The General Election

[BigRedBuster]

Well, there are several reasons for open primaries. One is that party leaders fear that the candidate that emerges would be unelectable in a general election, as that candidate would play to the extremes of the party to obtain the nomination, but then not be mainstream enough to appeal to moderate voters. And, we've seen evidence of that over the years. And in some states, open primaries are mandated by legislative action; changing that would be difficult particularly for states that have legislatures that meets once every two years.

 

But the idea is being broached, and should come up at the RNC.

 

Angry Republican leaders ready to shut door on open primaries

There are states where the legislature only meets every two years?

[Danny Bateman]

House Democrats booed Bernie Sanders when they met earlier this week. I'd say there's dysfunction in both parties, but the reality is, Trump isn't a Republican and Bernie isn't a Democrat. Since these parties are private organizations and not specifically "the government," you'd think they would be able to better police who runs for their highest office.

 

That plan they put out yesterday for college tuition appears to have worked. They're prepping to do a joint campaign event next week that could include an endorsement, and Bernie isn't denying it.

 

Bernie is a huge proponent of opening primaries. Any discussion of opening them up needs to first include eliminating caucuses. That is, if the purpose is to involve more people in the process, and not just serve your own interests. He predictably defended caucuses earlier, as they were the main reason he did as well as he did. Clinton won more open primaries.

 

I also don't have a serious problem with superdelegates. They buffer against a Trump. Or a McGovern.

 

Edit: Opening "primaries"

[BigRedBuster]

The caucus process alienates and prevents more people from being involved in the process than any voter idea proposal that has been considered.

[AR Husker Fan]

 

Well, there are several reasons for open primaries. One is that party leaders fear that the candidate that emerges would be unelectable in a general election, as that candidate would play to the extremes of the party to obtain the nomination, but then not be mainstream enough to appeal to moderate voters. And, we've seen evidence of that over the years. And in some states, open primaries are mandated by legislative action; changing that would be difficult particularly for states that have legislatures that meets once every two years.

 

But the idea is being broached, and should come up at the RNC.

 

Angry Republican leaders ready to shut door on open primaries

There are states where the legislature only meets every two years?

 

Currently, there are four - Montana, Nevada, North Dakota and Texas. Arkansas met every two years until 2009. At that time, Arkansas went to a "kind of" annual sessions. "Kinda of" meaning that on even-numbered years the session is limited to fiscal matters only (with a few exceptions). So, in a sense, Arkansas meets every two years for substantive issues, and every year for fiscal issues.

[BigRedBuster]

 

 

Well, there are several reasons for open primaries. One is that party leaders fear that the candidate that emerges would be unelectable in a general election, as that candidate would play to the extremes of the party to obtain the nomination, but then not be mainstream enough to appeal to moderate voters. And, we've seen evidence of that over the years. And in some states, open primaries are mandated by legislative action; changing that would be difficult particularly for states that have legislatures that meets once every two years.

 

But the idea is being broached, and should come up at the RNC.

 

Angry Republican leaders ready to shut door on open primaries

There are states where the legislature only meets every two years?

 

Currently, there are four - Montana, Nevada, North Dakota and Texas. Arkansas met every two years until 2009. At that time, Arkansas went to a "kind of" annual sessions. "Kinda of" meaning that on even-numbered years the session is limited to fiscal matters only (with a few exceptions). So, in a sense, Arkansas meets every two years for substantive issues, and every year for fiscal issues.

 

Hmmm....learn something new every day.

[HuskerNation1]

 

 

 

 

bnilhome, what the hell man?

 

I'm fine with you no liking Clinton. I don't like her. I'm fine with you listing reasons not to like her and complaining about her.

 

But for f#*k's sake, any woman who has people working for her or is in the spotlight has been called a bitch to her face or behind her back. That's the way things work regardless of the fact that things have gotten a lot better for women. It means sh#t all that people have done it to her.

 

Sorry, I should have provided more context. There have been multiple reports by members of the secret service that being assigned to Hillary was the worst assignment you could get, that she talked down and cussed out many officers, and hence none of them enjoyed working around her. Ronald Kessler is one of those agents that served in Bill's tenure and had regular interactions with both Clintons. I agree that women have had to break through glass ceilings, but the point is that there seem to be more stories about Hillary's diva-like behavior than other Democratic or GOP female politicians. As for name calling, I think I've seen a fair share of Trump-bashing on here including some calling him an a*s, douche, etc. My point was not to focus on the names used but rather how the candidates are perceived by those they work with or around.

