quote:

Originally posted by PASig:
I wonder what is afoot here...

Megyn Kelly spotted incognito in Trump Tower, met by member of Trump’s team

I'm hoping he realized he needs to change a few things with his campaign and this is the first step. If he can mend things with Kelly it won't hurt him going forward. I hope this turns out to be a good thing.

quote:

Originally posted by showpro:
I'll repeat myself too: primaries and conventions are not about the will of the people. They are the party picking its nominee.

Correct. And Marie Antoinette wasn't obligated to listen to the will of the people either. Worked out well for her didn't it?

quote:

Originally posted by mbinky:
Correct. And Marie Antoinette wasn't obligated to listen to the will of the people either. Worked out well for her didn't it?

I don't understand the analogy. Marie Antoinette had nothing to do with a political party and she didn't exist in a constitutional republic.

We have political parties and the U.S. is a constitutional republic, not a democracy. The people don't directly vote on ANYTHING in the United States of America, except for their Congressional delegations.

Trump looking to hire a WH press secretary?

Oh quit being so smug and deliberatly obtuse Shopro.

The republicans don't need my vote in the primary? Why do states spend millions on them? Why don't people who want to be president show up at the convention and see who gets it? Why are primaries open to independents?

They don't care about my vote but they sure seem to care about my money judging by the amount of BS I get asking for it.

As I have said before, tell me you don't need my input for the primary. That means you don't need it for the general either.

I hope all you "rules" people keep them in mind when the RNC hands it to Kasich instead of Cruz.

The process is deeply flawed, to the point of being broken, to the further point of turning off many, many voters, on both sides and in all candidate-camps, and this remains true and important no matter who becomes the nominee in each party and no matter how.

Not only are the parties bad at their respective jobs, they continue to further distance the people from the actual votes/control, the bureaucracy grows. This isn't a conspiracy, it's simply how it's designed and has heretofore (for a few decades at least) worked.

Why now? Why not... Why weren't the objections raised before? Who cares. That the current rules benefit some camps at present is a different, but parallel, matter, that does not diminish these points. The Parties themselves are the establishment, too, and need fixing in a variety of ways, nationwide, and in various ways in various states.

We do not, in any way, have the best system we're capable of. We, all of us, deserve better.

So what would be better, 46and2? Direct election by simple majority? I don't think so. All delegates in each state go to the winner of that state? I don't think that's so hot, either.

I think the current system is well-calibrated and works as best it can. I don't always like the result. I didn't like it with McCain and wasn't thrilled with Romney, though I prefer him to McCain. But tell me the better system, please.

quote:

Originally posted by mbinky:
Oh quit being so smug and deliberatly obtuse Shopro.

The republicans don't need my vote in the primary? Why do states spend millions on them? Why don't people who want to be president show up at the convention and see who gets it? Why are primaries open to independents?

They don't care about my vote but they sure seem to care about my money judging by the amount of BS I get asking for it.

As I have said before, tell me you don't need my input for the primary. That means you don't need it for the general either.

I hope all you "rules" people keep them in mind when the RNC hands it to Kasich instead of Cruz.

I don't think the primaries should be open to independents. Again, it's the party choosing its nominee. To be the Republican nominee you should have to be a Republican.

I'll be fine with either Kasich or Cruz, but I prefer to see Kasich. He'd be an excellent candidate and a very, very good president, far and away better than the last two we've had. If you don't want to vote for him, that's your call. One man, one vote, right?

At this point, if Trump is the nominee, I'll likely vote for the Libertarian, Gary Johnson.

quote:

Originally posted by showpro:
At this point, if Trump is the nominee, I'll likely vote for the Libertarian, Gary Johnson.

So you are all about "The Party", but will vote against someone "The Party" chooses. Isn't it about "The Party" choosing the nominee, not you? Choosing what's best for them? Yet it is so easy for you to abandon them....interesting...

quote:

I'll be fine with either Kasich or Cruz, but I prefer to see Kasich.

Somebody get the straight jackets. We've got one on the loose!

quote:

Originally posted by showpro:
At this point, if Trump is the nominee, I'll likely vote for the Libertarian, Gary Johnson.

You mean you're voting for Hillary but you dont' want to come out and say it...

quote:

Originally posted by a1abdj:

quote:

I'll be fine with either Kasich or Cruz, but I prefer to see Kasich.

Somebody get the straight jackets. We've got one on the loose!

Yep. Although ShowPro identifies as Republican...I think he's leaning heavily Contrarian.

quote:

Originally posted by showpro:
So what would be better, 46and2? Direct election by simple majority? I don't think so. All delegates in each state go to the winner of that state? I don't think that's so hot, either.

I think the current system is well-calibrated and works as best it can. I don't always like the result. I didn't like it with McCain and wasn't thrilled with Romney, though I prefer him to McCain. But tell me the better system, please.

No, I don't advocate a pure democracy, nor do I, presently, have a comprehensive idea as to what the solution ought to be, and I firmly believe that the risk of a Tyranny of a Majority is a real and reasonable threat, but there is a fine line, and it's been crossed.

The people, in general, and understand - I've no foolish notions that I truly speak for the totality of "the people", but in general, I have observed, the people want as close to a pure democracy as we can manage whilst still maintaining the constitutional safeguards and ideals our representative democracy/constitutional republic offers.

and most believe, I think, that both major Parties have shifted this too far in the favor of the parties themselves, for selfish reasons, which is not conspiratorial but simply a natural effect of how bureaucracies and institutions grow. They've added too many layers, and aggregated power to yet another layer of folks, and it's too convoluted, as it even further removes any real effect of the individual voice/vote.

We already have enough layers of representation vis a vis the Federal government itself. We don't need to delegate the delegates that delegate the delegates that delegate... etc.

Perhaps something more like sports brackets / run offs, in the earlier stages of elections.

Because, understand - that loosely speaking - no one really gives a shit about the parties themselves beyond their theoretical ability to help groups of us get shit done, and they have been failing at that for my whole life, neither party effectively representing neither group.

Is it better than, say, some 3rd world shit hole? Sure, but it's not good enough, either... as has been the case for decades, but is being highlighted by this particular election cycle.

quote:

Originally posted by showpro:
So what would be better, 46and2? Direct election by simple majority? I don't think so. All delegates in each state go to the winner of that state? I don't think that's so hot, either.

I think the current system is well-calibrated and works as best it can. I don't always like the result. I didn't like it with McCain and wasn't thrilled with Romney, though I prefer him to McCain. But tell me the better system, please.

No, I don't advocate a pure democracy, nor do I, presently, have a comprehensive idea as to what the solution ought to be, and I firmly believe that the risk of a Tyranny of a Majority is a real and reasonable threat, but there is a fine line, and it's been crossed.

The people, in general, and understand - I've no foolish notions that I truly speak for the totality of "the people", but in general, I have observed, the people want as close to a pure democracy as we can manage whilst still maintaining the constitutional safeguards and ideals our representative democracy/constitutional republic offers.

and most believe, I think, that both major Parties have shifted this too far in the favor of the parties themselves, for selfish reasons, which is not conspiratorial but simply a natural effect of how bureaucracies and institutions grow. They've added too many layers, and aggregated power to yet another layer of folks, and it's too convoluted, as it even further removes any real effect of the individual voice/vote.

We already have enough layers of representation vis a vis the Federal government itself. We don't need to delegate the delegates that delegate the delegates that delegate... etc.

Perhaps something more like sports brackets / run offs, in the earlier stages of elections, but whatever form it takes - the interests of the parties themselves and the relative power that's vested into various delegate schemas is all but totally unimportant to most, I think.

Because, understand - that loosely speaking - no one really gives a shit about the parties themselves beyond their theoretical ability to help groups of us get shit done, and they have been failing at that for my whole life, neither party effectively representing neither group.

Is it better than, say, some 3rd world shit hole? Sure, but it's not good enough, either... as has been the case for decades, but is being highlighted by this particular election cycle.

What you say:

quote:

I'll be fine with either Kasich or Cruz, but I prefer to see Kasich.

What I hear:

"Please don't pay any attention to anything else I say."

quote:

Originally posted by showpro:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by mbinky:
Oh quit being so smug and deliberatly obtuse Shopro.

The republicans don't need my vote in the primary? Why do states spend millions on them? Why don't people who want to be president show up at the convention and see who gets it? Why are primaries open to independents?

They don't care about my vote but they sure seem to care about my money judging by the amount of BS I get asking for it.

As I have said before, tell me you don't need my input for the primary. That means you don't need it for the general either.

I hope all you "rules" people keep them in mind when the RNC hands it to Kasich instead of Cruz.

I don't think the primaries should be open to independents. Again, it's the party choosing its nominee. To be the Republican nominee you should have to be a Republican.

I'll be fine with either Kasich or Cruz, but I prefer to see Kasich. He'd be an excellent candidate and a very, very good president, far and away better than the last two we've had. If you don't want to vote for him, that's your call. One man, one vote, right?

At this point, if Trump is the nominee, I'll likely vote for the Libertarian, Gary Johnson.[/QUOT

Then GTFO and don't come back to post your BS.

quote:

Originally posted by showpro:

I'll be fine with either Kasich or Cruz, but I prefer to see Kasich. He'd be an excellent candidate and a very, very good president, far and away better than the last two we've had. If you don't want to vote for him, that's your call. One man, one vote, right?

At this point, if Trump is the nominee, I'll likely vote for the Libertarian, Gary Johnson.

So, you're all in favor of the clown that got the thank you letter from BJ Clinton for supporting the AWB and to help save us from the GD commie democrats, you'll vote for the Libertarian candidate, rather than support DT if the RNC fails to stop him ?

Well, that makes a lot of sense

quote:

Originally posted by a1abdj:

quote:

I'll be fine with either Kasich or Cruz, but I prefer to see Kasich.

Somebody get the straight jackets. We've got one on the loose!

Good grief, no kidding.

I'll be fine with either Kasich or Cruz, but I prefer to see Kasich.

BAN HIM! Get the tar hot and the feathers fluffed! Where's the rail? LOL!