The General Election

[HuskerShark]

 

 

The entertaining part of the general election will be watching two pathetic people take well deserved blow after blow from the other pathetic person.

 

Bad thing....one will end up president.

There needs to be a constitutional mechanism whereby the public can vote for "none of the above" on every election, and if that gets the most votes, we have to start the process over.

 

Combine that with shortening the campaign season to no more than two months and we should have a better political process.

A bit tangential, but folks I've talked to lately have advocated doing away with the First Past the Post system as a way of helping third party candidates become viable alternatives to a two party duopoly.

 

The current timeframe of the election system is stupid. I'd do all the primary voting on one day just like the general election. I think they stretch it all out for the fanfare and pageantry of it all at this point.

 

 

I absolutely agree with this. Set a deadline for when they have to declare, then let them campaign and debate for a couple months, then vote on one day. That would take much of the politics out of the situation as well.

 

 

 

He has over-dramatized everything because they're real issues that need to be addressed that no one wants to talk about since they're politicians.

 

Are there examples of the "real issues" that Trump is talking about, that no one else wants to talk about? I'm trying to think of what these issues are and I can't come up with a single one, much less one that needs over-dramatization just to be heard.

 

 

I believe I've spelled out an entire list earlier in this thread somewhere, or over in the Republican thread, so I'll save my time by re-posting it. You're a smart guy, so I think you can figure it out.

 

Here's just one example, but this is a very well written, unbiased article to answer your question:

 

http://www.forbes.com/sites/kironskinner/2016/05/24/the-beginnings-of-a-trump-doctrine/#54a2211a2fc6

[HuskerNation1]

 

 

He has over-dramatized everything because they're real issues that need to be addressed that no one wants to talk about since they're politicians.

 

Are there examples of the "real issues" that Trump is talking about, that no one else wants to talk about? I'm trying to think of what these issues are and I can't come up with a single one, much less one that needs over-dramatization just to be heard.

 

 

I'm just catching up on today's posts and was going to post a parallel to the "taking away our guns" discussion here. Both sides use this rhetoric to benefit their voters. The Dems most commonly claim that Republicans want to cut taxes to help the rich, and my favorite is in 2012 when Obama's team claimed that Romney wanted to take away social security for seniors...remember the ad of Paul Ryan pushing granny off the cliff.

[Moiraine]

 

 

 

The entertaining part of the general election will be watching two pathetic people take well deserved blow after blow from the other pathetic person.

 

Bad thing....one will end up president.

There needs to be a constitutional mechanism whereby the public can vote for "none of the above" on every election, and if that gets the most votes, we have to start the process over.

 

Combine that with shortening the campaign season to no more than two months and we should have a better political process.

A bit tangential, but folks I've talked to lately have advocated doing away with the First Past the Post system as a way of helping third party candidates become viable alternatives to a two party duopoly.

 

The current timeframe of the election system is stupid. I'd do all the primary voting on one day just like the general election. I think they stretch it all out for the fanfare and pageantry of it all at this point.

 

 

I absolutely agree with this. Set a deadline for when they have to declare, then let them campaign and debate for a couple months, then vote on one day. That would take much of the politics out of the situation as well.

 

 

 

He has over-dramatized everything because they're real issues that need to be addressed that no one wants to talk about since they're politicians.

 

Are there examples of the "real issues" that Trump is talking about, that no one else wants to talk about? I'm trying to think of what these issues are and I can't come up with a single one, much less one that needs over-dramatization just to be heard.

 

 

I believe I've spelled out an entire list earlier in this thread somewhere, or over in the Republican thread, so I'll save my time by re-posting it. You're a smart guy, so I think you can figure it out.

 

Here's just one example, but this is a very well written, unbiased article to answer your question:

 

http://www.forbes.com/sites/kironskinner/2016/05/24/the-beginnings-of-a-trump-doctrine/#54a2211a2fc6

 

 

 

It's hard to take anyone seriously when they say things like the bolded and then provide a link to Forbes magazine.

 

a) It's published by Forbes.

 

b) The author "has been an adviser to multiple Republican Presidential campaigns and served as an advisor on a number of governmental national security panels."

