2020 Presidential Election: let the jockeying commence

Discussion in 'West Mall' started by ProdigalHorn, Dec 6, 2018.

  1. Mr. Deez

    Mr. Deez 10,000+ Posts

    Rose McGowan is a freak and a weirdo. (She banged Marilyn Manson, so what can we expect?) However, I'll give her points for consistency.

    • Agree Agree x 2
  2. Joe Fan

    Joe Fan 10,000+ Posts

    I would get sent to the principal's office for this
    Life is so unfair
    • Funny Funny x 1
    Last edited: Apr 7, 2020
  3. Joe Fan

    Joe Fan 10,000+ Posts

  4. Horn6721

    Horn6721 Half of seeming clever is keeping your mouth shut.

    Trump said he had a good conversation with Biden yesterday. A reporter asked Trump if he would take any of the suggestions Biden offered.
    To Trump's credit he did not laugh.
  5. theiioftx

    theiioftx Sponsor Deputy

    Did Joe know he was talking to Trump?
    • Funny Funny x 9
    • Agree Agree x 1
  6. Chop

    Chop 2,500+ Posts

    As crummy as it is, the Democrats need to change their rules again (nothing unusual about that) and make the convention necessarily a contested convention. Then the insiders can huddle in a smoke filled room and pick the best candidate to take on Trump as of the date of the convention (not Biden*). Old school Tammany Hall-style tactics are needed for the Dems to have a chance this year.

    Another option is for the party powers-that-be to lean hard on Biden to resign "for health reasons" and free his delegates with instructions to go with the pick of the party insiders. In exchange, his prodigy can be promised some cushy ambassadorships, consulting deal$, or something... Bernie will go ape-sh!t, but he probably will anyways.

    *and definitely NOT Hillary or Bernie.
  7. huisache

    huisache 2,500+ Posts

    we got better candidates when the guys in the smoke filled rooms got to pick them. The ones we have got since the rules changes after 1968 have been pretty pathetic when you think of it.

    Letting the public pick the candidates is about as stupid as letting the public pick the senators. The founders had the right idea in limiting the voice of the great unwashed.
  8. Monahorns

    Monahorns 2,500+ Posts

    It is the difference between weak political parties today and strong political parties in the past.

    Just wish we had a system that wasn't built to keep all but 2 parties.
    • Agree Agree x 2
  9. Chop

    Chop 2,500+ Posts

    I'd generally agree with much of that. It seems that's been the case more often than not. But, there have been some exceptions. The Dem insiders never liked Jimmy Carter, and if the Dem party insiders made the pick in '76, we might have had a President Teddy Kennedy instead :yikes:. Ford was swimming upstream in the post-Watergate/post-Vietnam era, so don't think Teddy Kennedy could never win the general election in '76. The party big wigs are shameless. Chappaquiddick is merely a pleasant vacation spot on Martha's Vineyard to many of them.

    On the GOP side, the party insiders were against Reagan for a long time. Had the GOP party insiders made the pick, it would have been George H.W. Bush v. Carter in 1980.

    And...of course... for better or for worse ... the GOP party insiders really hated Trump during the 2016 primaries. Who knows if the likes of Chris Christie, Jeb Bush, Marco Rubio, Ted Cruz, Rick Perry, or John Kasich would have defeated Hillary in the general.
    • Agree Agree x 1
    Last edited: Apr 7, 2020
  10. 4th_floor

    4th_floor From now on, I want you all to call me Loretta.

    I disagree. The smoke filled rooms would not have picked Reagan, or Trump. In 2000, we would have had McCain instead of GWB, which would have likely been a loss. For the Dems, Carter, Bill Clinton, and Obama would not have been picked. Hillary was picked by the party. So you can't blame her failed candidacy on stupid voters.
    I agree with you about repeal of the 17th Amendment. Of course we would be stuck with Senator David Dewhurst or someone worse without direct election.
    • Agree Agree x 1
  11. Mr. Deez

    Mr. Deez 10,000+ Posts

    People complain about the two-party system, but the only thing that would really eliminate it is a massive overhaul of the Constitution. The system the founding fathers gave us is built for two parties just as a matter of practicality whether that was intended or not. We'd have to elect people with something other than first-past-the-post, winner take all elections. People who come in second, third, fourth, etc. would have to get representation. In other words, we'd need some form of proportional representation.
  12. Austin_Bill

    Austin_Bill 2,500+ Posts

    Problem isn't the 2 party system, the problem is the morality of the people we elect. It's like the Democrats are run by a bunch of Boss Tweeds and the Republicans are run by a bunch of Rockefeller s.

    You pretty much have to pick your poison. I base my choices on how best to protect the constitution as it is written.
  13. Mr. Deez

    Mr. Deez 10,000+ Posts

    The problem isn't the morality of the people we elect. It's the immorality and ignorance of the people who vote. Everybody in Congress and the White House are chosen by us. This is our fault.

    • Winner Winner x 2
    • Agree Agree x 1
  14. Austin_Bill

    Austin_Bill 2,500+ Posts

    I bow to the wisdom of George Carlin.
    • Agree Agree x 1
    • Winner Winner x 1
  15. Joe Fan

    Joe Fan 10,000+ Posts

    • Funny Funny x 4
  16. Monahorns

    Monahorns 2,500+ Posts

    Deez, I like you and agree that voters bear some amount of responsibility, but totally disagree that voters are THE problem.

    The political system has been manipulated over many years to privilege the government and 2 parties at the expense of everyone else.

    The rules that determine who gets to even participate in primaries is stacked against the citizens. Then we all get to pick one of 2 horrible candidates. That isn't on the voters.
    • Agree Agree x 1
  17. Joe Fan

    Joe Fan 10,000+ Posts

    You hate to see it happen

    • Funny Funny x 3
  18. Mr. Deez

    Mr. Deez 10,000+ Posts

    What exactly is the manipulation? By far the biggest "manipulation" was created by the founding fathers when they created a system of first-past-the-post, winner take all officeholders. That is why you effectively have 2 choices, and it has pretty much always been that way. You can have spoilers, but you can't have a real, viable third party without proportional representation, and we don't have that. Should we? That's up for debate.

    So a two-party system is inherent to American government. However, those parties are pretty open. Anybody can run in either party, and for the most part, anyone can vote in either party. To answer Carlin's question, there are bright people of conscience. There are lots of them here on Hornfans. Why don't any of us run? Well, it's pretty simple. We'd lose, unless we were willing to BS and lie to a large number of people who are too lazy and stupid to actually study the issues. Well, that's on the voters. Of course, in Deezestan, there'd be significant barriers to idiots voting. (For example, instead of having multiple choice voting and straight ticket voting, I'd have fill in the blank voting. If you don't even know a candidate's name, you shouldn't be able to vote for him.) However, we've opened Pandora's box on voting, and we can't shut it at this point. The idiots now rule.
    • Like Like x 3
  19. bystander

    bystander 5,000+ Posts

    • Winner Winner x 3
  20. Monahorns

    Monahorns 2,500+ Posts

    I would have to suggest searching through the Freakonomics podcast. I don't remember all the ways. But all the rules around getting on ballots, getting in debates, campaign finance, etc help Democrats and Republicans to the detriment of anyone else.

    I don't get your point. Just because we don't have a parliamentary system doesn't mean Libertarian, Green, Socialist, Populist, etc parties are kept out of holding Congressional positions or the President. You can still have a multiple party race with small party winning if they are allowed to participate in the political process equally prior to the election.

    This statement should be referring to the perpetual, professional Executive Branch bureaucracy. It is one HUGE reason you can't blame voters for the poor quality of our government today. Think of all the Federal agencies that have proven themselves delinquent us in light of the corona outbreak. FDA, CDC, AMA, WHO (I know this is international bureacracy), etc.
  21. bystander

    bystander 5,000+ Posts

    That's because a virtue signaling mission statement is all that is needed for success.
  22. Chop

    Chop 2,500+ Posts

    Suggestion: all ballots in the state (any state) will have the candidate's name only--no "D" or "R" by their names. Also no straight ticket voting. Do this, and a decent portion of the problem is solved.
    • Like Like x 1
  23. Phil Elliott

    Phil Elliott 2,500+ Posts

    Disagree. It's all fine and good to say "oh I don't vote for the party, I vote for the person" but that is BS. No matter what they say on the campaign trail, once in office, they do what the party says or they do not get funded next time. Because of this, I vote for the party platform, not the person.
    • Agree Agree x 1
  24. Mr. Deez

    Mr. Deez 10,000+ Posts

    They just aren't that onerous, and if they all went away, it wouldn't make a difference.

    In theory, you're correct. It's literally possible to have a third party, but so long as the system is first past the post, winner take all, the third party is going to be deemed a spoiler, not a serious alternative. For example, there are millions of libertarians out there, but 90 percent of them vote Republican. Why? Because they don't want to elect Democrats, and they know they can't win on their own. Ditto for socialists and Democrats. Proportional representation would change the game. Tinkering with debate and campaign finance rules wouldn't. Keep in mind that we've had third party candidates break into the system before. They had one thing in common. They all lost and usually screwed the major party candidate that was closest to them.

    Yep, and it's a bureaucracy created with the full consent and support of the public and survives because of the outrage from the public if someone tried to get rid of it. Try running on getting rid of the CDC or the FDA. It would go over like a fart in a car.
  25. Mr. Deez

    Mr. Deez 10,000+ Posts

    Taking away the party affiliation will only lead to stupid people voting according to name preference and recognition. Making the ballot fill in the blank will ensure that people only vote for candidates they actually know.
    • Like Like x 1
  26. mchammer

    mchammer 5,000+ Posts

    I called this first:

  27. Sangre Naranjada

    Sangre Naranjada Winebibber

    Are you sure he spelled the third word right? It is Cameltoe Harris after all.
    • Funny Funny x 2
  28. Mr. Deez

    Mr. Deez 10,000+ Posts

    Yep. I'm sure he's hot for her bod.
  29. HornHuskerDad

    HornHuskerDad 5,000+ Posts

    Excellent point, Phil. I'm sure there are some Dem candidates out there who are well-educated, honest, loyal Americans - and they would support some moderate positions on issues. However, the fear is that the leadership of the Party would whip them back into the party line. Thus I can't vote for a Dem candidate for fear that I would be tacitly endorsing the platform of the mainstream Democratic Party - and I can't stand their mainstream.
    • Agree Agree x 1
  30. Chop

    Chop 2,500+ Posts

    Wait a minute. So are you saying that a down-ticket candidate who happens to be named "Davey Crockett", "Ben Franklin", "George Washington", or "John Wayne" might have an advantage?
    • Like Like x 1

Share This Page