2016 Election Thread Part Deux

#1,801
#1,801
Love the comments from the Fox News article on this situation:

Good luck GOP. Your convention is doomed to alienate a good portion of your voters whatever direction you take.

And then there's the other side. Blah.

This November, I might just sprawl on my sofa in my sweats, eat bonbons, and watch the meteoric catastrophe that is the election strike our nation.
Click to expand...
 
#1,802
#1,802
Grand Vol said:
People need to knock this crap straight the eff off.

It's fairly inevitable Trump gets the nomination. And this pure BS of "floating" names at the last minute is doing nothing to help inspire a party that should have the easiest election since 1980.
Click to expand...

I'm all in for either a complete meltdown of the GOP with a new party filling the void or with a phoenix-like reform; the status quo is unacceptable. Fair play says the Trump, if he can avoid a complete meltdown, would get the primary votes and deserves to be the candidate; but with caucuses, un-pledged delegates and whatever other chicanery exists, primaries are really something different from the democratic process they appear to be.

If the GOP nominates Trump, and he goes down in flames as so many polls say, then so be it, the GOP absolutely deserves another flop, and for the next four years the country will be the poorer for the experience. That's especially so if the country has forgotten what happened and there is no GOP reform prior to the next election, and this time around looks remarkably like post 2012 amnesia.

On the other hand, if the GOP did screw over Trump for another outsider with some real promise - not a another insider retread, then, just perhaps, the GOP could be finding the way to resurrection but without dragging us all through Democratic control for the next four or eight years. Which is the least odious probably depends largely on personal preference.

As far as Trump goes; to me he works on some sort of multiple pole spark gap concept - when the charge gets great enough, the spark jumps to whatever boiled to the top of that particular pole. Not exactly a warm fuzzy feeling, but probably not really worse than any other politician.

Whatever the case the GOP has to quit being Democrat-lite with a few ideological differences, but overall just as corrupt.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#1,803
#1,803
Grand Vol said:
Whomever is behind the scenes continuing to drop these random names (Paul Ryan is another that has straight up said NO! but continues to get tossed around) needs to get a sock in their mouth.

I'm not a Trump fan at all. But he's winning right now and that's all there is to it.
Click to expand...

More important to nominate a crackpot bully than maneuver someone decent just to prevent the blow up of the party apparatus ? Even if it deserves to be ?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#1,805
#1,805
lawgator1 said:
More important to nominate a crackpot bully than maneuver someone decent just to prevent the blow up of the party apparatus ? Even if it deserves to be ?
Click to expand...

The election is probably already lost regardless, unless they can pull a Kasich out of their hat. The question is whether Trump getting blasted will eradicate his ideology from the base. I was sort of leaning toward yes, but only because the cultish obsession with the man itself generally appears to be vastly more important than his ideas. But it's hard to say. I can see why the GOP elites don't want his ideas in their platform.

The GOP shenanigans that occurred in Colorado and Cruz's delegate maneuvering are evidence that Trump has no idea what it is to build an effective campaign infrastructure. And that is a personal failing on his part. He says he'll attract the "best people" to work for and advise him but didn't know what a ground game was. Seriously?

As a private entity, the party is well within its right to have some stake in the selection of the candidate that represents them. If the nomination is "stolen" from him, it just means Trump wasn't able to make the right deals.
 
#1,809
#1,809
red butler said:
Well comrades, it officially looks like the party bosses are going to appoint the two candidates we will be allowed to choose from.
Click to expand...

a55ff811e903e66632df724d395ef4f86538c0c00fa964961c811bf71c18eaa4.jpg
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#1,811
#1,811
Here's a pic of the Colorado delegate voting ballot from this past weekend. Delegate #379 is a Trump supporter. Delegate #378 is a Cruz supporter. LOL the GOP cracks me up...these are the same guys that push for voter ID to prevent "voter fraud" lol

cruz-cheating.jpg
 
#1,812
#1,812
RobsPics said:
Did anyone really think the GOP was going to let the people decide who will be their nominee? LOLZ
Click to expand...

I was referring to both parties numbnuts. In case you haven't noticed, Bernie has been sweeping all the states over the last month - yet still doesn't have a prayer.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#1,814
#1,814
UTCVol said:
The election is probably already lost regardless, unless they can pull a Kasich out of their hat. The question is whether Trump getting blasted will eradicate his ideology from the base. I was sort of leaning toward yes, but only because the cultish obsession with the man itself generally appears to be vastly more important than his ideas. But it's hard to say. I can see why the GOP elites don't want his ideas in their platform.

The GOP shenanigans that occurred in Colorado and Cruz's delegate maneuvering are evidence that Trump has no idea what it is to build an effective campaign infrastructure. And that is a personal failing on his part. He says he'll attract the "best people" to work for and advise him but didn't know what a ground game was. Seriously?

As a private entity, the party is well within its right to have some stake in the selection of the candidate that represents them. If the nomination is "stolen" from him, it just means Trump wasn't able to make the right deals.
Click to expand...

I think you are pretty much on the money - politics is pretty crappy business. That Trump like most of us thought the process was more transparent and more fair doesn't exactly condemn him in one sense - he perhaps expects/wants better like many or maybe most of us.

On the other hand, you'd expect him to better understand the game and play it better. Apparently even the shady real estate/investment world didn't prepare him for the level of deceit in the political world. I guess the real GOP felt more comfortable with a loser (Romney) than with a loose cannon if its normal retreads couldn't stir up the people who just think they are the GOP. Those constituents who think they make up the Republican party will probably find out over the next few months that they are just as disenfranchised in the selection process as they are as constituents. The party represents the will of the voters if and only if it is the will of the party, but the voters don't get to direct the party line. Which is what this little revolution is all about in the first place - who the party represents and the voters have discovered that it's not us and it's not going to be us. And that's a problem because without us the party doesn't go anywhere; it can't elect itself, and there are just so many people who can peddle influence, and each of those people has one vote just like the rest of us.

But the thought of a president who isn't a politician and who doesn't want to play the normal political game has a lot of appeal. We've had presidents who dredged up political leftovers of one kind or another for positions in the administration. We've had presidents who cleaned out universities (generally preferring Ivy Leagues) for positions in the administration. In the end none of them have been much good - long on theory and short on experience or long on political dealings and short on ethics - both short on plain old common sense, and most in over their heads. Just maybe someone from a more practical background would see applicable experience as a novel idea, and that it need not come encumbered with academic pipe dreams or political debt.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#1,815
#1,815
red butler said:
I was referring to both parties numbnuts. In case you haven't noticed, Bernie has been sweeping all the states over the last month - yet still doesn't have a prayer.
Click to expand...

Because he's not winning states with high populations. TX, FL, OH, IL, NY, CA - all have gone or will go for Hillary. He also completely ignored the South. Thus, Cankles was able to pad her lead.
 
#1,817
#1,817
AM64 said:
I think you are pretty much on the money - politics is pretty crappy business. That Trump like most of us thought the process was more transparent and more fair doesn't exactly condemn him in one sense - he perhaps expects/wants better like many or maybe most of us.

On the other hand, you'd expect him to better understand the game and play it better. Apparently even the shady real estate/investment world didn't prepare him for the level of deceit in the political world. I guess the real GOP felt more comfortable with a loser (Romney) than with a loose cannon if its normal retreads couldn't stir up the people who just think they are the GOP. Those constituents who think they make up the Republican party will probably find out over the next few months that they are just as disenfranchised in the selection process as they are as constituents. The party represents the will of the voters if and only if it is the will of the party, but the voters don't get to direct the party line. Which is what this little revolution is all about in the first place - who the party represents and the voters have discovered that it's not us and it's not going to be us. And that's a problem because without us the party doesn't go anywhere; it can't elect itself, and there are just so many people who can peddle influence, and each of those people has one vote just like the rest of us.

But the thought of a president who isn't a politician and who doesn't want to play the normal political game has a lot of appeal. We've had presidents who dredged up political leftovers of one kind or another for positions in the administration. We've had presidents who cleaned out universities (generally preferring Ivy Leagues) for positions in the administration. In the end none of them have been much good - long on theory and short on experience or long on political dealings and short on ethics - both short on plain old common sense, and most in over their heads. Just maybe someone from a more practical background would see applicable experience as a novel idea, and that it need not come encumbered with academic pipe dreams or political debt.
Click to expand...

You have to play the hand you're dealt. It's a large reason why Clinton lost to Obama in 2008 - he knew how to play the micro-game while she lagged behind. Ron Paul stole a ton of delegates he didn't win through the actual vote a few years ago just because his supporters were more enthusiastic and knowledgeable on the weird quirks of the process. Something similar is happening here, although I will admit that the party elites probably have a bit more vested interest in it this time around just because Trump represents such a dramatic paradigm shift. At some point he has to stop being the proverbial babe wandering in the uncharted political wilds and learn how the game is played (including establishing concrete policy positions).

My personal fear is that Trump is too divisive within his own party to be a viable general election candidate, but obviously he has curried enough support that wresting the nomination away through cloak and dagger would have irreversible consequences. We're at a watershed moment, and I'm not entirely sure which path will result in the least permanent damage to the party. At some point it has to be a question of viability in an America where the demographics are changing rapidly, and I think the way Trump has been portrayed in the media has done a lot of damage on that front. I'm not at all opposed to the notion of an outsider, but it can't be my sole determining factor even if the folks in Washington are by and large a giant collection of spineless cowards.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 people
#1,820
#1,820
UTCVol said:
You have to play the hand you're dealt. It's a large reason why Clinton lost to Obama in 2008 - he knew how to play the micro-game while she lagged behind. Ron Paul stole a ton of delegates he didn't win through the actual vote a few years ago just because his supporters were more enthusiastic and knowledgeable on the weird quirks of the process. Something similar is happening here, although I will admit that the party elites probably have a bit more vested interest in it this time around just because Trump represents such a dramatic paradigm shift. At some point he has to stop being the proverbial babe wandering in the uncharted political wilds and learn how the game is played (including establishing concrete policy positions).

My personal fear is that Trump is too divisive within his own party to be a viable general election candidate, but obviously he has curried enough support that wresting the nomination away through cloak and dagger would have irreversible consequences. We're at a watershed moment, and I'm not entirely sure which path will result in the least permanent damage to the party. At some point it has to be a question of viability in an America where the demographics are changing rapidly, and I think the way Trump has been portrayed in the media has done a lot of damage on that front. I'm not at all opposed to the notion of an outsider, but it can't be my sole determining factor even if the folks in Washington are by and large a giant collection of spineless cowards.
Click to expand...

Something I keep coming back to is party bases. Democrats and Republicans alike have some core of voters who simply identify with the brand (like Ford or Chevrolet people). It's hard to say what could move them, but it has happened; yellow dog Democrats did become Republicans all across the South.

Democrats have pandered to and basically bought a large low or no income bloc. Liberalism (which the Democrats now claim) attracts a huge chunk of young voters and still others who see capitalism as unfair. Those alone count for a big base without even needing to court other blocs - religion, LGBT, by ethnicity,etc.

The Republicans have tried to compensate by cobbling together blocs like conservative Christians, but when you get right down to it the Republicans have almost nothing to directly offer most of us. It's harder to visualize lower taxation vs a check and benefits for nothing. One is more dollars per check - probably no great percentage, and the other is free stuff right there in your hand.

The only way that middle income people really benefit is in job availability, lower taxation, and a fair marketplace for goods and services; and the Republicans have been looking the other way. Example: the banking/investment meltdown(s) because Congress and regulators pandered to the banks and to real estate - they didn't protect the constituents. They've continually allowed mergers in many fields which has prevented the opportunity for better pricing. The healthcare world is a prime mess - Republicans (and Democrats) pandered to drug, medical supply, insurance companies and to the trial lawyers. Rather than address any of those (even Medicare/Medicaid drug price negotiation) they allowed the Obamacare abortion to pass - might have had the votes if they'd worked for their constituents over the years.

What the Republicans have to face is they just don't have a lot to offer unless they make some major strategy changes. Illegal immigration probably gains more votes than it alienates. The conservative Christian thing may very well be a loser - just too many young liberals - same with welfare reform. That probably doesn't leave a lot but issues that most voters can like - clean the place up - campaign finance reform, lobbying reform, anti-monopolistic policy, banking/investment reform, healthcare cost reform, foreign trade/jobs (protectionism - we'll take care of our own, thank you), cleaning up the legislative process (like no hidden agendas - one item per bill), fiscal responsibility. That means parting ties with the very select and very wealthy, and I doubt that either party is willing to go there. Beyond that and the inherent un-likability of Hillary and Bernie's "socialism", Republicans pretty much have nothing.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 people
#1,822
#1,822
NJ Judge just ruled on Cruz citizenship: "a child, born of a citizen-father, citizen-mother, or both, is indeed a natural born Citizen”
 
#1,824
#1,824
AM64 said:
That probably doesn't leave a lot but issues that most voters can like - clean the place up - campaign finance reform, lobbying reform, anti-monopolistic policy, banking/investment reform, healthcare cost reform, foreign trade/jobs (protectionism - we'll take care of our own, thank you), cleaning up the legislative process (like no hidden agendas - one item per bill), fiscal responsibility. That means parting ties with the very select and very wealthy, and I doubt that either party is willing to go there.
Click to expand...


Conservatives you heard it!! Time to hop on the Bernie Sanders train!!! :dance2::dance2::dance2:
 
#1,825
#1,825
carlos86 said:
NJ Judge just ruled on Cruz citizenship: "a child, born of a citizen-father, citizen-mother, or both, is indeed a natural born Citizen”
Click to expand...


Where is Judicial Watch to fight this ruling that renders Obama legitimate???

Outrageous!!! They need to send out a mailer to raise $ fight this. I suggest a Select Committee. Gowdy can chair it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top