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.
#metoounlesstheyreblue
2020 Presidential Election: let the jockeying commence
- Thread starter ProdigalHorn
- Start date
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.
#metoounlesstheyreblue
Joe Fan
10,000+ Posts
I would get sent to the principal's office for this
Life is so unfair
Last edited:
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$, or something... Bernie will go ape-sh!t, but he probably will anyways.
*and definitely NOT Hillary or Bernie.
Another option is for the party powers-that-be to lean hard on Biden to resign "for health reasons" and free his delegates with instructions to go with the pick of the party insiders. In exchange, his prodigy can be promised some cushy ambassadorships, consulting deal$, or something... Bernie will go ape-sh!t, but he probably will anyways.
*and definitely NOT Hillary or Bernie.
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.
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.
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
. 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.
Last edited:
4th_floor
Dude, where's my laptop?
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.
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.
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.
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.
Austin_Bill
2,500+ Posts
I bow to the wisdom of George Carlin.
Monahorns
10,000+ 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.
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.
Joe Fan
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.
Here is why Trump must win:
Chicago Mayor Signs Executive Order to Ensure Illegal Immigrants Can Access Coronavirus Relief Funds
This is Liberalism at it's core. They believe OUR MONEY CAN BE USED TO BUY THE LOYALTY OF LATINO'S.
We need Republican President's from now on to avoid a fleet of Sotomayor's on SCOTUS.
Chicago Mayor Signs Executive Order to Ensure Illegal Immigrants Can Access Coronavirus Relief Funds
This is Liberalism at it's core. They believe OUR MONEY CAN BE USED TO BUY THE LOYALTY OF LATINO'S.
We need Republican President's from now on to avoid a fleet of Sotomayor's on SCOTUS.
Monahorns
10,000+ 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.
That's because a virtue signaling mission statement is all that is needed for success.
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.
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.
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.
Are you sure he spelled the third word right? It is Cameltoe Harris after all.
Yep. I'm sure he's hot for her bod.
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.
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?
Recent Threads
-
The Media Industry
- Started by texas_ex2000
- Replies: 8K
- West Mall
-
President Biden Accountability Thread
- Started by 2003TexasGrad
- Replies: 4K
- West Mall
Prediction Results Threads
