The Repub Debate

[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.

 

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.

[Moiraine]

 

 

 

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.

 

 

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.

 

 

Primaries should not be controlled by the government. That's pretty undemocratic in itself. Primaries aren't actually necessary. They aren't a real election. All they are is a way for a party to unify behind one candidate and say "This is our guy/gal." People can still vote for whoever they want in the real election.

 

Like I said before (probably in this thread) the issue is the involvement of money in politics. The Republicans/Democrats have the money. They can pay the tv stations (some of which are owned by staunch followers of one party or the other) to only cover their crap.

[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.

 

 

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.

[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.

 

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.

[NUtopia]

 

 

 

 

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.

 

 

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.

 

The Tea Partyists frequently get confused:

 

 

 

In February, the New York Times published an article entitled, “Even Critics of Safety Net Increasingly Depend on It.” Several accompanying maps showed that some areas which rely heavily on public programs—for example, Owsley County, Kentucky, where per capita payments for food stamps are the highest in the country—vote overwhelmingly for conservative Republicans who vow to slash social spending. Other studies show that deeply conservative Mississippi, Arkansas, Tennessee are among the places where residents, on average, get the highest percentage of their income from government supports.

Of course, there is a fine tradition of allowing one’s behavior and professed beliefs to go their separate ways: Bible belt states whose residents claim to promote chastity and “family values” have higher rates of divorce—not to mention higher numbers of on-line porn subscriptions—than supposed Gomorrahs like New York and California.

http://democracyuprising.com/2012/05/12/keep-your-government-hands-off-my-welfare-state/

[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.

 

 

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?

[TGHusker]

So I heard Ted Cruz in an interview state that they are in the process now of vetting VP candidates. Who do you think each candidate should name as a VP candidate prior to the convention in order to gain support on the 2nd ballot? Assumption - they won't name one of the other candidates as their VP as Cruz and Kasich both said they won't be the VP.

 

CRUZ - - Scott Walker or Rubio which brings Wisc and Florida into play (he may choose Carly Furina - who I don't think secures any states)

Kasich - N Mexico Gov Susana Martinez or Rubio

Trump - He'll name a family member as there isn't anyone else good enough but family. He's insulted everyone else

[VectorVictor]

So I heard Ted Cruz in an interview state that they are in the process now of vetting VP candidates. Who do you think each candidate should name as a VP candidate prior to the convention in order to gain support on the 2nd ballot? Assumption - they won't name one of the other candidates as their VP as Cruz and Kasich both said they won't be the VP.

 

CRUZ - - Scott Walker or Rubio which brings Wisc and Florida into play (he may choose Carly Furina - who I don't think secures any states)

Kasich - N Mexico Gov Susana Martinez or Rubio

Trump - He'll name a family member as there isn't anyone else good enough but family. He's insulted everyone else

 

That's the joke--even if they have Jesus himself run as VP, they won't even come close to sniffing the White House, because the Presidential candidates are so unpalatable to most of America. And that's assuming Jesus can put up with their special brand of crazy instead of walking out and saying "I rose from the dead for this s***?" Or really...just putting up with Cruz altogether.

 

The best thing for the GOP is to cease its existence and break off into two parties--one for the rational, sane-thinking moderates, and one that the extreme fringe of the now GOP can go belong to, and let the moderate party make a run unimpeded by the derp of the extremists that have infested the party.

 

Have Rubio run as a true moderate without the extremist baggage weighing him down, give him someone like McCain or hell, a Blue Dog Democrat as a VP candidate, and he'd win, hands down.

[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.

 

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.

[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.

 

 

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 (military)

Immigration (enforced by military and it's only possible if you are not mexican or muslim)

Military (Military)

Upholding the privacy and personal rights of individuals (that one made me laugh)

Foreign relations and trade (Pretty much in the tank if Trump gets elected)

Elections (only if it helps Trump)

Legality of drugs and alcohol (interesting since more and more Americans are now starting to think drugs should be legal, I guess we don't need the feds for that either)

Legal driving age (interesting)

 

 

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.

 

 

 

 

 

So....ya....more military....or what ever type of security forces to keep bad people away from us.

[Moiraine]

One of them needs to have a VP who doesn't seem like a wackjob.

 

 

Sidetrack: I've thought about Hillary's choice and even as a woman I think, well she can't have a woman VP. That would be weird. But then I realize almost every presidential candidate in the history of presidential candidates had male VP candidates. Why is it so "weird" to have 2 women on the ballot? Well, maybe it IS weird, but not any more weird than having 2 men on there.

That being said she'd be more electable if she had a male VP.

[knapplc]

I don't care if there's two men or two women on the ballot, as long as they're qualified for the job. It's when a person is put on the ballot as a stunt, or as a demographic, that's annoying. Sarah Palin immediately comes to mind.

[Moiraine]

I don't care if there's two men or two women on the ballot, as long as they're qualified for the job. It's when a person is put on the ballot as a stunt, or as a demographic, that's annoying. Sarah Palin immediately comes to mind.

 

I feel like they have to do that though. Now if the average voter was thoughtful and intelligent, they could just pick the best person for the job. But if that was the case we wouldn't have almost exclusively lawyers as our representatives. People who are somewhat attractive and good at public speaking/arguing get elected. I'll ignore the anomaly who is Trump.

[Red Dead Redemption]

 

I don't care if there's two men or two women on the ballot, as long as they're qualified for the job. It's when a person is put on the ballot as a stunt, or as a demographic, that's annoying. Sarah Palin immediately comes to mind.

 

I feel like they have to do that though. Now if the average voter was thoughtful and intelligent, they could just pick the best person for the job. But if that was the case we wouldn't have almost exclusively lawyers as our representatives. People who are somewhat attractive and good at public speaking/arguing get elected. I'll ignore the anomaly who is Trump.

When the average voter hears the word "Trump", they most often think of "money".

 

Money is very attractive to the average voter.

[teachercd]

What is an average voter? Cause...I think it is everyone that is in the thread including myself.