HuskerShark

I'm all for a reform of our system, but not this one. Giving people without them earning it "so they can do the things they really want to do" not only would create a lot of problems, it would give no incentive for achievement. Doing the things you want to do is already attainable, just not with a job (just over broke).

I think that might have an inverse effect. People who want to be known by the world could use that as a vessel to do so.

I have no doubt in my mind that Trump would do that if it gave him a chance to get elected. But plain and simple fact is, in present day and age where people blindly cast their votes for a member of their party affiliation without knowing much about them, it's damn near impossible to get elected unless you're a Republican or Democrat. OK...please answer my question as to how you get less government involved in the primary process. I guess I thought we were speaking generally. In regards to the primaries, as well as the general election, they should be controlled, regulated, and/or run by the government. IMO, all elections should be a true popular vote by the people. Interesting...I wonder if all Trump followers wish to have more governmental involvement. The few I know, have always been staunchly in the camp of the government is this horrible massive entity that needs to get out of our lives and go away. I guess it's a matter of.....well......unless it helps us. is the right way to go about things. I would say the bolded is pretty close to how most people feel. The last line I corrected for you. Interesting. I don't think I have ever heard a tea partier or Trumpster ever say...."well, I think more government is the best way to handle XYZ issue".....unless we are obviously talking about more and bigger military. Can you point to other areas where these people would agree the government is a good way to solve an issue? Securing national borders Immigration Military Upholding the privacy and personal rights of individuals Foreign relations and trade Elections Legality of drugs and alcohol Legal driving age There are probably more, but these are the ones I'd say fit the role of the federal government. Many things such as minimum wage and educational standards should be set by individual states and not intervened by the federal government IMO.

I have no doubt in my mind that Trump would do that if it gave him a chance to get elected. But plain and simple fact is, in present day and age where people blindly cast their votes for a member of their party affiliation without knowing much about them, it's damn near impossible to get elected unless you're a Republican or Democrat. OK...please answer my question as to how you get less government involved in the primary process. I guess I thought we were speaking generally. In regards to the primaries, as well as the general election, they should be controlled, regulated, and/or run by the government. IMO, all elections should be a true popular vote by the people. Interesting...I wonder if all Trump followers wish to have more governmental involvement. The few I know, have always been staunchly in the camp of the government is this horrible massive entity that needs to get out of our lives and go away. I guess it's a matter of.....well......unless it helps us. is the right way to go about things. I would say the bolded is pretty close to how most people feel. The last line I corrected for you.

I have no doubt in my mind that Trump would do that if it gave him a chance to get elected. But plain and simple fact is, in present day and age where people blindly cast their votes for a member of their party affiliation without knowing much about them, it's damn near impossible to get elected unless you're a Republican or Democrat. OK...please answer my question as to how you get less government involved in the primary process. I guess I thought we were speaking generally. In regards to the primaries, as well as the general election, they should be controlled, regulated, and/or run by the government. IMO, all elections should be a true popular vote by the people.

That's a really great message that can help give people perspective. Kudos to those ladies for being willing to do it.

I have no doubt in my mind that Trump would do that if it gave him a chance to get elected. But plain and simple fact is, in present day and age where people blindly cast their votes for a member of their party affiliation without knowing much about them, it's damn near impossible to get elected unless you're a Republican or Democrat.

Not true whatsoever. Allowing people to choose which bathroom they want to use is a legitimate threat to individuals' safety. Example: A guy "feels like a lady" on Tuesdays, so he chooses to enter the women's restroom so he can be a peeping Tom. Not OK. Example: A female who looks like a female, talks like a female, acts like a female, is accepted as a female, with one private exception of having a penis, is forced to use the men's bathroom and is assaulted by some close-minded douchebags who don't take kindly to her "kind". Not OK. Completely separate issue, and not relatable to this discussion whatsoever. ummmm....are you aware of what "transgender" means??? It's exactly what the entire issue is about. Yes, I do. The idea of them being assaulted is a totally different issue.

That's actually an interesting discussion to have. I got into it some tonight about whether open or closed primaries are more appropriate and whether non-members should have a say in an organization of which they're not a part. So....are Trumpster Republicans promoting more government involvement? The other way around actually.

The law... Not under Target's new policy.

