Precinct Delegates and Why I Can’t Become One

This post is rated


due to some profanity, hostile sarcasm and FULL MENTAL NUDITY.


Just about a week back, I got to attend a local Tea Party meeting (my time there has been cut short by my participation in CrossFit, which overlaps), and got to hear guy pitching this big spiel about becoming a precinct delegate.  According to him, when you do it, you get to help shape the agenda.  You get to be one of the fewer voices that controls who does, and doesn’t, get into politics.  Well, let’s look at what the Oakland County Republican Party says about this:

What is a Precinct Delegate?

The role of a precinct delegate is one of the most important, yet, least understood of any elected office. It is the active precinct delegate who wins elections for either the Democratic or Republican Party. Precinct delegates are elected directly by the voters of each precinct to serve as a bridge between voters and the Democratic or Republican Party in your neighborhood and you represent your neighborhood at the Democratic or Republican meetings.

OK, I don’t know about you, but that didn’t tell me crap.  Let’s look deeper.  What does a precinct delegate do, anyway?

As a Precinct Delegate, you will:

Help people get registered to vote. Take information on issues and candidates to the voters in your precinct. Identify others interested in your party and recruit new party members. Help turn out your parties vote in your neighborhood on Election Day. Keep your party leaders informed about the issues that concern voters.

OK, that’s a little better, in terms of information.  But enough of the nickel and dime crap, and let’s just see the whole thing.

How do Precinct Delegates get elected?

Precinct Delegates are elected in the August Primary. Only Democratic voters choose Democratic precinct delegates and Republican voters choose Republican precinct delegates.

Each precinct is allotted a number of precinct delegates based on past party voting strengths. Your district or county chair will be able to tell you how many delegate positions have been allocated to your precinct. Precinct delegate candidates file an Affidavit of Identity for ballot access. There is no longer a petition requirement for precinct delegate candidates. A precinct delegate candidate can file with the clerk of their county, city or township of residence. Your Affidavit of Identity must be notarized.

Candidates for precinct delegate must file their Affidavit of Identity form with their clerk. The filing deadline for precinct delegate candidates falls on the twelfth Tuesday prior to the August primary. A precinct can now be elected with just one vote. Before – three votes were needed.

What are their responsibilities?

They are the campaign leaders for their party in their precincts. After the primary, those elected will be officially notified by the county clerk by mail. The notification will include the time and place of the district or county party convention, which will be held in August or September.

Precinct delegates should take their official notification to the district or county convention to register with the convention credentials committee. District or county conventions will elect delegates to the state convention, scheduled usually for sometime in September. These conventions may also debate or adopt resolutions for recommendations to the state convention’s platform committee. The state convention in September will debate and adopt a state platform, nominate candidates for Supreme Court Justices, State Board of Education and university boards, and presidential electors.

What other functions do Delegates have?

After Election Day, precinct delegates have another responsibility. Late in the year and early the following year precinct delegates will convene in the district or county conventions to elect executive committees and officers to serve through the following election. There they will also elect delegates to the February state convention where new state party officers and a new state central committee will be chosen to serve through the next two years.

Checklist to Become a Precinct Delegate

  1. Obtain a precinct map from the local clerk’s office.
  2. Find out the number of (your party) precinct delegate vacancies in your precinct.
  3. File your Affidavit of Identity with your county, city or township clerk no later than 4:00 p.m, on the twelfth Tuesday prior to the August Primary. Find out how many delegates have filed in your precinct for precinct delegate. Your Affidavit of Identity must be notarized.
  4. If you have opposition, contact your neighbors, friends and family that reside in your precinct and ask for their support. Primary election day is the second Tuesday in August. Remember to vote.
  5. Get involved in your local party immediately. Keep the party informed about what your neighbors are talking about and keep your neighbors informed about what elected party members are doing for them.

seems legit

OK, now I have a better understanding, and I’m sure you do, too.  I help recruit new voters, assemble like-minded people into caucuses for political brainstorming, and help draft agendas to move the party forward.  I would also help get people get into (or possibly out of) GOP bigwig committees.

