Politics and stuff

[autiger730]

I also want my guns, God and wet dream of becoming rich due to lower taxes.
I believe term limits would do the same thing. No one should make a career being in the Senate or HoR. They have made themselves a ruling class voting on their own wages and not living by the rules they make for the rest of the country. Limit them to two terms and get new blood in there every 8 years and the rampant corruption and being beholden to those who got them elected will be more controlled.

Corporations will just buy the next people to run when the term limits hit.

[The_Niddler]

I also want my guns, God and wet dream of becoming rich due to lower taxes.
I believe term limits would do the same thing. No one should make a career being in the Senate or HoR. They have made themselves a ruling class voting on their own wages and not living by the rules they make for the rest of the country. Limit them to two terms and get new blood in there every 8 years and the rampant corruption and being beholden to those who got them elected will be more controlled.

Corporations will just buy the next people to run when the term limits hit.

Even if that happens, which I am sure it would at times, it is still better to have term limits rather than let the same people sit in office for 20 or 30 years.

[autiger730]

I also want my guns, God and wet dream of becoming rich due to lower taxes.
I believe term limits would do the same thing. No one should make a career being in the Senate or HoR. They have made themselves a ruling class voting on their own wages and not living by the rules they make for the rest of the country. Limit them to two terms and get new blood in there every 8 years and the rampant corruption and being beholden to those who got them elected will be more controlled.

Corporations will just buy the next people to run when the term limits hit.

Even if that happens, which I am sure it would at times, it is still better to have term limits rather than let the same people sit in office for 20 or 30 years.

If the results are going to be the same, who gives a shit if one person is in office for 30 years or 4 different ones? Get the money out and put in term limits.

[jsence2]

HARDLY ANY OF THAT MONEY IS FROM BEING A BUSINESSMAN!!!!!!

What part of this do you not get?!?!?! Real estate is not being a businessman! It's investment!

The actual "business" ventures he has entered into have failed. Some of them miserably.

possibly one of the most ignorant things i've ever read on our boads

How is it running a business? Anybody can invest in real estate. Anybody. It's not something where you have to run a budget, balance sheets, hire/fire people, etc.

[jsence2]

And that's just it--he's taken investment (real estate) risks and paid off handsomely. he also benefited from illegal hiring practices for his workers and hiring cheap foreign labor (you know, the thing he claims is hurting America). he didn't run a business and do well with it.

Sorry brother, but you are a little off your rocker here.

His hiring practices aren't illegal. He knows the system and uses it to his advantage. If they were illegal he would have been brought up on charges long ago. Switch from MSNBC over to CNN and Fox News every once in a while to get different sides of the story, then read different newspapers (because they all have their own political agenda as well) to form an educated decision. But to say they are illegal is not being educated.

Lol I don't get my news from any of those networks. And it HAS been brought up before. Numerous times.

Remember, this is from a conservative site....

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/43 ... immigrants

Eighteen years ago, Wojciech Kozak helped build Trump Tower, the skyscraper jewel in Donald J. Trump’s real-estate empire. Today, Mr. Kozak recalls that time with nightmare memories of backbreaking 12-hour shifts and of being cheated with 200 other undocumented Polish immigrants out of meager wages and fringe benefits.

‘We worked in horrid, terrible conditions,” Mr. Kozak said of the six months he spent in 1980 wielding a sledgehammer and a blowtorch in demolishing the Bonwit Teller Building on Fifth Avenue to make way for Trump Tower. “We were frightened illegal immigrants and did not know enough about our rights.”

Trump later settled a lawsuit, which was immediately sealed.

Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/43 ... immigrants

[autiger730]

Great read.....
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/arc ... es/473385/

[Weasel]

How is it running a business? Anybody can invest in real estate. Anybody. It's not something where you have to run a budget, balance sheets, hire/fire people, etc.

Huh?

Real estate entails all of those things you just listed

[shel311]

It's probably been discussed, but what happens if Trump or no one gets the 1237 delegates? I dont really get why they need to reach that number, and it's not just the person with the most delegates wins?

[DRiccio21]

It's probably been discussed, but what happens if Trump or no one gets the 1237 delegates? I dont really get why they need to reach that number, and it's not just the person with the most delegates wins?

they can have a contested convention.

basically a brokered event where they can do whatever the fuck they want.

like they could go in a room, negotiate and come out and say 'Paul Ryan is our nominee' after not doing anything before that point.

the problem with something like that is it basically goes against the power of the people and it could destroy the entire party. but if the republicans truly want to keep Trump out, they might not even care if that happens.

[ReignOnU]

The GOP is about to hand the presidency to Hilary. There are a few ways it could go down, but it's pretty obvious that it's going to go down.

[shel311]

the problem with something like that is it basically goes against the power of the people and it could destroy the entire party. but if the republicans truly want to keep Trump out, they might not even care if that happens.

That's basically what I was getting at, I don't get why you'd have to have the 1237 delegates.

If you don't, you're still the candidate the republican citizens wanted, so why would you have a system that would then allow you to say screw the citizens, let's just pick someone else?

And also, maybe I'm just sour on this process and how so many citizens use their votes, but if something crazy like that happened, would it really destroy the party? Or would they lose a good bit of republicans, but for the most part, the same people with the same blinders they've had on their entire lives will continue to chug along voting along party lines and not really care about what happened(if something crazy like that happened)?

[shel311]

The GOP is about to hand the presidency to Hilary. There are a few ways it could go down, but it's pretty obvious that it's going to go down.

Seems clear that she'll very likely when. Trump has very little chance to beat her, i'd imagine. Not sure if Cruz or Rubio would have a better chance, but that probably doesn't matter.

[ReignOnU]

Rubio suspended his bid last night.

According to RCP, Trump loses by a good margin to Clinton. Cruz actually beats Clinton. With that said about Trump, I think that landscape could change drastically after a few debates. Keep in mind that Clinton really hasn't been pushed on a lot of things during her debates with Bernie. They have stuck to 3-4 core issues and repeated themselves over and over.

[ReignOnU]

The 2 obvious potential ways the GOP screws this up...
- Trump is granted the nomination, the establishment launches a 3rd party bid with Rubio/Bush and the Republicans split their votes leading to a Clinton win.
- Brokered convention, someone other than Trump gets the nod, the Trump supporters don't show up at the polls and Clinton wins with a better turnout.

[GeorgesGoons]

the problem with something like that is it basically goes against the power of the people and it could destroy the entire party. but if the republicans truly want to keep Trump out, they might not even care if that happens.

That's basically what I was getting at, I don't get why you'd have to have the 1237 delegates.

If you don't, you're still the candidate the republican citizens wanted, so why would you have a system that would then allow you to say screw the citizens, let's just pick someone else?
?

The "establishment" will say that 60% of the voters were voting against Trump, so in their eyes they aren't saying screw the voters (at least the majority). If Trump has the majority, and he isn't the nominee the Republican Party as we know it will take decades to right itself.

I really don't see the GOP screwing the pooch on this one. Way too much at stake. If it looks like Trump is going to be the nominee they have to stand with him and attack Hillary. Losing to Hillary in the General is disastrous, mainly because of the Supreme Court nominations that could come up during the next presidency.

I think if Trump was smart he would try to get Cruz to be his running mate. If not Cruz he needs a strong person (most likely with political ties) from a swing state that is well respected there, Kasich could fill that role. Rubio would not be able to fill that role, he did abysmal in his own state and wouldn't be a good choice.


There was an article on NYTimes.com that was talking a Trump/Hillary general election and how the media plays into their own bias towards the candidates. It brought up a good point that I never even paid attention to on how they cover both. Go thru recent articles and just look at the pictures of both of them. The opinion piece said that the vast majority of pictures of Hillary are where she is smiling whereas pictures of Trump show him red-faced and pursed lips.

Did anyone catch that Hillary said that we didn't lose any American lives during her time as Secretary of State? A pretty big foul up that the media just blew over.

Or the one the day prior that said that Sanders hasn't focused on health care until recently. Although there is a press conference from 1993 where she is talking health care and Bernie is standing right behind her and she even praises him.

But god forbid that Trump asks his supporters to take a pledge to go out and vote in the primary, the media makes it sound as if he and all his supporters are throwing up the Nazi salute.

[dakshdar]

The required number of delegates (which is different for Republican's and Democrat's seeking the party nomination) is purely 50% of the total expected delegates at the conventions. Reaching 50%, the party can then feel confident enough that the candidate can receive sufficient party member support during the general election. If Trump, or anyone, fails to reach the required number (meaning they fail to reach a majority level), it is an indication that while that candidate may have received the most delegates, they aren't a strong enough candidate to receive sufficient party support. This then allows the party to do what it needs to in order to come up with a solution that best fits the party goals. They can still go with that person that got the most votes, but they also have the option to pick an alternate solution that wasn't available to them based on the delegate voting, but one that their internal metrics say helps their party more.

Just look at the way the Republicans give out some state delegates: All states allocation proportionally to the democractic nominees based on vote count in the primary or caucus. Many Republican states are winner-take-all. How is that reflective of the state vote or will of the people if one candidate wins by 1-2% in that state, but gets all the delegates?

Reign's reference of the polls that show Trump losing to Clinton but Cruz defeating her, while it is only a data point, is justification enough that party have the ability to adjust as needed. The primary process is not intended to provide a good presidential option from each party, rather each party wants the process to provide a good candidate for winning an election and gaining control over the White House.

[shel311]

it is an indication that while that candidate may have received the most delegates, they aren't a strong enough candidate to receive sufficient party support. This then allows the party to do what it needs to in order to come up with a solution that best fits the party goals.

it's just that any solution you come up with a solution that citizens wanted less than that candidate, seems odd that it's even an option.

Just look at the way the Republicans give out some state delegates: All states allocation proportionally to the democractic nominees based on vote count in the primary or caucus. Many Republican states are winner-take-all. How is that reflective of the state vote or will of the people if one candidate wins by 1-2% in that state, but gets all the delegates?

I mentioned that before as well, how some states are all or nothing with delegates, and others divy them out based on vote counts, makes no sense to me whatsoever.

Reign's reference of the polls that show Trump losing to Clinton but Cruz defeating her, while it is only a data point, is justification enough that party have the ability to adjust as needed.

Then why even allow citizens to vote? Just let the republicans choose Cruz as their presidential nominee.

[dakshdar]

It's probably been discussed, but what happens if Trump or no one gets the 1237 delegates? I dont really get why they need to reach that number, and it's not just the person with the most delegates wins?

they can have a contested convention.

basically a brokered event where they can do whatever the fuck they want.

like they could go in a room, negotiate and come out and say 'Paul Ryan is our nominee' after not doing anything before that point.

the problem with something like that is it basically goes against the power of the people and it could destroy the entire party. but if the republicans truly want to keep Trump out, they might not even care if that happens.

Just remember, the people don't elect the president directly either. The presidential candidate with the most popular votes nationwide is not automatically the president, it always comes down to the electoral college. See the 2000 election (and a couple of others from the 1800s).

http://www.factcheck.org/2008/03/presid ... ular-vote/

[shel311]

Just remember, the people don't elect the president directly either. The presidential candidate with the most popular votes nationwide is not automatically the president, it always comes down to the electoral college.

Also doesn't make sense to me.

[GeorgesGoons]

Just remember, the people don't elect the president directly either. The presidential candidate with the most popular votes nationwide is not automatically the president, it always comes down to the electoral college.

Also doesn't make sense to me.

Without the electoral college the middle of the country has absolutely zero say in who becomes president, most Americans either live on the east/west coasts.