Trans people make up .3% of the population. Out of that small demographic, there is an even smaller demographic of trans people that are legally one gender, but look/act/behave/present as the other while still having their original genitalia. These people are discriminated against so it's a good idea to give them protection and safety, and it's incredibly statistically unlikely that anyone else will ever be negatively affected by such laws. So what's to stop someone who's NOT transgender who wants to sneak a peek while using the women's restroom. Once again, I'm not saying they walk in and kick the bathroom stall door open while a woman is peeing. I'm talking about a guy who discreetly wants to get a look at what's going on in the women's restroom. Chances are, if a person is truly transgender, they will probably appear like the other gender. Chances are, no one would notice if this person chose to use the opposite bathroom since they appear that way. There's no need to change the laws to fit those situations. The issue we're talking about is the Pandora's box that is being opened by saying, "Any person gets to choose the bathroom they want to use because who are we to judge you for what gender you feel like." That type of thing opens up a variety of issues that didn't need to be confronted before this policy was brought to our attention.

It's socially acceptable currently to take a young boy or girl into the opposite gender's bathroom until the parent feels they're old enough to go into their own restroom on their own. No, a mother shouldn't take her young son into the men's room. And no, a father shouldn't take his young daughter into the women's restroom. That discussion is irrelevant. As far as your 2nd point, (I assume you are a man) try walking into the women's restroom sometime and see what happens.

Not true whatsoever. Allowing people to choose which bathroom they want to use is a legitimate threat to individuals' safety. Example: A guy "feels like a lady" on Tuesdays, so he chooses to enter the women's restroom so he can be a peeping Tom. Not OK. Example: A female who looks like a female, talks like a female, acts like a female, is accepted as a female, with one private exception of having a penis, is forced to use the men's bathroom and is assaulted by some close-minded douchebags who don't take kindly to her "kind". Not OK. Completely separate issue, and not relatable to this discussion whatsoever.

It makes much more sense to take the subjectivity and variety of interpretation out of law-making. For example, having people with a penis use their assigned restroom, and people with a vagina using their assigned restroom because that is the way God made them.

Not true whatsoever. Allowing people to choose which bathroom they want to use is a legitimate threat to individuals' safety. Example: A guy "feels like a lady" on Tuesdays, so he chooses to enter the women's restroom so he can be a peeping Tom. Not OK. And for which laws already exist to punish the "peeping Tom" activities. So, yes, it is true. How do you distinguish? And how do you regulate it? Apparently anything goes in our society now that men are being allowed to go into ladies' restrooms, so I'm curious.

Not true whatsoever. Allowing people to choose which bathroom they want to use is a legitimate threat to individuals' safety. Example: A guy "feels like a lady" on Tuesdays, so he chooses to enter the women's restroom so he can be a peeping Tom. Not OK.

If Trump gets the delegates I fully expect a contested convention, especially considering the turnaround he's doing on positions now that he's just about sewn things up. Current GOP leadership wants nothing to do with Trump, regardless of his running mate. The problem is, who is the GOP going to put in there to run against Clinton? They have no one that would actually be able to capture demographic groups beyond the white, uneducated and evangelical vote anymore: Kaisch and Cruz would be lit up like a Roman Candle during a general election, Trump will alienate the remaining GOP moderates still clinging to the party in the hopes that leadership remembers they exist and polarize the country against him, Rand is too bats*** crazy to last on the campaign trail without getting full of holes, and Mitt Romney is the type of American that pretty much got our country in the mess it's in currently. Rubio was the only moderate that had any hope of salvaging any respect for the GOP and winning a general election, so naturally he was vilified and run out of the primaries on a rail. The best outcome for this election is that the GOP combusts, fueled by its own derp, and two parties emerge--one for the moderate, rational former GOP members, and one where the fringe zealots, uneducated, evangelicals, and bats*** crazy can hang their hat while the rest of the grown-ups go about their business. I have a crazy, out of this world idea... How about instead of trying to fix the nomination for or against candidates, we let the people of America cast their votes, and the person who gets the most votes wins. I know it's a unique idea for American politics to do things the right way, but it's just something that popped into my head. Here's another crazy idea. How about having a party that puts up candidates that are worthy of a vote instead of immature imbeciles that don't talk about issues and instead cry like 2 year olds that life isn't fair and call people names. Oh....but that would take mature voters that actually value maturity and knowledge in a candidate. I think by maturity and knowledge, you're referring to the traditional political system where candidates stand for nothing and are simply puppets put forth by special interests whose objective is to control the middle and lower class and benefit only themselves. People are tired of that system, which is why Trump is likely to be the next President of the US.

If Trump gets the delegates I fully expect a contested convention, especially considering the turnaround he's doing on positions now that he's just about sewn things up. Current GOP leadership wants nothing to do with Trump, regardless of his running mate. The problem is, who is the GOP going to put in there to run against Clinton? They have no one that would actually be able to capture demographic groups beyond the white, uneducated and evangelical vote anymore: Kaisch and Cruz would be lit up like a Roman Candle during a general election, Trump will alienate the remaining GOP moderates still clinging to the party in the hopes that leadership remembers they exist and polarize the country against him, Rand is too bats*** crazy to last on the campaign trail without getting full of holes, and Mitt Romney is the type of American that pretty much got our country in the mess it's in currently. Rubio was the only moderate that had any hope of salvaging any respect for the GOP and winning a general election, so naturally he was vilified and run out of the primaries on a rail. The best outcome for this election is that the GOP combusts, fueled by its own derp, and two parties emerge--one for the moderate, rational former GOP members, and one where the fringe zealots, uneducated, evangelicals, and bats*** crazy can hang their hat while the rest of the grown-ups go about their business. I have a crazy, out of this world idea... How about instead of trying to fix the nomination for or against candidates, we let the people of America cast their votes, and the person who gets the most votes wins. I know it's a unique idea for American politics to do things the right way, but it's just something that popped into my head.

So the solution is to let ourselves get screwed over by other countries in trade deficits? Yeah, ok...

I kind of laugh out loud because it's ridiculous. That's what I make of it. I've said before, I think if/when Trump gets in the White House, some of his moves will make people uncomfortable in the short term because in general, people are scared of change.

This is a part of this that absolutely drives me crazy. He actually admits he changes with what ever the time requires. The guy is totally fake and so many people just eat it up. Used to be a liberal Democrat...now running as a Republican. Claims to "love the bible" then......two Corinthians..... Acts like an ass but then says he will act Presidential when the time comes. The list could go on and on. Calls Rubio Little Marco now wants him to be a part of his team! So Marco spends an entire debate trying to bash on Trump, and he's not supposed to do anything about it? Yes, his style is demeaning, but it's also effective. We saw him hammer Jeb Bush into submission, and he's pretty much having his way with Ted Cruz as well (not that bashing Cruz is difficult). You can't run a business OR a country trying to tip-toe around and please everyone. And, that's what absolutely baffles me. It's effective but for illogical reasons. It's not because he speaks more intelligently about the issues or that he shows he would be somehow a better President. But, for some reason, there are enough people that love seeing him be an immature ass. What conceivable reason does him being demeaning to everyone involved make him a good choice for President while he doesn't even ever speak on issues? It's not THE REASON, but it helps because it shows that if he wants to make something happen, he's not going to back down. A couple of the largest sources of our most major problems in the US (the economy) are discrepancies in trade with other countries, companies taking jobs overseas, and illegal immigration. For these problems, Trump is not only the guy who plans to deal with them as the foundation of his campaign, but he's the only one who even mentions the truth behind these problems.

This is a part of this that absolutely drives me crazy. He actually admits he changes with what ever the time requires. The guy is totally fake and so many people just eat it up. Used to be a liberal Democrat...now running as a Republican. Claims to "love the bible" then......two Corinthians..... Acts like an ass but then says he will act Presidential when the time comes. The list could go on and on. Calls Rubio Little Marco now wants him to be a part of his team! So Marco spends an entire debate trying to bash on Trump, and he's not supposed to do anything about it? Yes, his style is demeaning, but it's also effective. We saw him hammer Jeb Bush into submission, and he's pretty much having his way with Ted Cruz as well (not that bashing Cruz is difficult). You can't run a business OR a country trying to tip-toe around and please everyone.

Depends how you look at it. I'd much rather have someone who's willing to change than someone who is stuck in their ways. I'd say Trump is much better about putting up fake fronts than any other politician lately. He's the only one who's willing to confront controversial issues (aside from Bernie, who doesn't understand basic economics). Do I believe he's a well-versed Christian? No. But I think he believes in God. As far as the Republican/Democrat thing, who the hell cares? The whole bipartisan system we have needs destroyed anyways. Acts like an ass? Point taken. He's definitely not perfect. The problem is that people take the things he says to the extreme. I've heard people say he'd have his finger on the button for nukes. People who say this obviously just listen to the media and are misguided. If he were president in 2001, we wouldn't be in the enormous hole we're in right now, and ISIS may very well not exist because he wouldn't have sent us into Iraq.

I'd absolutely agree with what he's saying. Our political system is super corrupt.

So when Trump gets screwed by the system, you tell him to suck it up. But when Bernie gets screwed by the system, you admit it's rigged...