 

At the very least say the source/author/article are unbiased for a staunchly Republican publication/author/article.

[JJ Husker]

 

PS.....and yes...The Dems do the exact same thing from the other side.

What's the Dem version of this? Education? Social programs? I don't know of anything that gets the same level of play as "They're taking your guns!" gets from the Right.

The Dem version would be that Repubs are only for rich people but the Dems care about the poor, and common working class folk. Even though both sides take money from the rich, cater to themselves and the rich, and screw over the poor and middle class. There's other examples but the point is, politicians on both sides use bullsh#t to garner votes. Anybody who thinks it is only a problem from one side of the aisle is either not paying attention or is already in the bag for one side.

[JJ Husker]

 

The entertaining part of the general election will be watching two pathetic people take well deserved blow after blow from the other pathetic person.Bad thing....one will end up president.

There needs to be a constitutional mechanism whereby the public can vote for "none of the above" on every election, and if that gets the most votes, we have to start the process over.Combine that with shortening the campaign season to no more than two months and we should have a better political process.

Love the "none of the above" option. Never heard that proposed before. It is brilliant. Coupled with a 2 month election cycle......we should now be on about the 45th attempt for 2008.

[Moiraine]

 

 

The entertaining part of the general election will be watching two pathetic people take well deserved blow after blow from the other pathetic person.Bad thing....one will end up president.

There needs to be a constitutional mechanism whereby the public can vote for "none of the above" on every election, and if that gets the most votes, we have to start the process over.Combine that with shortening the campaign season to no more than two months and we should have a better political process.

Love the "none of the above" option. Never heard that proposed before. It is brilliant. Coupled with a 2 month election cycle......we should now be on about the 45th attempt for 2008.

Don't think so. Neither Obama nor McCain were widely disliked at the time.

[JJ Husker]

 

 

 

The entertaining part of the general election will be watching two pathetic people take well deserved blow after blow from the other pathetic person.Bad thing....one will end up president.

There needs to be a constitutional mechanism whereby the public can vote for "none of the above" on every election, and if that gets the most votes, we have to start the process over.Combine that with shortening the campaign season to no more than two months and we should have a better political process.

Love the "none of the above" option. Never heard that proposed before. It is brilliant. Coupled with a 2 month election cycle......we should now be on about the 45th attempt for 2008.

Don't think so. Neither Obama nor McCain were widely disliked at the time.

Yeah, I know, everybody was in love with the thought of "the first black President" at the time, so he was destined to get elected. But you get my point. Maybe I should have used 19th attempt for 2012. Point is we haven't had sh#t for candidates and we have been especially lacking anyone worthy in the political arenafor quite some time.

[knapplc]

Yeah, I know, everybody was in love with the thought of "the first black President" at the time, so he was destined to get elected. But you get my point. Maybe I should have used 19th attempt for 2012. Point is we haven't had sh#t for candidates and we have been especially lacking anyone worthy in the political arenafor quite some time.

Someday, probably in my lifetime, people are going to realize Obama was a pretty decent president. Not great, sometimes not good, but overall a good president.

 

They're going to realize that, while some people did vote for him because he's Black, more people voted against him because he was Black - meaning he wasn't elected "because he was Black." He was elected because he was the best choice available.

 

Twice.

 

I'm ready for that day when we realize how good we had it under Obama, and for the day we finally start to wonder how much better it could have been had Congress not knee-jerk responded to every single thing he did with "NO!" instead of compromise.

 

I'm just hoping that when people look back at this time with a softer heart, it isn't with regret based on the awfulness of the current president.

[Saunders]

On the 2nd amendment topic, no, Clinton does not want to repeal it. Nor does/did Obama, nor do the vast majority of Democrats/Independents. This is crazy uber-conservative propaganda.

For the record, Hillary has stated she's intrigued by an Australia type of gun ban, which in order to be feasible, would require the abolishment of the 2nd amendment.

[Saunders]

 

Trump wanted to make money off of it, and Hillary pocketed money from the people responsible for the crash. They're both culpable.