None of this I have a problem with.

What I have a problem with is what the guy said, in conclusion, during the meeting.  He said something along the lines of:

‘The worst Republican candidate is better than the best democrat candidate.’

Or something like that.  I’m paraphrasing.


I can be just as partisan, as the next guy (if not more so), but this reeks.

no bullshit

I will not vote for a member of the Slave Party, and that’s non-negotiable.

If this hurts the feelings of any leftist reading this:

tough shit

Let’s be real and honest, here (as always):  an (R) behind your name on TV and whatever other media you get into doesn’t make you any better someone with a (D) behind theirs.  As far as I’m concerned, the republicans (with a lower case “r”, because I have little or no respect for them) are just too stupid to spell “dirt bag” right, with it coming out as “rirt bag”.  At least the democrats (lower case “d”, because I have absolutely no respect for them) spell out what they are, and do it correctly.  If you’re in either party, chances are, this is what you really look like, inside:


Sure, not all republicans are

bags of dirt

but, face it:  most of you are.  And democrats?  Not so much dirt bags, but…

sack of shit

People that say voting Rrepublican is what will ‘save the country’ are as stupid as people that say voting for Trump will save the country.  We’ve got how many republicans in both houses of Congress, right now.  How “saved” do you feel?

republican useful idiot


You’re a useful idiot for the Rrepublicans.  How does it feel to know that?  Apparently, not too bad, considering you’re still one.

Republicans have demonstrably proven that they are just as bad as democrats.  They are nothing but party-uber-alles, left-wing, anti-American, tax-and-spend liberals, just like the people that they call party-uber-alles, left-wing, anti-American, tax-and-spend liberals. However, whereas the New Left ( liberals of the DNC (I have to capitalize that simply because it’s an acronym, not because I respect them) are the party most active in pioneering new and different ways to hurt the economy, the military, the citizenry and the country, as a whole, the republicans, for the most part, just want to manage the decline (  When they – and their compatriots that allegedly sit on the other side of the aisle, instead of mingled with them – aid a president by passing unconstitutional legislation that further deprives us of our money and our freedom, they’re the quickest to say:

welcome to the new normal


Because they have absolutely zero desire to repair the damage they’ve helped to bring about.  In this post-constitutional period in which we’re being forced to live…

…both the republicans and the democrats are carving bigger and bigger niches for themselves.  Why?  Simply so they can have more power.  That’s all this is about.  And the republican leftists, after seeing the democrat leftists do it for so long, decided to themselves:

“Hmmm…So if I do that, I can have more power, money and fame?  SIGN ME UP!

And you stupid people that insist on supporting people like that are like:

shut up an take my money


The DNC’s voters vote out of their New Left ideology.

The New Left refers to radical, often Communist or anarchist, political parties and movements which emerged in the United States, Western Europe, Japan, Mexico and elsewhere during the 1960s. It operated in opposition to established liberal and Socialist parties, opposed the Cold War, denounced capitalism, and was a cultural rebellion that involved uses of drugs, music and sex that stunned the older generation.

It flourished into the 1970s and faded in importance after 1980. The New Left was a political reaction against the acceptance of capitalism by the major established parties. It was a generational revolt, dominated by “red diaper babies” (whose parents had been active in the old left), and was strongest on university campuses. The old bastions of left-wing strength, especially the labor unions, generally rejected the New Left. In the 21st century the remnants of the New Left dominate the Green Parties in many countries.

The New Left is distinguished from the “Old Left” of such groups that originated from the 1890s-1930s, such as the Soviet-line Communist Party USA which carried an apologetic line in support of Stalinism. The New Left repudiated the Soviet Union and favored Mao Zedong of the People’s Republic of China, Fidel Castro of Cuba and Ho Chi Minh of North Vietnam. They strongly opposed the Vietnam War and organized many demonstrations, some of which turned violent. In an effort to disrupt the Democratic National Convention in 1968 thousands poured into Chicago, where they were stopped by the police and Mayor Richard M. Daley. The confrontations highlighted the deepening split in the Democratic party that destroyed the presidency of Lyndon B. Johnson and ruined the Democratic coalition.