 

As for the "who let the dogs out" video, that is just plain funny, no matter your political beliefs. She actually barked like a dog at one of her campaign stops.

 

http://www.thedailysheeple.com/what-the-secret-service-has-to-say-about-hillary-clinton_102015

 

http://nypost.com/2015/10/02/secret-service-agents-hillary-is-a-nightmare-to-work-with/

 

http://www.thepoliticalinsider.com/secret-service-agent-says-good/

 

http://thehill.com/blogs/in-the-know/in-the-know/282330-ex-secret-service-agent-clinton-occasionally-violent

 

And the bigger point is - perception of women in leadership or a powerful position no matter the source (body guards, co workers, employees etc) is skewed to the negative for the same traits that are perceived as strong and positive for men.

 

 

Well I think that must be your point which is fine. I have no issues with strong female executives and my top choice for the GOP nominee was Carly Fiorina followed by Rubio. And I think plenty of men can be labled "pricks" if they treat their employees or those around them with disdain and like they are trash, which gets to my point that many who have worked around, for, or with Trump tend to say more positive things about him as a person relative to his public persona, while you tend to see more who have worked around or for Hillary speak out against her.

 

 

This is entirely unique to the person. You consume different media from different places than everyone else.

 

If you can't find enough negative accounts of Trump, I could probably dig some up for you.

 

 

Oh there is plenty of negative about Trump, as has been expressed on these boards over and over. He's an egomaniac that makes way too many outlandish statements in order to garner attention. I'm not a huge fan of his public persona. Despite that fact, when the question would be posed to voters on which candidate they would prefer to have a drink with (Trump or HIllary), I will guarantee that Trump would win that. He's more engaging in 1/1 interviews...and he actually gives 1/1 interviews as well as multiple press conferences. He suffers from overexposure as he loves the attention, while Hillary does just the opposite and runs away from 1/1 interviews and press conferences for fears of either screwing up or being pressed on her scandals and history of lying.

[knapplc]

The caucus process alienates and prevents more people from being involved in the process than any voter idea proposal that has been considered.

Caucuses also inhibit my right to a secret vote. If I wanted my vote to be public, I'd tell people. If I want to keep my vote private, I should have that option. Currently there are no ramifications in America for voting one way or the other, but it's not hard to envision a future where retaliation comes into play. Caucuses are anti-democratic.

[Danny Bateman]

 

 

 

 

 

bnilhome, what the hell man?

 

I'm fine with you no liking Clinton. I don't like her. I'm fine with you listing reasons not to like her and complaining about her.

 

But for f#*k's sake, any woman who has people working for her or is in the spotlight has been called a bitch to her face or behind her back. That's the way things work regardless of the fact that things have gotten a lot better for women. It means sh#t all that people have done it to her.

 

Sorry, I should have provided more context. There have been multiple reports by members of the secret service that being assigned to Hillary was the worst assignment you could get, that she talked down and cussed out many officers, and hence none of them enjoyed working around her. Ronald Kessler is one of those agents that served in Bill's tenure and had regular interactions with both Clintons. I agree that women have had to break through glass ceilings, but the point is that there seem to be more stories about Hillary's diva-like behavior than other Democratic or GOP female politicians. As for name calling, I think I've seen a fair share of Trump-bashing on here including some calling him an a*s, douche, etc. My point was not to focus on the names used but rather how the candidates are perceived by those they work with or around.

 

As for the "who let the dogs out" video, that is just plain funny, no matter your political beliefs. She actually barked like a dog at one of her campaign stops.

 

http://www.thedailysheeple.com/what-the-secret-service-has-to-say-about-hillary-clinton_102015

 

http://nypost.com/2015/10/02/secret-service-agents-hillary-is-a-nightmare-to-work-with/

 

http://www.thepoliticalinsider.com/secret-service-agent-says-good/

 

http://thehill.com/blogs/in-the-know/in-the-know/282330-ex-secret-service-agent-clinton-occasionally-violent

 

And the bigger point is - perception of women in leadership or a powerful position no matter the source (body guards, co workers, employees etc) is skewed to the negative for the same traits that are perceived as strong and positive for men.

 

 

Well I think that must be your point which is fine. I have no issues with strong female executives and my top choice for the GOP nominee was Carly Fiorina followed by Rubio. And I think plenty of men can be labled "pricks" if they treat their employees or those around them with disdain and like they are trash, which gets to my point that many who have worked around, for, or with Trump tend to say more positive things about him as a person relative to his public persona, while you tend to see more who have worked around or for Hillary speak out against her.

 

 

This is entirely unique to the person. You consume different media from different places than everyone else.

 

If you can't find enough negative accounts of Trump, I could probably dig some up for you.

 

 

Oh there is plenty of negative about Trump, as has been expressed on these boards over and over. He's an egomaniac that makes way too many outlandish statements in order to garner attention. I'm not a huge fan of his public persona. Despite that fact, when the question would be posed to voters on which candidate they would prefer to have a drink with (Trump or HIllary), I will guarantee that Trump would win that. He's more engaging in 1/1 interviews...and he actually gives 1/1 interviews as well as multiple press conferences. He suffers from overexposure as he loves the attention, while Hillary does just the opposite and runs away from 1/1 interviews and press conferences for fears of either screwing up or being pressed on her scandals and history of lying.

 

 

I'd say she runs from pressers. She probably would just get pummeled about emails or the scandal du jour or asked to comment on whatever dumb thing Trump has said recently. I think she angles for 1 on 1 interviews because they're more controlled and she does much better talking with one other person. I agree though. Their personalities are pretty much polar opposites.

[BigRedBuster]

 

 

 

 

 

bnilhome, what the hell man?

 

I'm fine with you no liking Clinton. I don't like her. I'm fine with you listing reasons not to like her and complaining about her.

 

But for f#*k's sake, any woman who has people working for her or is in the spotlight has been called a bitch to her face or behind her back. That's the way things work regardless of the fact that things have gotten a lot better for women. It means sh#t all that people have done it to her.

 

Sorry, I should have provided more context. There have been multiple reports by members of the secret service that being assigned to Hillary was the worst assignment you could get, that she talked down and cussed out many officers, and hence none of them enjoyed working around her. Ronald Kessler is one of those agents that served in Bill's tenure and had regular interactions with both Clintons. I agree that women have had to break through glass ceilings, but the point is that there seem to be more stories about Hillary's diva-like behavior than other Democratic or GOP female politicians. As for name calling, I think I've seen a fair share of Trump-bashing on here including some calling him an a*s, douche, etc. My point was not to focus on the names used but rather how the candidates are perceived by those they work with or around.

 

As for the "who let the dogs out" video, that is just plain funny, no matter your political beliefs. She actually barked like a dog at one of her campaign stops.

 

http://www.thedailysheeple.com/what-the-secret-service-has-to-say-about-hillary-clinton_102015

 

http://nypost.com/2015/10/02/secret-service-agents-hillary-is-a-nightmare-to-work-with/

 

http://www.thepoliticalinsider.com/secret-service-agent-says-good/

 

http://thehill.com/blogs/in-the-know/in-the-know/282330-ex-secret-service-agent-clinton-occasionally-violent

 

And the bigger point is - perception of women in leadership or a powerful position no matter the source (body guards, co workers, employees etc) is skewed to the negative for the same traits that are perceived as strong and positive for men.

 

 

Well I think that must be your point which is fine. I have no issues with strong female executives and my top choice for the GOP nominee was Carly Fiorina followed by Rubio. And I think plenty of men can be labled "pricks" if they treat their employees or those around them with disdain and like they are trash, which gets to my point that many who have worked around, for, or with Trump tend to say more positive things about him as a person relative to his public persona, while you tend to see more who have worked around or for Hillary speak out against her.

 

 

This is entirely unique to the person. You consume different media from different places than everyone else.

 

If you can't find enough negative accounts of Trump, I could probably dig some up for you.

