The Repub Debate

[HuskerShark]

 

 

 

All we can do is hope for is a contested convention. Trump should be on a roll next week also wt several other NE states. This is starting to look really bad Trump or Hilary as our President

Hillary - WH one big swinging door for Bill's parties and Hillary corruption. Trump: one unbearable embarrassment before the world as he tries to learn all of the things he obviously doesn't know.

The only way Trump succeeds is if he has Kasich as VP who does the actual work of the president and Trump is just the mouth piece - kind of like Chaney was for GWB.

 

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.

[BigRedBuster]

 

 

 

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.

 

No, that's not what I'm talking about...but thanks for trying.

[TGHusker]

 

 

 

All we can do is hope for is a contested convention. Trump should be on a roll next week also wt several other NE states. This is starting to look really bad Trump or Hilary as our President

Hillary - WH one big swinging door for Bill's parties and Hillary corruption. Trump: one unbearable embarrassment before the world as he tries to learn all of the things he obviously doesn't know.

The only way Trump succeeds is if he has Kasich as VP who does the actual work of the president and Trump is just the mouth piece - kind of like Chaney was for GWB.

 

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.

 

That is what you would call, "direct democracy", and that's just not acceptable in American politics--the power elite won't stand for it. Direct democracy could also include asking the people to vote on small issues that effect their lives, like say, going to war, or wage and tax policy, for e.g, but again, to ask the people to actually decide such things is, again, unacceptable. Theoretically, we are supposed to choose reps who are supposed to be honest people that vote our interests for us, but since they are all on the take, lie as a matter of course, and beholden to power, well, you know....

 

You both are wrong. We live in a republic. Our gov't was designed for good reason to have 'indirect democracy' wt originally only the House of Representatives having been elected by direct vote of the people - thus the House was always called the "People's House". In the wisdom of our founders, the president (via the electoral college), the senate (up until a century ago, Senators were selected by the state legislature - not direct vote), judges were not to be voted on directly. Our founders saw the mess of pure democratic vote in France plus they also had just won a war against the authoritarian rule of England. A representative republic govt was their answer. The importance of our indirect federalist republic system was to actually decrease the possibility of mob rule, constrain the power of a majority when that majority was wrong, re-enforce states rights, limit the power of the most populated states - allowing less populated states to having their voices heard, and to bring stability to the system (allows for a slower deliberation of issues vs a quick knee jerk reaction). Our candidates are chosen in the same way - through a representative process. The delegates are committed to the candidates on the 1st ballot. After that those delegates, chosen via different methods as determined by individual state party rules, are to act as our representative to vote as they deem best on any additional ballot. It is in this area, where Cruz has trumped Trump. In each individual state the primary is a different event than choosing the delegates - which is event 2 of the process. The primary only tells the delegate how to vote on the 1st ballot. The campaigning doesn't stop wt the primary and Trump's team ( the great business men that they are and the great deal makers that they are) failed to close the deal on this 2nd part of the nominating procedures. In most years this would be a non-issue as the leader typically has enough delegates well before the convention - so it would be a foregone conclusion that there will only be one ballot. Not this year. Thus you have Cruz and Kasich making a deal in order to prevent Trump from having enough delegates to win on the 1st ballot. If Trump doesn't win on the 1st ballot - I believe he will be toast regardless how close he got.

[AR Husker Fan]

Let's bear in mind, also, that we are not speaking of a governmental function. This is a case of a party - one which is not a function of government - deciding the means by which it will select who will carry the party's blessing to run for President. It's a private activity.

 

If someone wants to create their own party and count actual votes, they can. So "one man, one vote" is applicable only if the party wants that as the means to determine its representative.

[BigRedBuster]

 

 

 

 

All we can do is hope for is a contested convention. Trump should be on a roll next week also wt several other NE states. This is starting to look really bad Trump or Hilary as our President

Hillary - WH one big swinging door for Bill's parties and Hillary corruption. Trump: one unbearable embarrassment before the world as he tries to learn all of the things he obviously doesn't know.

The only way Trump succeeds is if he has Kasich as VP who does the actual work of the president and Trump is just the mouth piece - kind of like Chaney was for GWB.

 

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.

 

That is what you would call, "direct democracy", and that's just not acceptable in American politics--the power elite won't stand for it. Direct democracy could also include asking the people to vote on small issues that effect their lives, like say, going to war, or wage and tax policy, for e.g, but again, to ask the people to actually decide such things is, again, unacceptable. Theoretically, we are supposed to choose reps who are supposed to be honest people that vote our interests for us, but since they are all on the take, lie as a matter of course, and beholden to power, well, you know....

 

You both are wrong. We live in a republic. Our gov't was designed for good reason to have 'indirect democracy' wt originally only the House of Representatives having been elected by direct vote of the people - thus the House was always called the "People's House". In the wisdom of our founders, the president (via the electoral college), the senate (up until a century ago, Senators were selected by the state legislature - not direct vote), judges were not to be voted on directly. Our founders saw the mess of pure democratic vote in France plus they also had just won a war against the authoritarian rule of England. A representative republic govt was their answer. The importance of our indirect federalist republic system was to actually decrease the possibility of mob rule, constrain the power of a majority when that majority was wrong, re-enforce states rights, limit the power of the most populated states - allowing less populated states to having their voices heard, and to bring stability to the system (allows for a slower deliberation of issues vs a quick knee jerk reaction). Our candidates are chosen in the same way - through a representative process. The delegates are committed to the candidates on the 1st ballot. After that those delegates, chosen via different methods as determined by individual state party rules, are to act as our representative to vote as they deem best on any additional ballot. It is in this area, where Cruz has trumped Trump. In each individual state the primary is a different event than choosing the delegates - which is event 2 of the process. The primary only tells the delegate how to vote on the 1st ballot. The campaigning doesn't stop wt the primary and Trump's team ( the great business men that they are and the great deal makers that they are) failed to close the deal on this 2nd part of the nominating procedures. In most years this would be a non-issue as the leader typically has enough delegates well before the convention - so it would be a foregone conclusion that there will only be one ballot. Not this year. Thus you have Cruz and Kasich making a deal in order to prevent Trump from having enough delegates to win on the 1st ballot. If Trump doesn't win on the 1st ballot - I believe he will be toast regardless how close he got.

 

But..but...but....that doesn't fit into the narrative. How dare you bring facts to the board.

 

It's much more fun to sit back and cry that the system isn't fair.

 

Another part of this that is funny is that Trump has beat his chest as the great negotiator and the great deal maker. Ummmmm.....now he's mad that Cruz and Kasich made a deal.

 

Trump is a faker than an 80's valley girl and whines just as much.

[NUtopia]

 

 

 

 

All we can do is hope for is a contested convention. Trump should be on a roll next week also wt several other NE states. This is starting to look really bad Trump or Hilary as our President

Hillary - WH one big swinging door for Bill's parties and Hillary corruption. Trump: one unbearable embarrassment before the world as he tries to learn all of the things he obviously doesn't know.

The only way Trump succeeds is if he has Kasich as VP who does the actual work of the president and Trump is just the mouth piece - kind of like Chaney was for GWB.

 

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.

 

That is what you would call, "direct democracy", and that's just not acceptable in American politics--the power elite won't stand for it. Direct democracy could also include asking the people to vote on small issues that effect their lives, like say, going to war, or wage and tax policy, for e.g, but again, to ask the people to actually decide such things is, again, unacceptable. Theoretically, we are supposed to choose reps who are supposed to be honest people that vote our interests for us, but since they are all on the take, lie as a matter of course, and beholden to power, well, you know....

 

You both are wrong. We live in a republic. Our gov't was designed for good reason to have 'indirect democracy' wt originally only the House of Representatives having been elected by direct vote of the people - thus the House was always called the "People's House". In the wisdom of our founders, the president (via the electoral college), the senate (up until a century ago, Senators were selected by the state legislature - not direct vote), judges were not to be voted on directly. Our founders saw the mess of pure democratic vote in France plus they also had just won a war against the authoritarian rule of England. A representative republic govt was their answer. The importance of our indirect federalist republic system was to actually decrease the possibility of mob rule, constrain the power of a majority when that majority was wrong, re-enforce states rights, limit the power of the most populated states - allowing less populated states to having their voices heard, and to bring stability to the system (allows for a slower deliberation of issues vs a quick knee jerk reaction). Our candidates are chosen in the same way - through a representative process. The delegates are committed to the candidates on the 1st ballot. After that those delegates, chosen via different methods as determined by individual state party rules, are to act as our representative to vote as they deem best on any additional ballot. It is in this area, where Cruz has trumped Trump. In each individual state the primary is a different event than choosing the delegates - which is event 2 of the process. The primary only tells the delegate how to vote on the 1st ballot. The campaigning doesn't stop wt the primary and Trump's team ( the great business men that they are and the great deal makers that they are) failed to close the deal on this 2nd part of the nominating procedures. In most years this would be a non-issue as the leader typically has enough delegates well before the convention - so it would be a foregone conclusion that there will only be one ballot. Not this year. Thus you have Cruz and Kasich making a deal in order to prevent Trump from having enough delegates to win on the 1st ballot. If Trump doesn't win on the 1st ballot - I believe he will be toast regardless how close he got.

 

The USA hasn't been a functional Republic and/or rep democracy for many many a moon:

 

 

America is no longer a democracy — never mind the democratic republic envisioned by Founding Fathers.

Rather, it has taken a turn down elitist lane and become a country led by a small dominant class comprised of powerful members who exert total control over the general population — an oligarchy, said a new study jointly conducted by Princeton and Northwestern universities.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/apr/21/americas-oligarchy-not-democracy-or-republic-unive/

[Danny Bateman]

Let's bear in mind, also, that we are not speaking of a governmental function. This is a case of a party - one which is not a function of government - deciding the means by which it will select who will carry the party's blessing to run for President. It's a private activity.

 

If someone wants to create their own party and count actual votes, they can. So "one man, one vote" is applicable only if the party wants that as the means to determine its representative.

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.

[BigRedBuster]

 

Let's bear in mind, also, that we are not speaking of a governmental function. This is a case of a party - one which is not a function of government - deciding the means by which it will select who will carry the party's blessing to run for President. It's a private activity.

 

If someone wants to create their own party and count actual votes, they can. So "one man, one vote" is applicable only if the party wants that as the means to determine its representative.

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?

[HuskerShark]

 

 

Let's bear in mind, also, that we are not speaking of a governmental function. This is a case of a party - one which is not a function of government - deciding the means by which it will select who will carry the party's blessing to run for President. It's a private activity.

 

If someone wants to create their own party and count actual votes, they can. So "one man, one vote" is applicable only if the party wants that as the means to determine its representative.

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.

[TGHusker]

Let's bear in mind, also, that we are not speaking of a governmental function. This is a case of a party - one which is not a function of government - deciding the means by which it will select who will carry the party's blessing to run for President. It's a private activity.

 

If someone wants to create their own party and count actual votes, they can. So "one man, one vote" is applicable only if the party wants that as the means to determine its representative.

100% correct

[BigRedBuster]

 

 

 

Let's bear in mind, also, that we are not speaking of a governmental function. This is a case of a party - one which is not a function of government - deciding the means by which it will select who will carry the party's blessing to run for President. It's a private activity.

 

If someone wants to create their own party and count actual votes, they can. So "one man, one vote" is applicable only if the party wants that as the means to determine its representative.

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.

 

OK....he is crying that it's rigged and unfair. The primaries are ran by a non-governmental organization that sets the rules.

 

It's not a governmental operation.

So....how exactly do you reduce the governmental involvement in the primary system that he claims is so unfair...OBTW....the same system that has produced the two front runners being outsiders.

[BigRedBuster]

Looks like all these trumpters have to do is create a new party and hold their own primaries with their rules.

[TGHusker]

 

Let's bear in mind, also, that we are not speaking of a governmental function. This is a case of a party - one which is not a function of government - deciding the means by which it will select who will carry the party's blessing to run for President. It's a private activity.

 

If someone wants to create their own party and count actual votes, they can. So "one man, one vote" is applicable only if the party wants that as the means to determine its representative.

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.

 

Two ways of looking at it: If you belong to a party, and it is a party nomination- I think only party members should vote. For example: Growing up I was in 4-H. When we elected officers, we didn't invite the Boy scouts to come over and vote in our election.

The other way to look at is this: an open primary 'might' reflect the candidates strength in a general election. But it would open up the votes to trickery - the other party members voting in the primary wt the purpose of choosing the weakest candidate in the GE.

[HuskerShark]

Looks like all these trumpters have to do is create a new party and hold their own primaries with their rules.

 

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.

[BigRedBuster]

 

Looks like all these trumpters have to do is create a new party and hold their own primaries with their rules.

 

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.