[Danny Bateman]

 

On the 2nd amendment topic, no, Clinton does not want to repeal it. Nor does/did Obama, nor do the vast majority of Democrats/Independents. This is crazy uber-conservative propaganda.

 

For the record, Hillary has stated she's intrigued by an Australia type of gun ban, which in order to be feasible, would require the abolishment of the 2nd amendment.

She was asked about it at an event and off the cuff said she's consider it. There'd be no way to make it mandatory, it would have to be voluntary much like the buyback programs we already have locally.

 

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2015/10/25/hillary_clinton_and_gun_buybacks_128539.html

 

As for the housing bubble, Trump was cheering on a market crash so he could profit because he was rich enough to be insulated from its effect. Clinton got paid to give an address at a bank. I've never understood the speech complaint. If I had the resume she does, and some bank threw stupid amounts of money at me as a private citizen to come talk, I'd do it 10 times out of 10.

[BigRedBuster]

criticism of Trump being happy he can buy cheaper realestate because of the housing market is just stupid. There were millions of Americans across the country doing the same thing only on a smaller scale and we're just as happy.

 

Hell, I remember wishing I had some cash interbank to buy some. I would have been very happy.

 

Also, criticism of Hillary giving a speech at wall street is just as idiotic.

 

Like it or not, Wall Street is an important part of our economy. Of course she is going to give a speech to them if they throw that kind of money at her. Anyone who says they wouldn't must have one hell of a lot of stage fright giving speeches.

[JJ Husker]

 

Yeah, I know, everybody was in love with the thought of "the first black President" at the time, so he was destined to get elected. But you get my point. Maybe I should have used 19th attempt for 2012. Point is we haven't had sh#t for candidates and we have been especially lacking anyone worthy in the political arenafor quite some time.

Someday, probably in my lifetime, people are going to realize Obama was a pretty decent president. Not great, sometimes not good, but overall a good president.They're going to realize that, while some people did vote for him because he's Black, more people voted against him because he was Black - meaning he wasn't elected "because he was Black." He was elected because he was the best choice available.Twice.I'm ready for that day when we realize how good we had it under Obama, and for the day we finally start to wonder how much better it could have been had Congress not knee-jerk responded to every single thing he did with "NO!" instead of compromise.I'm just hoping that when people look back at this time with a softer heart, it isn't with regret based on the awfulness of the current president.

He certainly has been better than I thought he would be 8 years ago. I also agree that unfortunately he probably lost as many votes because he was black as he got for being black. He probaby was the best choice both times. But I'll have to disagree with the notion that he has been particularly good. It's really hard to judge IMO with the Congress being so inept. But, if we imagine what he would've done with a cooperative congress, I think things likely would've been worse.

[knapplc]

But, if we imagine what he would've done with a cooperative congress, I think things likely would've been worse.

What would he have done "worse" with a cooperative congress?

 

Also, what has happened that could have been done better if congress had been willing to work with Obama?

 

Finally, of those two scenarios, which would have benefited America more - Obama working with a congress that did his bidding, or an oppositional congress willing to compromise?

[JJ Husker]

 

But, if we imagine what he would've done with a cooperative congress, I think things likely would've been worse.

What would he have done "worse" with a cooperative congress?Also, what has happened that could have been done better if congress had been willing to work with Obama?Finally, of those two scenarios, which would have benefited America more - Obama working with a congress that did his bidding, or an oppositional congress willing to compromise?

I'm not sure which scenario would've benefitted America more. The way it has been was pretty blah.....not much good and not much bad. I imagine with a cooperative congress doing his bidding, there would've been more good and more bad. Not sure where that would've left us at the end of the day. I guess it would depend on which good things and which bad. I'm not really in the mood to speculate the specific what ifs.

 

You commented earlier that you long for day when we look back and realize how good it actually was under Obama. I actually look forward to the time things are much better, when we have a more competent President and congress, and we realize that things could've been much better. Sure, it hasn't been as bad as many partisans have been playing it but, really it hasn't been anything to write home about either. I think we both want things to get better. Unfortunately this election cycle sure doesn't seem to have us headed in the right direction. You'll probably get your wish of thinking the Obama years were grand compared to the likely next 4 or 8.