 

 

Oh there is plenty of negative about Trump, as has been expressed on these boards over and over. He's an egomaniac that makes way too many outlandish statements in order to garner attention. I'm not a huge fan of his public persona. Despite that fact, when the question would be posed to voters on which candidate they would prefer to have a drink with (Trump or HIllary), I will guarantee that Trump would win that. He's more engaging in 1/1 interviews...and he actually gives 1/1 interviews as well as multiple press conferences. He suffers from overexposure as he loves the attention, while Hillary does just the opposite and runs away from 1/1 interviews and press conferences for fears of either screwing up or being pressed on her scandals and history of lying.

 

The bolded for some reason made me think of this song.

 

[HuskerNation1]

 

 

 

 

 

 

bnilhome, what the hell man?

 

I'm fine with you no liking Clinton. I don't like her. I'm fine with you listing reasons not to like her and complaining about her.

 

But for f#*k's sake, any woman who has people working for her or is in the spotlight has been called a bitch to her face or behind her back. That's the way things work regardless of the fact that things have gotten a lot better for women. It means sh#t all that people have done it to her.

 

Sorry, I should have provided more context. There have been multiple reports by members of the secret service that being assigned to Hillary was the worst assignment you could get, that she talked down and cussed out many officers, and hence none of them enjoyed working around her. Ronald Kessler is one of those agents that served in Bill's tenure and had regular interactions with both Clintons. I agree that women have had to break through glass ceilings, but the point is that there seem to be more stories about Hillary's diva-like behavior than other Democratic or GOP female politicians. As for name calling, I think I've seen a fair share of Trump-bashing on here including some calling him an a*s, douche, etc. My point was not to focus on the names used but rather how the candidates are perceived by those they work with or around.

 

As for the "who let the dogs out" video, that is just plain funny, no matter your political beliefs. She actually barked like a dog at one of her campaign stops.

 

http://www.thedailysheeple.com/what-the-secret-service-has-to-say-about-hillary-clinton_102015

 

http://nypost.com/2015/10/02/secret-service-agents-hillary-is-a-nightmare-to-work-with/

 

http://www.thepoliticalinsider.com/secret-service-agent-says-good/

 

http://thehill.com/blogs/in-the-know/in-the-know/282330-ex-secret-service-agent-clinton-occasionally-violent

 

And the bigger point is - perception of women in leadership or a powerful position no matter the source (body guards, co workers, employees etc) is skewed to the negative for the same traits that are perceived as strong and positive for men.

 

 

Well I think that must be your point which is fine. I have no issues with strong female executives and my top choice for the GOP nominee was Carly Fiorina followed by Rubio. And I think plenty of men can be labled "pricks" if they treat their employees or those around them with disdain and like they are trash, which gets to my point that many who have worked around, for, or with Trump tend to say more positive things about him as a person relative to his public persona, while you tend to see more who have worked around or for Hillary speak out against her.

 

 

This is entirely unique to the person. You consume different media from different places than everyone else.

 

If you can't find enough negative accounts of Trump, I could probably dig some up for you.

 

 

Oh there is plenty of negative about Trump, as has been expressed on these boards over and over. He's an egomaniac that makes way too many outlandish statements in order to garner attention. I'm not a huge fan of his public persona. Despite that fact, when the question would be posed to voters on which candidate they would prefer to have a drink with (Trump or HIllary), I will guarantee that Trump would win that. He's more engaging in 1/1 interviews...and he actually gives 1/1 interviews as well as multiple press conferences. He suffers from overexposure as he loves the attention, while Hillary does just the opposite and runs away from 1/1 interviews and press conferences for fears of either screwing up or being pressed on her scandals and history of lying.

 

The bolded for some reason made me think of this song.

 

 

 

Haha...nice. One band/song I could see Trump playing at his convention is Twisted Sister's "We're not going to take it, anymore"

 

[huKSer]

 

The caucus process alienates and prevents more people from being involved in the process than any voter idea proposal that has been considered.

Caucuses also inhibit my right to a secret vote. If I wanted my vote to be public, I'd tell people. If I want to keep my vote private, I should have that option. Currently there are no ramifications in America for voting one way or the other, but it's not hard to envision a future where retaliation comes into play. Caucuses are anti-democratic.

 

Kansas switched to caucus. First time it was traditional. Now the "caucus" is like a regular vote but

1) Since its a caucus the party and not the state foots the bill

2) To save money they combine about 10 precincts to one polling place.

3) The line to vote is 10 times longer

 

[Danny Bateman]

 

 

The caucus process alienates and prevents more people from being involved in the process than any voter idea proposal that has been considered.

Caucuses also inhibit my right to a secret vote. If I wanted my vote to be public, I'd tell people. If I want to keep my vote private, I should have that option. Currently there are no ramifications in America for voting one way or the other, but it's not hard to envision a future where retaliation comes into play. Caucuses are anti-democratic.

 

Kansas switched to caucus. First time it was traditional. Now the "caucus" is like a regular vote but

1) Since its a caucus the party and not the state foots the bill

2) To save money they combine about 10 precincts to one polling place.

3) The line to vote is 10 times longer

 

 

Small government at its finest.

[Danny Bateman]

[BigRedBuster]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

bnilhome, what the hell man?

 

I'm fine with you no liking Clinton. I don't like her. I'm fine with you listing reasons not to like her and complaining about her.

 

But for f#*k's sake, any woman who has people working for her or is in the spotlight has been called a bitch to her face or behind her back. That's the way things work regardless of the fact that things have gotten a lot better for women. It means sh#t all that people have done it to her.

 

Sorry, I should have provided more context. There have been multiple reports by members of the secret service that being assigned to Hillary was the worst assignment you could get, that she talked down and cussed out many officers, and hence none of them enjoyed working around her. Ronald Kessler is one of those agents that served in Bill's tenure and had regular interactions with both Clintons. I agree that women have had to break through glass ceilings, but the point is that there seem to be more stories about Hillary's diva-like behavior than other Democratic or GOP female politicians. As for name calling, I think I've seen a fair share of Trump-bashing on here including some calling him an a*s, douche, etc. My point was not to focus on the names used but rather how the candidates are perceived by those they work with or around.

 

As for the "who let the dogs out" video, that is just plain funny, no matter your political beliefs. She actually barked like a dog at one of her campaign stops.

 

http://www.thedailysheeple.com/what-the-secret-service-has-to-say-about-hillary-clinton_102015

 

http://nypost.com/2015/10/02/secret-service-agents-hillary-is-a-nightmare-to-work-with/

 

http://www.thepoliticalinsider.com/secret-service-agent-says-good/

 

http://thehill.com/blogs/in-the-know/in-the-know/282330-ex-secret-service-agent-clinton-occasionally-violent

 

And the bigger point is - perception of women in leadership or a powerful position no matter the source (body guards, co workers, employees etc) is skewed to the negative for the same traits that are perceived as strong and positive for men.

 

 

Well I think that must be your point which is fine. I have no issues with strong female executives and my top choice for the GOP nominee was Carly Fiorina followed by Rubio. And I think plenty of men can be labled "pricks" if they treat their employees or those around them with disdain and like they are trash, which gets to my point that many who have worked around, for, or with Trump tend to say more positive things about him as a person relative to his public persona, while you tend to see more who have worked around or for Hillary speak out against her.

 

 

This is entirely unique to the person. You consume different media from different places than everyone else.

 

If you can't find enough negative accounts of Trump, I could probably dig some up for you.

 

 

Oh there is plenty of negative about Trump, as has been expressed on these boards over and over. He's an egomaniac that makes way too many outlandish statements in order to garner attention. I'm not a huge fan of his public persona. Despite that fact, when the question would be posed to voters on which candidate they would prefer to have a drink with (Trump or HIllary), I will guarantee that Trump would win that. He's more engaging in 1/1 interviews...and he actually gives 1/1 interviews as well as multiple press conferences. He suffers from overexposure as he loves the attention, while Hillary does just the opposite and runs away from 1/1 interviews and press conferences for fears of either screwing up or being pressed on her scandals and history of lying.

 

The bolded for some reason made me think of this song.

 

 

 

Haha...nice. One band/song I could see Trump playing at his convention is Twisted Sister's "We're not going to take it, anymore"

 

 

Yeah....we aren't going to take dishonesty, corruption and rigged outcomes anymore.......

 

.....by electing the most dishonest person in the campaign.

[BigRedBuster]

LOL.....He is going to defend it by creating whole new parts to the constitution.