialist; and when Jesus said: “But when the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the holy angels with him, then he will sit on the throne of his glory. Before him all the nations will be gathered, and he will separate them one from another, as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats. He will set the sheep on his right hand, but the goats on the left. Then the King will tell those on his right hand, ‘Come, blessed of my Father, inherit the Kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world; for I was hungry, and you gave me food to eat. I was thirsty, and you gave me drink. I was a stranger, and you took me in. I was naked, and you clothed me. I was sick, and you visited me. I was in prison, and you came to me.’ “Then the righteous will answer him, saying, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry, and feed you; or thirsty, and give you a drink? When did we see you as a stranger, and take you in; or naked, and clothe you? When did we see you sick, or in prison, and come to you?’ “The King will answer them, ‘Most certainly I tell you, inasmuch as you did it to one of the least of these my brothers, you did it to me.’ Then he will say also to those on the left hand, ‘Depart from me, you cursed, into the eternal fire which is prepared for the devil and his angels; for I was hungry, and you didn’t give me food to eat; I was thirsty, and you gave me no drink; I was a stranger, and you didn’t take me in; naked, and you didn’t clothe me; sick, and in prison, and you didn’t visit me.’ “Then they will also answer, saying, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry, or thirsty, or a stranger, or naked, or sick, or in prison, and didn’t help you?’ “Then he will answer them, saying, ‘Most certainly I tell you, inasmuch as you didn’t do it to one of the least of these, you didn’t do it to me.’ These will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life.”" Jesus meant *exactly* what He said; and in that passage (as well as Romans 8, 13 and 14; and James 2 and 5) you have the Scriptural basis for why I'm a socialist.
Does anyone find it ironic that the democratic party is less democratic with its super delegates?
Yes. Leading :)To address the other answer, the DNC superdelegates played fair with Obama vs Clinton because Obama accepted the victory fund SuperPAC. These funds are used to fund candidates in lower elections after the presidential campaign is over. Sanders rejected it, and crowdfunded his campaign. The DNC did everything in their power to stop him because they would get no money during the general election if he was the nominee. The fact that Trump, another non establishment candidate, could win the Republican nomination basically means that the Republican party is more Democratic than the Democrat party. Wasserman has actually admitted that the DNC has embraced technology more than the Republican party which means with big data analysis and algorithms they can find unprecedented methods to suppress candidates and voters, or lightly influence elections (like by hacking ballot reading machines a few percent and influencing the so called auditors) without getting caught. Power corrupts, no matter what the name of your party is. If you had a button you could press that would shift the "vote" in favor of your candidate by 1-2% per swing district causing you to win the election, and you wanted to win no matter what would you push it? Unless you are someone with the integrity of George Washington you would, and would immediately become an enemy of democracy, the people, and the free world.
Can the Republican Party legally block Trump from being the Republican nominee?
Yes they can. Contrary to popular misconception, suicide is legal in the US.The problem is that the party has in the last ten years indicated a unrelenting desire for power, even when it requires lying and cheating, as evidenced by the massive campaign of voter suppression, gerrymandering, and manipulation of the courts (as in Kansas' recent attempt to abolish them -- they actually did, but the judges kept coming to work).There is also the very real question of why would they want to disown him. He is viewed as dangerous because he is a racist, warmonger, who favors the use of torture and detests women. But those are core Republican values. He is claims to be Christian while adopting policies that Christ would clearly repudiate. Again, this is exactly in line with Republican doctrine which believes Foodstamps in the middle of the Great Recession were contrary to the interest of those who wanted for nothing (including those who made fortunes causing the recession).He denigrates the Black lives matter movement, but so does the party. Republicans vehemently denies the fact that there is something wrong with cops killing more American on a per capita basis than felons do.He has a tough on crime attitude, but Republicans are the ones who trademarked that brand. He admires Vladimir Putin, but I can't count the number of Republican leaders who have publicly praised Putin in the last couple of years.He is a product of everything the party stands for and has been condemned for. So he encourages rally attendees to rough up people they don't want in attendance. but the Republican party has encouraged armed gun men to attend political rallies for years.In fact, no policy he has proposed is unique to him. Another Republican proposed a Canadian wall! How many others would the party have to repudiate?But MOST importantly, is it repudiation to wait until he holds all power in the party before denouncing him? Isn't that just lip service?