Now, besides the promotion of debauchery and amorality, the resurgent New Left promotes expansion through violence (no wonder they like Muslims, so much).  The republican ideology?  Weakness and taking what they’re given.  They only stand strong against those that speak from their own party, or from the political Right, and oppose their policies of decline management.  They will shuffle, caper and prance in their dance to appease [the Left], but are full of strong words and penalties against people like Conservatives who have the audacity to speak out of conscience against their remorseless destruction.

No, if you’re really interested in saving the country from an ultimate, irreversible decline into Europe, you need to vote for

idiots for trump

No, stupid.  He’s part of the problem.

obama trump orange is the new black

No, you need to vote CONSERVATIVE.

There are no Conservatives in the DNC, because the DNC is antithetical to Conservatism. This is how democrats think of Conservatism:

They lie about it, because they want people to be afraid of it.  This is proof-positive that the DNC contains no fertile soil in which Conservatism can grow, much less flourish.  If you wonder why Conservatism can’t flourish there, think of the Parable of the Sower, from the Apostles Matthew 13:1-9 and Luke 8:4-15:

5And some fell on stony ground, where it had not much earth; and immediately it sprang up, because it had no depth of earth:

6But when the sun was up, it was scorched; and because it had no root, it withered away.

7And some fell among thorns, and the thorns grew up, and choked it, and it yielded no fruit.

8And other fell on good ground, and did yield fruit that sprang up and increased; and brought forth, some thirty, and some sixty, and some an hundred.

9And he said unto them, He that hath ears to hear, let him hear.

Democrat (capitalized, only because it’s the first word in the sentence) dominated areas are the grounds filled with thorns and stones, and areas where the GOP hold total sway can be just as bad.

piles of shit

Take the taste and smell test.  Which is the best?  Is there a difference to you?


Not to me, there isn’t.

Principled Conservatism is the only way to save this country…

1. Belief in a transcendent order, or body of natural law, which rules society as well as conscience. . . . True politics is the art of apprehending and applying the Justice which ought to prevail in a community of souls.

2. Affection for the proliferating variety and mystery of human existence, as opposed to the narrowing uniformity, egalitarianism, and utilitarian aims of most radical systems; conservatives resist what Robert Graves calls “Logicalism” in society.

3. Conviction that civilized society requires orders and classes, as against the notion of a “classless society.” With reason, conservatives have been called “the party of order.” If natural distinctions are effaced among men, oligarchs fill the vacuum.

4. Persuasion that freedom and property are closely linked: separate property from private possession, and Leviathan becomes master of all. Economic levelling, they maintain, is not economic progress.

5. Faith in prescription and distrust of “sophisters, calculators, and economists” who would reconstruct society upon abstract designs. Custom, convention, and old prescription are checks both upon man’s anarchic impulse and upon the innovator’s lust for power.

6. Recognition that change may not be salutary reform: hasty innovation may be a devouring conflagration, rather than a torch of progress. Society must alter, for prudent change is the means of social preservation; but a statesman must take Providence into his calculations, and a statesman’s chief virtue, according to Plato and Burke, is prudence.

…not liberalism.

1. Get Past Nationalism. Liberalism should make an absolute commitment to free movement of labor and capital. National borders should cease to exist for all practical purposes. Obviously, to make this possible, the poorer parts of the world will have to be elevated, and if states have one important function in the near future, it is to make heavy investments in infrastructure and productivity to bring Africa and the poorer parts of Latin America and Asia to the point where emigration becomes less of a necessity than a choice. Citizenship then can be of the world, and travel anywhere at any time, residence anywhere at any time, ought to be possible. Current regret in the U.S. about the loss of old industrial sectors to cheaper parts of the world suggests a possible resurrection of the old industries; this is utterly retrograde, and ought to be no part of the calculation.

