Anyone changing their mind about Trump?

[kayfabe]

As long has he builds a wall and brings back jobs, I'm for him.

[Wayne]

NOPE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[FunkyZero]

He's a politician. All politicians are corrupt scumbags. Therefore, Cruz is a corrupt scumbag. Deal with it.

That's kinda how I've always viewed it. There is only one candidate who could ever run that I would like 100%... but I already have a job and I'm too damned lazy to get laughed out of town.

[txradioguy]

That's kinda how I've always viewed it. There is only one candidate who could ever run that I would like 100%... but I already have a job and I'm too damned lazy to get laughed out of town.

So the Founding Fathers were "corrupt scumbags"?  Reagan was a "corrupt scumbag"?

You realize that if you yourself became a politician you'd become a "corrupt scumbag" as well right?

[Eupher]

So the Founding Fathers were "corrupt scumbags"?  Reagan was a "corrupt scumbag"?

You realize that if you yourself became a politician you'd become a "corrupt scumbag" as well right?

I'd suggest that the system, in the late 18th century, hadn't deteriorated quite to the point that it is now. Lawyers, lobbyists, and professional bureaucrats have all tainted the term "politician". This is what we have after much of the last 240 years of self-serving pricks who have made it a point to serve themselves.

I note with some satisfaction that most of the FF back in the day looked on serving as a politician certainly a civic duty, but they made no bones about returning to private life as a step "up".

Reagan's genius lay in his skill in communicating. Even he had his dubious moments -- certainly not to the level of the scumbags we see today on both sides of the aisle -- but last time I looked, he didn't walk on water. I think the Iran/Contra affair took the wind out of his sails -- that, and his developing Alzheimer's.

[txradioguy]

I'd suggest that the system, in the late 18th century, hadn't deteriorated quite to the point that it is now. Lawyers, lobbyists, and professional bureaucrats have all tainted the term "politician". This is what we have after much of the last 240 years of self-serving pricks who have made it a point to serve themselves.

I note with some satisfaction that most of the FF back in the day looked on serving as a politician certainly a civic duty, but they made no bones about returning to private life as a step "up".

Reagan's genius lay in his skill in communicating. Even he had his dubious moments -- certainly not to the level of the scumbags we see today on both sides of the aisle -- but last time I looked, he didn't walk on water. I think the Iran/Contra affair took the wind out of his sails -- that, and his developing Alzheimer's.

I get all that and I agree.  But that whole "all politicians are scumbags" line is just as big a steaming pile of bullshit as when the BLM thugs say "all cops are racist" or the anti-war Libtard/DU types say "all soldiers are baby killers".

All three of those statements reveal the people shouting them to be intellectually lazy and morally dishonest.  It doesn't take any kind of brain power or thought at all to blurt out meaningless un-original crap like that no matter who says it.

[USA4ME]

I would say that, for the most part, most modern politicians can't be trusted. Way too many say whatever it takes to get elected leading the voters to believe one thing about them, only to discover they will all too easily compromise with ideas the voters don't want them to even consider discussing. In that respect, they could be viewed as scumbags.

--------------

But more back to the topic, this whole matter is coming down to how it's perceived by the public, and that perception is that the process is unfair. Now one could argue the validity of that, but as it stands people feel cheated.

I think there's things that could be done to alleviate that problem, but that's not to say changing won't create other problems. But here it is:

1) No caucuses, only primaries.
2) No open primaries
3) Delegates assigned to candidates in proportion to popular vote (no "winner take all")

For the most part, that eliminates the "Were aren't being represented and the insiders are deciding our candidate for us" issue.

A problem is what to do with delegates assigned to a candidate that eventually drops out. I guess they could be free to vote however, or delegates could be re-appropriated to those candidates remaining based upon how they did in that State's election, or any number of other ideas. But, like I said, these all have their own problems.

See, here's the issue.

Let's say you got 3 candidates (A, B & C) and here's how the votes falls.

A= 48%
B= 26%
C= 26%

In a straight up majority winner, "A" should be the nominee. But they don't have enough (50%+, let's say) to get them over the top.

But, "B" people will support "C" but not "A", and "C" people will support "B" and not "A", and "A" people won't support either "B" or "C".

Now you're in a pickle. And I know it's not a perfect parallel, and the percentages aren't meant to be a direct reflection, but it's sort of where we are now. Naturally the "A" people feel cheated (they were the majority of those who were running, so I understand that sentiment), but they still fell short.

The more you examine it, this really is a no win. It's not often when this happens, but it does expose a lot of underlying mischief and backroom dealing that makes the average citizen sick to their stomach. And that's never going to translate to a positive momentum.

.

[Big Dog]

I would say that, for the most part, most modern politicians can't be trusted. Way too many say whatever it takes to get elected leading the voters to believe one thing about them, only to discover they will all too easily compromise with ideas the voters don't want them to even consider discussing. In that respect, they could be viewed as scumbags.

--------------

But more back to the topic, this whole matter is coming down to how it's perceived by the public, and that perception is that the process is unfair. Now one could argue the validity of that, but as it stands people feel cheated.

I think there's things that could be done to alleviate that problem, but that's not to say changing won't create other problems. But here it is:

1) No caucuses, only primaries.
2) No open primaries
3) Delegates assigned to candidates in proportion to popular vote (no "winner take all")

For the most part, that eliminates the "Were aren't being represented and the insiders are deciding our candidate for us" issue.

A problem is what to do with delegates assigned to a candidate that eventually drops out. I guess they could be free to vote however, or delegates could be re-appropriated to those candidates remaining based upon how they did in that State's election, or any number of other ideas. But, like I said, these all have their own problems.

See, here's the issue.

Let's say you got 3 candidates (A, B & C) and here's how the votes falls.

A= 48%
B= 26%
C= 26%

In a straight up majority winner, "A" should be the nominee. But they don't have enough (50%+, let's say) to get them over the top.

But, "B" people will support "C" but not "A", and "C" people will support "B" and not "A", and "A" people won't support either "B" or "C".

Now you're in a pickle. And I know it's not a perfect parallel, and the percentages aren't meant to be a direct reflection, but it's sort of where we are now. Naturally the "A" people feel cheated (they were the majority of those who were running, so I understand that sentiment), but they still fell short.

The more you examine it, there really is a no win. It's not often when this happens, but it does expose a lot of underlying mischief and backroom dealing that makes the average citizen sick to their stomach. And that's never going to translate to a positive momentum.

Because each state's parties decide which process to use, the challenge will be to convince each of those 150 state parties that your solution is preferable to their process.

[USA4ME]

Because each state's parties decide which process to use, the challenge will be to convince each of those 150 state parties that your solution is preferable to their process.

Oh yeah, I doubt they'd go for it. I was just thinking out loud about how to stop those who feel they're being cheated. I mean, I have some empathy for them.

We were raised where if you were one of 30 kids in 5th grade on a field trip, and when lunch time rolls around 16 vote to go to McDonald's and 14 vote you go to Burger King, you go to McDonalds. At least we can see the fairness in that. I know you know what I'm trying to say. But people are having a rough time with this being fair, and I get it. It's one thing to talk about kids eating burgers, but it's a whole other level when people believe their votes don't really matter (and on some level they're right), whether that's a fully justified feeling or not.

.

[USA4ME]

I'll add one more item.

A Representative Republic can be a messy system. Direct Democracies would be even worse. Given a choice, I'll take a Republic any day of the week.

.

[thundley4]

I'll add one more item.

A Representative Republic can be a messy system. Direct Democracies would be even worse. Given a choice, I'll take a Republic any day of the week.

.

With a democracy, you worry about the "tyranny of the majority", with our system, we've seen the tyranny of the minority.

[docstew]

Oh yeah, I doubt they'd go for it. I was just thinking out loud about how to stop those who feel they're being cheated. I mean, I have some empathy for them.

We were raised where if you were one of 30 kids in 5th grade on a field trip, and when lunch time rolls around 16 vote to go to McDonald's and 14 vote you go to Burger King, you go to McDonalds. At least we can see the fairness in that. I know you know what I'm trying to say. But people are having a rough time with this being fair, and I get it. It's one thing to talk about kids eating burgers, but it's a whole other level when people believe their votes don't really matter (and on some level they're right), whether that's a fully justified feeling or not.

The only way to quell the cries of cheating are to publish the rules up front (and they were) and enforce the rules accordingly (which, from all appearances, has happened). Anyone whining after that is a sore loser.

No one complains about the tackle eligible play in football, because it is part of the rules going into the game. Is it intended to trick the other team? Of course. Is it legal? Yes.

[USA4ME]

The only way to quell the cries of cheating are to publish the rules up front (and they were) and enforce the rules accordingly (which, from all appearances, has happened). Anyone whining after that is a sore loser.

Oh, I agree the rules are the rules and they were there to be known. I'm more addressing the sentiment of the average voter who feels cheated. I mean we could call them sore losers, but that isn't going to help the situation. Most people who want change for a $1 will take 4 quarters. It's when they believed all along they were getting 4 quarters but it turns out they were getting wooden nickels..... It may be their fault for not investigating and knowing, but for now telling them that's not helping the situation.

There's a chance a whole bunch of conservative voters are going to walk over this. That's not good. The party leaders, in their self-anointed infinite wisdom, should have seen this coming and done something about it before it ever got this far. But they didn't want to because they thought they could control the situation. Well, they could have controlled the situation if everyone was working, making good money, and there weren't a bunch of loafers and illegals sponging off everyone else, and gov't wasn't growing like it's on steroids. But they let that happen, too, or probably even approved of it, which has kick started a whole bunch of other things.

These party insiders hate conservatives. Stupid on their part. Stupid, stupid, stupid, stupid, stupid. This will eventually end ugly. It may be soon, it may be in 100 years, but it will end ugly.

.

[txradioguy]

The more you examine it, this really is a no win. It's not often when this happens, but it does expose a lot of underlying mischief and backroom dealing that makes the average citizen sick to their stomach. And that's never going to translate to a positive momentum.

And imagine if that kind of "back room dealing" didn't go on...we'd have never had Abraham Lincoln as President.  Though he lost in 1976 because of that kind of "backroom dealing"...it's what propelled and motivated Ronald Reagan to run again in 1980 and win in the manner that he did...twice.

I mean how much "backroom dealing" went on just to get the Constitution and the Bill of Rights passed by the states?  From Madison's notes and the journal that GW kept during the Constitutional Convention it was a lot.

Just sayin...

[USA4ME]

And imagine if that kind of "back room dealing" didn't go on...we'd have never had Abraham Lincoln as President.  Though he lost in 1976 because of that kind of "backroom dealing"...it's what propelled and motivated Ronald Reagan to run again in 1980 and win in the manner that he did...twice.

Oh sure, it happens. It's just there's certain times that it happens where, given the individual observing, it's more sleazy than others. Right now, you just got a whole bunch of people who are reaching the opinion that it's backhanded in a bad way.

Once again I'm just expressing what I'm seeing and reading from those who are currently viewing the process as less than on the up-and-up. I can see their point. And once you become suspicious of one part of the process, it tends to cascade from there into other areas where people raise questions. Personally I find it refreshing. If people had done this earlier, maybe gov't wouldn't be as big as the universe and $20 trillion in debt.

.

[txradioguy]

Oh sure, it happens. It's just there's certain times that it happens where, given the individual observing, it's more sleazy than others. Right now, you just got a whole bunch of people who are reaching the opinion that it's backhanded in a bad way.

Once again I'm just expressing what I'm seeing and reading from those who are currently viewing the process as less than on the up-and-up. I can see their point. And once you become suspicious of one part of the process, it tends to cascade from there into other areas where people raise questions. Personally I find it refreshing. If people had done this earlier, maybe gov't wouldn't be as big as the universe and $20 trillion in debt.

.

Yup I agree.

[Fourwinds]

I think on both sides of the aisle we have forgotten who are real enemies are. The Dems and the GOPe which works in collusion with them. We're so damn busy calling each other names and arguing which candidate is the Devil himself I'd be surprised if some people even remembered the liberals still exist. Meanwhile we have Kasich hanging on like an anchor dragging down both candidates and Ryan swearing he isn't running (even though ads for him have been running).

No matter which side you're on. One thing generally we can agree on is the GOPe screwed us.  They are more than likely planning to screw us again while  we're at each other's throats.

[Ptarmigan]

I think on both sides of the aisle we have forgotten who are real enemies are. The Dems and the GOPe which works in collusion with them. We're so damn busy calling each other names and arguing which candidate is the Devil himself I'd be surprised if some people even remembered the liberals still exist. Meanwhile we have Kasich hanging on like an anchor dragging down both candidates and Ryan swearing he isn't running (even though ads for him have been running).

No matter which side you're on. One thing generally we can agree on is the GOPe screwed us.  They are more than likely planning to screw us again while  we're at each other's throats.

Very true.

[FunkyZero]

So the Founding Fathers were "corrupt scumbags"?  Reagan was a "corrupt scumbag"?

You realize that if you yourself became a politician you'd become a "corrupt scumbag" as well right?

Yup, most likely that's where I'd end up

[ROCKURWORLD]

It's really kind of sad. The democrats are running two of the weakest candidates in decades, and the GOP is looking for a way to hand one of them the election.

I still think Trump's goal from the start was to wreck the gop and make sure Hillary was elected.

This whole thing could have been avoided if the GOP wasn't averse to conservative ideals.

Seems like a lot of so called conservatives are averse to conservative ideals.

[catsmtrods]

I have never in my life gone into vote in a Presidential election to vote for the Republican! It has always been to vote against the Democrat and I'm 61 and holding my nose once again! 

[DumbAss Tanker]

Hey! President Dwayne Elizondo Mountain Dew Herbert Camacho was a better leader (and a better wrestler) than Trump. At least Camacho knew when he didn't know something. You're being unfair to Camacho!

Monday Night Rehabilitation for you!

Either one still preferable to Hitlery.