Civil war if Hillary wins?

[kallend 1,632]

quade

***There isn't even a Constitutional requirement to hold a primary at all. It can all be done in smoke filled rooms.

Right, again, so, if we want to do something like AlanS is suggesting, it would require it because that WOULD be telling them what to do.

I don't think people liked the idea of the smoke filled rooms and I don't see us going back to the smoke filled rooms of the past. I think they liked the idea of the voters having a say, which meant the primaries got attached to state elections, which meant shenanigans ensued.

Want to change that? Guess what ends up needing to be done.

If my local country club can elect its officers on any date of its choosing, I fail to see why a political party doesn't have the same right? First Amendment and all that.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[kallend 1,632]

quade

***True, but the majority of those also have proportional representation or run-off systems rather than winner-take-all systems.

Yep. And guess what it would take to make that happen across the US?

THAT would require an amendment, but no amendment is required for a party to use any method of its choice to select its candidate.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[quade 3]

billvon

>Want to change that? Guess what ends up needing to be done.

Simple. Refuse to vote for anyone chosen in smoke filled rooms. That is both necessary and sufficient to ensure that it does not happen.

Wouldn't happen in a million years.

Imagine for a second that either Clinton or Trump had been picked in a smoke filled room.

Do you really believe the party faithful (not even extremists) would refuse to vote simply because their guy was picked in a smoke filled room? Hell, I'd wager a guess that would make them even more acceptable to some people on the fence.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[kallend 1,632]

billvon

>Want to change that? Guess what ends up needing to be done.

Simple. Refuse to vote for anyone chosen in smoke filled rooms. That is both necessary and sufficient to ensure that it does not happen.

True.

But IMO the smoke filled rooms produced candidates that were no worse, and in most cases better, than the current system has produced (at least for the GOP). The current system is too easily hijacked by the wackos, as we see in the selection of Trump.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[billvon 2,402]

>Do you really believe the party faithful (not even extremists) would refuse to vote
>simply because their guy was picked in a smoke filled room? Hell, I'd wager a
>guess that would make them even more acceptable to some people on the fence.

Nope, not today.

But someday let's say they have an election with two candidates - one ten times worse than Clinton and one ten times worse than Trump. Might not happen then either. But if that happens again, and the candidates keep going downhill, eventually people will refuse to vote for people picked in smoke filled rooms. And that will solve the problem.

Until then? Not much you can do in a democracy when the people want someone (or some process) that is not to your liking.

[JerryBaumchen 1,049]

Hi John,

Quote

The current system is too easily hijacked by the wackos, as we see in the selection of Trump.

With the current system, conceptually I think it is OK. The people vote in the primaries ( or do not vote ) and, through elimination, a candidate gets selected.

What the R's need to do ( IMO ) is figure out how to get a candidate that is acceptable to the majority of us. This election cycle shows us ( IMO again ) that they need some fine tuning; or gross tuning, take your pick.

Jerry Baumchen

PS) And the R's need ( IMO again ):

1. To be more inclusive of other than old white men ( I am one )
2. To quit the battle of Rove v Wade; that horse has left the barn
3. To quit being the party of meanness

[rushmc 18]

normiss

The thought of the popular vote electing a president is terrifying.
Most Americans aren't smart enough to begin to understand the implications.
"Reality TV", and it's popularity is all the evidence you need....but add all the false narratives the internets provide and well...terrifying to even consider it.

Exactly. Look at how many support Hillary

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[JerryBaumchen 1,049]

Hi rush,

Quote

Most Americans aren't smart enough

I think that those of us who do support her really are 'smart enough.' YMMV

Jerry Baumchen

[rushmc 18]

JerryBaumchen

Hi rush,

Quote

Most Americans aren't smart enough

I think that those of us who do support her really are 'smart enough.' YMMV

Jerry Baumchen

Actually, I think that just proves you can't think.

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[JerryBaumchen 1,049]

Hi rush,

Quote

that just proves you can't think.

It would seem as though a lot of professors might disagree with you: BS in Mech. Engr., Class of '71.

How about you?

Jerry Baumchen

[rushmc 18]

JerryBaumchen

Hi rush,

Quote

that just proves you can't think.

It would seem as though a lot of professors might disagree with you: BS in Mech. Engr., Class of '71.

How about you?

Jerry Baumchen

Well Jerry,

That only proves that you can be trained. Then according to Hillary's emails, all

Quote

she needs to do is train those to support her. I guess you proved that point.

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[normiss 622]

Trump U?


Good call Jerry.

[yoink 321]

rushmc

***Hi rush,

Quote

that just proves you can't think.

It would seem as though a lot of professors might disagree with you: BS in Mech. Engr., Class of '71.

How about you?

Jerry Baumchen

Well Jerry,

That only proves that you can be trained. Then according to Hillary's emails, all

Quote

she needs to do is train those to support her. I guess you proved that point.

Yup. I'll take highly educated (proven to be able to make decisions based on all available research) over your particular brand of lunacy, any day. You do realize that's what education does, right? It teaches you HOW to research before making conclusions... it's not just an innate skill that people have - As you repeatedly prove.

By the way, I think it's hilariously inconsistent that you purport to be anti-Trump AND anti-Clinton, but the vast majority of your posts prove otherwise.

[wmw999 2,123]

Basing an opinion like "you can't think" on a single data point (effectively "you disagree with me") is lazy. And, frankly, the terminology is offensive if one takes it as written (i.e. that "you can't think" means you think they're stupid, or incapable of thinking across the board).

People are themselves, not extensions of you. They might have different backgrounds, needs, likes, and beliefs, and still be good people and loyal Americans.

Wendy P.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[rushmc 18]

wmw999

Basing an opinion like "you can't think" on a single data point (effectively "you disagree with me") is lazy. And, frankly, the terminology is offensive if one takes it as written (i.e. that "you can't think" means you think they're stupid, or incapable of thinking across the board).

People are themselves, not extensions of you. They might have different backgrounds, needs, likes, and beliefs, and still be good people and loyal Americans.

Wendy P.

Welcome to world many here create for me. Funny how some dont like this thrown back at them isn't it!

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[DJL 232]

Quote

Disagree about primaries. A party can choose its candidate(s) any way it chooses. The government (state or federal) should not be telling political parties how to conduct their affairs. A candidate is not a Constitutionally defined office.

There isn't even a Constitutional requirement to hold a primary at all. It can all be done in smoke filled rooms.

I didn't mean that to sound so absolute. I think the parties are doing a poor job of selecting candidates and the result is that we're not getting the best people into the job. The entire process should have third group federal over-site that follows a Primary/General format that results in two candidates in the General Election.

Yes, that's dreaming but we should take lessons from how businesses, schools, etc hire their executives.

"I encourage all awesome dangerous behavior." - Jeffro Fincher

[yoink 321]

rushmc

***Basing an opinion like "you can't think" on a single data point (effectively "you disagree with me") is lazy. And, frankly, the terminology is offensive if one takes it as written (i.e. that "you can't think" means you think they're stupid, or incapable of thinking across the board).

People are themselves, not extensions of you. They might have different backgrounds, needs, likes, and beliefs, and still be good people and loyal Americans.

Wendy P.

Welcome to world many here create for me. Funny how some dont like this thrown back at them isn't it!

Of course it's not your fault... How could it be? It's everyone else who is wrong, stupid and forces you to say the things you do and think the way you think. You're the one blinding beacon of rational insight in an otherwise dark and unthinking forum.

There's a guy in the news a lot at the moment who shares this same psychological trait - narcissistic personality disorder. You might have heard of him.

[mr2mk1g 10]

Rather makes you wonder, if the Canucks can do it, why the Yanks can't, doesn't it?

In Canada:
The Minister of Health is a Doctor;
The Minister of Families, Children and Social Development is a poverty economist;
The Minister of Science is a Nobel Prize winning scientist;
The Minister of Status of Women is a woman;
The Minister of Veterans Affairs is a quadriplegic after being shot;
The Minister of Employment is a professional geologist;
The Minister of Sport and Persons with Disabilities is a paralympian athlete;
The Minister of Democratic Institutions is a Muslim refugee;
The Minister of Defence is an Afghan combat vet;
The Minister of Transport is an astronaut.

[DJL 232]

mr2mk1g

Rather makes you wonder, if the Canucks can do it, why the Yanks can't, doesn't it?

In Canada:
The Minister of Health is a Doctor;
The Minister of Families, Children and Social Development is a poverty economist;
The Minister of Science is a Nobel Prize winning scientist;
The Minister of Status of Women is a woman;
The Minister of Veterans Affairs is a quadriplegic after being shot;
The Minister of Employment is a professional geologist;
The Minister of Sport and Persons with Disabilities is a paralympian athlete;
The Minister of Democratic Institutions is a Muslim refugee;
The Minister of Defence is an Afghan combat vet;
The Minister of Transport is an astronaut.