Immigration needs to cease to exist as we know it; people should be able to move around from country to country, speak different languages, and experience different cultures, but the idea of expatriating one’s whole body and soul to a different (generally richer) culture and remaining committed to that new place’s nationalism, memorizing its mythology and shunning links with the old country, ought to become passé. When immigration as a conventional concept ceases to matter, so will its negative political ramifications. The entire world should be a single economic zone. The entire world should be a single human resource zone. Then only can human potential be maximized without friction. Labor will then at last have the chance to seek its highest value.

2. Lifelong Education. The concept of about a dozen years of preparatory schooling, followed by four years of college, and if desired a few more years of graduate school, ought to be abolished. This is a nineteenth-century notion of education, more suited to the training of industrial workers, the creation of the mass mind, the mobilization of the citizenry for nationalist purposes, including war and destructive economic competitiveness. Education ought to have no real beginning and end. This concept implies the destruction of the authoritarian structure of the traditional university. The university needs to be transformed so that the very idea of “professors” transmitting information to mostly passive “students” is eliminated in favor of learning that has multiple sources, bubbles from the bottom as often as it does from the top, and dissolves the distinctions between students and teachers. After a certain level of accomplishment, what’s to prevent a student from becoming a teacher?

Learning in this vision is admittedly a competition for the popularity of ideas; those ideas that are obfuscating or don’t meet the test of popular acceptance, will fall by the wayside. Will this be a dictatorship of the masses? Consider that what we have now is an undeclared dictatorship of the elite, and the idea is to remove the ideological compulsions that give rise to the unthinking mass. Education will saturate everything, everything will saturate education, and this will mean a fluid, organic, free-flowing democracy, rather than the morbid one all advanced nations currently experience. Education should not mold individuals to serve others, but should acquire a global sense of joy and pleasure, a movement of play and adventure it has lost.

3. Make Technology Work for People. Either corporations or the government take a hold of all new technologies and deploy them in the pursuit of profit-making or control of citizens. As soon as the liberating potential of a new technology begins to be perceived, it’s dissipated in either of the two well-known directions. The state and the corporation have come to symbiotic agreement about the uses to which new technologies will be deployed. How can technology become the crucial aid to freedom rather than lead to its restriction? If further advances in the sciences (particularly in biology) lead to new forms of conceptualizing the human and new methods of production, then will these promote liberation from drudgery? Or will they again be used to narrow what we think is possible for humanity?

If there is any area where liberalism needs to regain the impulse of its core meaning, it is here. Instead of liberalism always acting defensively toward new technologies—protecting turf that is going to be lost anyway—it ought to be ahead of the game in anticipating how technologies can breed forms of democracies. Technology has a way of becoming oppressive, it tends to become overbearing and dominating, always holding the promise of freedom but rarely delivering in reality. People ought to have the freedom to inhabit multiple levels of technology, not an oppressive singularity. If this becomes possible, then it is also possible to envision people inhabiting multiple levels of democracy (or human potential) despite inhabiting the same geographical or historical space.

4. Freedom to Opt Out. There ought to be the possibility of anonymity, privacy, disappearance, the chance for not only starting over (starting over implies rejoining the mainstream, only at a different position) but not to have to make a formalized effort at all. And this ought to come without retribution. Today liberalism envisions the citizen as a cradle-to-grave participant in a limited range of bounties, and shirking responsibility at any stage of the individual’s growth invites lifelong penalties. The idea that there is a right age to do a certain thing harkens to primordial times, the era of tribes and superstitions and rituals, rather than an individualism that we ought to stop being scared of at last. Advances in human health and reproduction make this ideal more possible than ever.

A lot of human unhappiness—once basic needs are met—results today from the clash between liberalism’s monochrome expectations of a virtuous citizen and the anarchic, chaotic, sub rosa desires of actual human beings to challenge predestined timelines. It’s a tall order to expect the state to allow the kind of anonymity I’m advancing here, but short of that, liberalism will continue to be confronted by movements (distorted versions of libertarianism) that try to steal the thunder without putting the substance of freedom at their center. The only thing for liberalism to fear is liberalism itself, which has become congealed into an elaborate matrix of rewards and punishments for behavior deeply tied to time-dependent success.

Not liberalism.

Liberals have shown a love for the false wisdom of people like Karl Marx, or America-hater Saul Alinski.  Conservatives appreciate the wisdom of people like Alexis de Tocqueville, who predicted the current state of the nation:

Thus, After having thus successively taken each member of the community in its powerful grasp and fashioned him at will, the supreme power then extends its arm over the whole community. It covers the surface of society with a network of small complicated rules, minute and uniform, through which the most original minds and the most energetic characters cannot penetrate, to rise above the crowd. The will of man is not shattered, but softened, bent, and guided; men are seldom forced by it to act, but they are constantly restrained from acting. Such a power does not destroy, but it prevents existence; it does not tyrannize, but it compresses, enervates, extinguishes, and stupefies a people, till each nation is reduced to nothing better than a flock of timid and industrious animals, of which the government is the shepherd.

I have always thought that servitude of the regular, quiet, and gentle kind which I have just described might be combined more easily than is commonly believed with some of the outward forms of freedom, and that it might even establish itself under the wing of the sovereignty of the people.

Our contemporaries are constantly excited by two conflicting passions: they want to be led, and they wish to remain free. As they cannot destroy either the one or the other of these contrary propensities, they strive to satisfy them both at once. They devise a sole, tutelary, and all-powerful form of government, but elected by the people. They combine the principle of centralization and that of popular sovereignty; this gives them a respite: they console themselves for being in tutelage by the reflection that they have chosen their own guardians. Every man allows himself to be put in leading-strings, because he sees that it is not a person or a class of persons, but the people at large who hold the end of his chain.

By this system the people shake off their state of dependence just long enough to select their master and then relapse into it again. A great many persons at the present day are quite contented with this sort of compromise between administrative despotism and the sovereignty of the people; and they think they have done enough for the protection of individual freedom when they have surrendered it to the power of the nation at large. This does not satisfy me: the nature of him I am to obey signifies less to me than the fact of extorted obedience. I do not deny, however, that a constitution of this kind appears to me to be infinitely preferable to one which, after having concentrated all the powers of government, should vest them in the hands of an irresponsible person or body of persons. Of all the forms that democratic despotism could assume, the latter would assuredly be the worst.

When the sovereign is elective, or narrowly watched by a legislature which is really elective and independent, the oppression that he exercises over individuals is sometimes greater, but it is always less degrading; because every man, when he is oppressed and disarmed, may still imagine that, while he yields obedience, it is to himself he yields it, and that it is to one of his own inclinations that all the rest give way. In like manner, I can understand that when the sovereign represents the nation and is dependent upon the people, the rights and the power of which every citizen is deprived serve not only the head of the state, but the state itself; and that private persons derive some return from the sacrifice of their independence which they have made to the public.

From Democracy in America, Volume II, Book 4, Chapter 6

Both the DNC and the GOP, now, are speaking from the Left, and that is a great contributor to the decline of this nation, sliding us toward the morass of mediocrity that is Europe, Asia, Russia, etc.  This un-American Soft Tyranny that is openly advocated by the DNC and protected by the GOP can only be stopped by Conservatism, and this is why I cannot be a precinct delegate.  I am a Conservative.  I hold the principles of God and Country up high, not those of party and power.  I will not vote for someone, just because of a letter behind somebody puts their name.

‘The worst Republican candidate is better than the best democrat candidate.’


I don’t vote for personalities, I don’t vote for parties.  I vote out of conscience; something a lot of people that are part of the Donald Thump Personality Cult definitely seem to lack.  You don’t vote for someone, or something, just because.  You do it, not because you believe they are the lesser evil.

You do it, because they/it are the greatest good you can find.  You do it, because you know it is the right thing, not because it’s the only thing, or because you’re just too lazy and stupid to look, and you only vote by alphabets.

This is how I operate, and, apparently, people like me aren’t what republicans or democrats want as delegates.

I can live with that.

I am VIRUS-X:  REPUBLIC COMMANDO, and I approve this message.



~ by Virus-X REPUBLIC COMMANDO on March 20, 2016.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: