Republican debates/primaries.

• Heretic

  

  Automatik;1790783 wrote:Kasich?

  Would that even be considered feasible? I think he's the best choice of the Rs, but I have trouble believing that a convention would pick the guy who's won, what? 1 of however many states have had their primaries/caucuses? He'd give them Ohio, but would the nation get behind a guy who has spent the entire primary season near the back of the pack and didn't even really get noticed nationally until enough other people exited the race that he got more face time due to attrition? To me, that seems the sort of thing that would create a lot of hostility within the R structure and splinter the party a lot.
• HitsRus

  

  Well ... We're back to hoping for Kasich/ Rubio... Although I think Kasich/ Cruz would be more likely.
• Con_Alma

  HitsRus;1790803 wrote:Well ... We're back to hoping for Kasich/ Rubio... Although I think Kasich/ Cruz would be more likely.

  I don't believe that Kasich at this point has as many delegates as Rubio did when he dropped out. What makes you think the party would get behind Kasich?
• QuakerOats

  Automatik;1790686 wrote:The Donald's popularity has peaked. He's on the decline.

  
  18,000 at yesterday's rally on Long Island.
• Automatik

  

  I saw vids. 18,000 mouth breathers yelling about a wall.
  
  'Murica!
• HitsRus

  

  Con_Alma;1790810 wrote:I don't believe that Kasich at this point has as many delegates as Rubio did when he dropped out. What makes you think the party would get behind Kasich?

  Preibus said the nominee would be one of the three still running.
• Con_Alma

  HitsRus;1790819 wrote:Preibus said the nominee would be one of the three still running.

  I understand that. My question is why you might think that Kasich would be that person when he has so few delegates earned...an amount even lower than Rubio when he dropped out of the race.
• HitsRus

  

  ^^^contested convention. Who knows what the delegates would decide if they are no longer bound. Kasich continually polling better in the Nov. election against the democrats....and that us what it is all about, winning in November.
• Con_Alma

  Makes sense i guess. I just don't see it happening. I'd need to see a lot more support for him going into the convention to believe the GOP will actually get behind him.
• HitsRus

  

  It's hard for me to believe Trump has all this support especially with making some of the absurd and offensive statements he's made.
• Automatik

  

  HitsRus;1790841 wrote:It's hard for me to believe Trump has all this support especially with making some of the absurd and offensive statements he's made.

  Not sure if serious?
  
  America is a dumb nation. Trump's popularity is no surprise at all.
• jmog

  Automatik;1790848 wrote:Not sure if serious?
  
  America is a dumb nation. Trump's popularity is no surprise at all.

  At this point it doesn't matter who gets elected between Trump, Hillary, or Sanders. The last 3 or 4 elections have PROVEN that America is FULL of people voting that have IQs lower than 100.
• Heretic

  

  jmog;1790855 wrote:At this point it doesn't matter who gets elected between Trump, Hillary, or Sanders. The last 3 or 4 elections have PROVEN that America is FULL of people voting that have IQs lower than 100.

  The problem is less that people/voters are stupid, as it's not like anything's changed there over the decades. It's that our culture has gradually shifted to cater to the lazy and stupid with our non-stop news/blog cycle where a person can just get online and immediately find "news" that caters specifically to their personal beliefs. Instead of challenging themselves by comparing their beliefs to others and working to understand each other, they just automatically can dismiss what others say as stupid, biased, etc. because they have a ton of shit at their fingertips written by like-minded people.
  
  This leads to an atmosphere that's immediately hostile to anyone, no matter their beliefs because the minute potential candidates step out of their "support zone", they'll find themselves under constant attack from the other side. This gradually leads to a leadership erosion because sane, qualified people would rather not deal with the endless bullshit they'll be besieged with. This leads to your presidential candidates being Big Poli Families who are addicted to the power and want their name prominent for ages to come, people looking to leverage a (likely) failed campaign into something (VP, cabinet, highly-regarded pundit, book deal, etc.) and giant narcissists. And, therefore, people wind up supporting the "lesser of two evils", who generally tends to be the one with more charisma and the better catch-phrase.
  
  Ah well, I'm 42, don't have kids and party a lot. Things just need to hold together well enough for the 20-30 years it takes for me to completely burn out!
• jmog

  Heretic;1790873 wrote:The problem is less that people/voters are stupid, as it's not like anything's changed there over the decades. It's that our culture has gradually shifted to cater to the lazy and stupid with our non-stop news/blog cycle where a person can just get online and immediately find "news" that caters specifically to their personal beliefs. Instead of challenging themselves by comparing their beliefs to others and working to understand each other, they just automatically can dismiss what others say as stupid, biased, etc. because they have a ton of shit at their fingertips written by like-minded people.
  
  This leads to an atmosphere that's immediately hostile to anyone, no matter their beliefs because the minute potential candidates step out of their "support zone", they'll find themselves under constant attack from the other side. This gradually leads to a leadership erosion because sane, qualified people would rather not deal with the endless bullshit they'll be besieged with. This leads to your presidential candidates being Big Poli Families who are addicted to the power and want their name prominent for ages to come, people looking to leverage a (likely) failed campaign into something (VP, cabinet, highly-regarded pundit, book deal, etc.) and giant narcissists. And, therefore, people wind up supporting the "lesser of two evils", who generally tends to be the one with more charisma and the better catch-phrase.
  
  Ah well, I'm 42, don't have kids and party a lot. Things just need to hold together well enough for the 20-30 years it takes for me to completely burn out!

  Long winded version of people are stupid
  
  If one can not look up and digest/discuss opposing views in a logical/sane way then they are mental midgets.
• queencitybuckeye

  HitsRus;1790841 wrote:It's hard for me to believe Trump has all this support especially with making some of the absurd and offensive statements he's made.

  Unfortunately, that's what attracts dullards (like a certain Jim Teecher) to him.
• HitsRus

  

  America is a dumb nation. Trump's popularity is no surprise at all.

  So....
  A guy walks into a bar in Seattle, Washington where the minimum wage is $15/hr. Not surprisingly, there is a robot bartender who asks him "what'll you have?", when he sits down at the bar. "I'll have whiskey", the man replies. The robot gets his drink and asks, "what's your IQ?" The man says "165"....and the robot proceeds to chat him up about theoretical physics and neurosurgery. As the man leaves the bar he thinks to himself..."wow, that's the first time I've ever had a discussion with a bartender about String Theory!"
  
  The next evening he decides to go back to the bar and get another drink, but he decides to see if the robot will talk about anything else. he goes in and orders another whiskey...the robot gets his drink and ask him "what's your IQ?"
  
  This time the man says "100"...and the robot starts talking to him about Seahawks football, and whether Chevy trucks are better than Fords.
  
  The man decides to go back again the next night, and when the robot asks him , "what's your IQ?"...the man replies "75".
  The robot asks him..."so who are you voting for, Sanders or Trump?"
• majorspark

  

  HitsRus;1790824 wrote:^^^contested convention. Who knows what the delegates would decide if they are no longer bound. Kasich continually polling better in the Nov. election against the democrats....and that us what it is all about, winning in November.

  The problem is so many people just don't understand the concept of representative government and the checks and balances that our founders put in place. There are also rules in place that check majority rule within our elected representatives at the federal level. The president can reject the will of the majority of the House and Senate and demand a super majority. No one flips their shit over a presidential veto claiming the will of the people has been usurped. Why? Because the rules (constitution) say so.
  
  Well the Republican party has rules governing the nomination of a candidate for POTUS and those rules are there for the same reason. The people casting republican ballots have an opportunity under those rules to nominate by just a simple majority of delegates pledged to their candidate and it will be so. If they fail to do so it is up to the delegates allotted to decide.
• fish82

  

  jmog;1790875 wrote:Long winded version of people are stupid
  
  If one can not look up and digest/discuss opposing views in a logical/sane way then they are mental midgets.

  I think there's a difference between just being "stupid," and being "intellectually lazy."
  
  Yes, it's a stupid thing to do, but I don't think that necessarily equates to the person actually being stupid. (Although I'm sure there are no shortage of cases where it does, LOL)
• gut

  fish82;1790931 wrote:I think there's a difference between just being "stupid," and being "intellectually lazy."

  Or choosing to remain ignorant. The vast majority of the electorate doesn't have any ability to understand economic, fiscal and tax issues. And even though it's difficult to sift through the partisan BS evaluating those policies, most people don't seek out a good representative sample to develop an informed opinion. It's just whatever they read on Fox or HuffPo (and rarely even both).
  
  Because I'm a free markets/fiscal conservative I often get accused of getting my opinions from "Faux News":
  1) I have no idea what they're saying on Fox because that's not where I get my opinions
  2) I'm pretty sure they have no idea what they actually say on Fox because it's pretty clear they wouldn't waste their time watching it...but rather what they think is said on Fox is what HuffPo/Politico tells them they're saying on Fox (there's your problem!)
  
  Which brings me to a favorite liberal tactic: brainwash your legions that everything - literally everything - on Fox is a lie and garbage, and then attribute every counter-opinion and disagreement with your agenda as originating from Faux News.
• ptown_trojans_1

  

  Well Trump destroyed last night. pretty much wiping out everything Cruz has did the last month.
  Math wise, Cruz cannot get to 1237. After next week, looking at the polls, Trump should sweep the states, further adding to his total.
  It is possible he clinches 1237 in June.
  
  I've accepted he is now the R nominee.
  Unless there are some crazy upsets, he will either get really close, or clinch in June.
• Wolves of Babylon

  This should have been a slam dunk win for the Republicans against Hilary, but the nominee is Trump.
  
  Donald Trump vs Hilary ... smh
  
  Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-N920A using Tapatalk
• Automatik

  

  Can they get it together in 4 years to make a move in 2020? Doubful.
• gut

  Wolves of Babylon;1792430 wrote:This should have been a slam dunk win for the Republicans against Hilary, but the nominee is Trump.

  Yeah, well, more or less.
  
  But don't discount Trump in the general. He's VERY good at herding people into single issues and then appealing to them on that basis. His foreign policy is a pefect example - no boots on the ground because we carpet bomb. That, sadly, appeals to many on both sides of the aisle.
• BoatShoes

  Heretic;1790799 wrote:Would that even be considered feasible? I think he's the best choice of the Rs, but I have trouble believing that a convention would pick the guy who's won, what? 1 of however many states have had their primaries/caucuses? He'd give them Ohio, but would the nation get behind a guy who has spent the entire primary season near the back of the pack and didn't even really get noticed nationally until enough other people exited the race that he got more face time due to attrition? To me, that seems the sort of thing that would create a lot of hostility within the R structure and splinter the party a lot.

  I think the pub voters would go ape like the dems did in 1968 when the insiders picked Humphrey at the convention.
  
  I will be drunk on East 9th enjoying the show.
• BoatShoes

  gut;1792604 wrote:Yeah, well, more or less.
  
  But don't discount Trump in the general. He's VERY good at herding people into single issues and then appealing to them on that basis. His foreign policy is a pefect example - no boots on the ground because we carpet bomb. That, sadly, appeals to many on both sides of the aisle.

  I wouldn't underestimate Trump either. The guy was doing Oprah before anybody knew who Hillary was. Nothing would surprise me at this point and goddamn it would be the most "Merica" thing ever.
  
  Who knows, maybe it would blow up the status quo enough that Congress would stop spending 6-8 hours a day in cubicles raising money and actually try to do something??