And the Prime Minister of Canada is a just a super nice guy because...Canada.

"I encourage all awesome dangerous behavior." - Jeffro Fincher

[Bolas 5]

billvon

>Do you really believe the party faithful (not even extremists) would refuse to vote
>simply because their guy was picked in a smoke filled room? Hell, I'd wager a
>guess that would make them even more acceptable to some people on the fence.

Nope, not today.

But someday let's say they have an election with two candidates - one ten times worse than Clinton and one ten times worse than Trump. Might not happen then either. But if that happens again, and the candidates keep going downhill, eventually people will refuse to vote for people picked in smoke filled rooms. And that will solve the problem.

Until then? Not much you can do in a democracy when the people want someone (or some process) that is not to your liking.

Let the parties choose whomever they want however they want for nominations but taxpayers shouldn't be paying for it.

Stupidity if left untreated is self-correcting
If ya can't be good, look good, if that fails, make 'em laugh.

[billvon 2,402]

>Let the parties choose whomever they want however they want for nominations
>but taxpayers shouldn't be paying for it.

Taxpayers should and will pay for it - but it should be voluntary. Either via direct contributions, or via the mechanism on existing tax forms (i.e. "check this box if you want to contribute $X to the presidential election campaign fund.")

[rushmc 18]

yoink

******Basing an opinion like "you can't think" on a single data point (effectively "you disagree with me") is lazy. And, frankly, the terminology is offensive if one takes it as written (i.e. that "you can't think" means you think they're stupid, or incapable of thinking across the board).

People are themselves, not extensions of you. They might have different backgrounds, needs, likes, and beliefs, and still be good people and loyal Americans.

Wendy P.

Welcome to world many here create for me. Funny how some dont like this thrown back at them isn't it!

Of course it's not your fault... How could it be? It's everyone else who is wrong, stupid and forces you to say the things you do and think the way you think. You're the one blinding beacon of rational insight in an otherwise dark and unthinking forum.

There's a guy in the news a lot at the moment who shares this same psychological trait - narcissistic personality disorder. You might have heard of him.

Woosh

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[DJL 232]

rushmc

*********Basing an opinion like "you can't think" on a single data point (effectively "you disagree with me") is lazy. And, frankly, the terminology is offensive if one takes it as written (i.e. that "you can't think" means you think they're stupid, or incapable of thinking across the board).

People are themselves, not extensions of you. They might have different backgrounds, needs, likes, and beliefs, and still be good people and loyal Americans.

Wendy P.

Welcome to world many here create for me. Funny how some dont like this thrown back at them isn't it!

Of course it's not your fault... How could it be? It's everyone else who is wrong, stupid and forces you to say the things you do and think the way you think. You're the one blinding beacon of rational insight in an otherwise dark and unthinking forum.

There's a guy in the news a lot at the moment who shares this same psychological trait - narcissistic personality disorder. You might have heard of him.

Woosh

He's talking about Donald Trump in case that was the sound of it going over your head. :)

"I encourage all awesome dangerous behavior." - Jeffro Fincher

[TriGirl 268]

DJL

It's unfortunate that the political parties even have any control over how candidates are selected. The system is broken and the only people who can change it are the ones who utilize its deficiencies for their own candidate.

When the political parties are choosing who gets to use their money for advertising and travel, of course the parties should have control over how candidates are selected. In recent years, the parties have chosen to give more control to the voters who are registered in those parties, which has led to the current situation (party nominee who does not represent the party, and who does not have the support of the majority of the other party representatives in elected office).

Donald Trump has mostly spent his own money for his campaign, so really he could have run as a "third party," naming himself the nominee for the Yam party. With his antics he would have gotten the same free media coverage, and likely would still be on the ballot with a sizeable percentage of support. The only two things that would be different today: 1) he would be competing against a qualified Republican as well as a qualified Democrat, and 2) those in the country blindly supporting the current "Republican candidate" would still be blindly supporting the Republican candidate, so Trump would likely not have as high a showing in the polls.

As I've said elsewhere, the parties themselves could stop future derailments if they adopted rules that said anyone running as a candidate for their party must show how their proposed policies are in line with that party's platform. Some wiggle room on individual issues here and there could be allowed, but a candidate (or elected official) who strays too far would be subject to revocation of the party brand.

See the upside, and always wear your parachute! -- Christopher Titus

Shut Up & Jump!

[quade 3]

In addition to the above, make participants of the debates swear under oath they're telling the truth. Make them subject to perjury laws. ;)

Shortest. Most careful. Debates. Ever.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver