Are both political parties simultaneously splitting apart this election?

• Apple

  

  As the end of the primary season ends next week, both sides of the political spectrum are having serious rumblings from within.
  
  On one hand you have the Republican "Establishment" folks who are throwing a hissy fit that an "Outsider" looks hold the winning ticket.
  
  It's the total opposite for the Democrat party where their "Outsider" has his panties in a wad because the "Establishment" candidate has finagled a way to get the most delegates.
  
  Are we witnessing an historic split of both parties?
  
  Political parties have come and gone throughout US history.
  
  I personally wouldn't mind seeing more than two parties.
• Spock

  

  i would like to see 4 people run for president
• bases_loaded

  

  That would be cool and assure Trump the presidency.
• Apple

  

  bases_loaded... you could be right. However, it could also mean that no single candidate would get to 270 electoral votes which would send the decision to the House to decide. It would probably mean neither D would win, but not necessarily a Trump win.
• HitsRus

  

  It would probably mean neither D would win, but not necessarily a Trump win.

  
  ....and that would be the best of all possible outcomes.
• CenterBHSFan

  

  I, admittedly, am kinda happy that there is fracturing going on in both parties. Hopefully, both sides can get theirselves together and come out improved and more realistic.
  
  Right now, the democrat party has two people - one is the bottom of the barrel and the other is off his nut - that clearly show that the party has lost its true values.
  
  The republican party is so scared of SJW's that it tries to act like democrats so that nobody's feelings are hurt - and right now its nominee is an egotistical jackass - clearly showing that the party has lost its true values.
  
  So, I say good riddance to bad rubbish to both parties. Let's hope that they break down even more to the point where they *have* to reconsider and regroup.
• BoatShoes

  CenterBHSFan;1797605 wrote:I, admittedly, am kinda happy that there is fracturing going on in both parties. Hopefully, both sides can get theirselves together and come out improved and more realistic.
  
  Right now, the democrat party has two people - one is the bottom of the barrel and the other is off his nut - that clearly show that the party has lost its true values.
  
  The republican party is so scared of SJW's that it tries to act like democrats so that nobody's feelings are hurt - and right now its nominee is an egotistical jackass - clearly showing that the party has lost its true values.
  
  So, I say good riddance to bad rubbish to both parties. Let's hope that they break down even more to the point where they *have* to reconsider and regroup.

  Looks like Bernie and Hillary are going to bury the hatchet and the Bush dynasty, John McCain and Mitt Romney will all be secretly voting for Hillary. What a time to be alive!
• FatHobbit

  

  https://www.yahoo.com/news/unconventional-special-report-hundreds-gop-000000630.html
  
  Is it possible the Republican delegates can revolt and not select Trump? I do not support him at all, but what is the point of having primaries if they can just ignore who people voted for?
• Heretic

  

  FatHobbit;1801062 wrote:https://www.yahoo.com/news/unconventional-special-report-hundreds-gop-000000630.html
  
  Is it possible the Republican delegates can revolt and not select Trump? I do not support him at all, but what is the point of having primaries if they can just ignore who people voted for?

  I've been reading this too and agree. Regardless of my opinion of Trump and how much of a hypothetical disaster he may or may not be, he's the guy who won the majority of the states and got the majority of the votes. For the delegates to essentially say "fuck the people", to me, would be extremely disturbing. Like the sort of thing that legitimately deserves a call to revolution.
• HitsRus

  

  The will of the people is overrated, and can be grossly misinformed and wrong. people make decisions based on the emotions of the moment, and 10 second sound bites. They cannot be trusted to make decisions in the best interests of the nation. That is why we are a representative republic.
  
  So delegates have a moral dilemma....vote for the good of the country, or vote for the will of the people. Any good representative votes what he believes is in the best interest for the people, even if it is contrary to the will of a small majority.
• jmog

  BoatShoes;1799499 wrote:Looks like Bernie and Hillary are going to bury the hatchet and the Bush dynasty, John McCain and Mitt Romney will all be secretly voting for Hillary. What a time to be alive!

  Wow, still blaming Bush 9 years later? When will liberals give that up, 10 more years? 20?
• CenterBHSFan

  

  HitsRus;1801784 wrote:The will of the people is overrated, and can be grossly misinformed and wrong. people make decisions based on the emotions of the moment, and 10 second sound bites. They cannot be trusted to make decisions in the best interests of the nation. That is why we are a representative republic.
  
  So delegates have a moral dilemma....vote for the good of the country, or vote for the will of the people. Any good representative votes what he believes is in the best interest for the people, even if it is contrary to the will of a small majority.

  The problem with the above bolded is that we all know that republicans and democrats vote for the best interest of the party - not the people or the country.
  
  So, which is worse? Having an elected official vote party lines or vote because they "think" they know better than you? Both reasons are biased and either can be detrimental to both people and country.
• HitsRus

  

  CenterBHSFan;1801795 wrote:The problem with the above bolded is that we all know that republicans and democrats vote for the best interest of the party - not the people or the country.
  
  So, which is worse? Having an elected official vote party lines or vote because they "think" they know better than you? Both reasons are biased and either can be detrimental to both people and country.

  No....if a representative is doing his job and he acts in good conscience and principles after thoroughly reviewing an issue, then he does "know better than me"...or at least better than almost all of the idiots that get interviewed for "Jaywalking". The Founders were smart and took into account human nature when forming our new government.... individuals can be smart, but the people enmasse are stupid, and lazy, and too preoccupied with their own affairs to take the time to grasp affairs of state. Representatives are ultimately accountable to the people, and their judgement and voting record are evaluated over time and not just the emotions of the moment.
  
  That it doesn't always work that way is not the fault of the system or the designers, nor is it reason to scrap it or ignore it. The system, though not perfect, is the best that can be designed....and we should strive for the ideal.
• Con_Alma

  There are multiple ways to function as an elected official. Trustee, representative, partisan and politico are just a few. None are ideal in all the scenarios they face yet each have their benefits. A good official will operate based on which manner is ideally suited for the respective issue he's addressing.
• CenterBHSFan

  

  HitsRus;1801806 wrote:No....if a representative is doing his job and he acts in good conscience and principles after thoroughly reviewing an issue, then he does "know better than me"...or at least better than almost all of the idiots that get interviewed for "Jaywalking". The Founders were smart and took into account human nature when forming our new government.... individuals can be smart, but the people enmasse are stupid, and lazy, and too preoccupied with their own affairs to take the time to grasp affairs of state. Representatives are ultimately accountable to the people, and their judgement and voting record are evaluated over time and not just the emotions of the moment.
  
  That it doesn't always work that way is not the fault of the system or the designers, nor is it reason to scrap it or ignore it. The system, though not perfect, is the best that can be designed....and we should strive for the ideal.

  I'm well aware of how the system is supposed to work - this isn't a teachable moment. Let me put it in another way, so that you can better understand where I'm coming from.
  
  How did our system work concerning Obamacare? Everybody knew it was a colossal hoax, including the democrat politicians who were in power at the time, yet guess what? They voted straight party, didn't they? (those that hesitated or refused were bought off) Now look at what the results are.
  I do not call that a working system.
  
  We're not living at Walgreens, there's no perfect world. That means that the system, and how it should work, can/will/does fail.
• Con_Alma

  HitsRus;1801806 wrote:...
  That it doesn't always work that way is not the fault of the system or the designers, nor is it reason to scrap it or ignore it. ...

  I completely agree with this part of your post.
• FatHobbit

  

  HitsRus;1801806 wrote:No....if a representative is doing his job and he acts in good conscience and principles after thoroughly reviewing an issue, then he does "know better than me"...or at least better than almost all of the idiots that get interviewed for "Jaywalking". The Founders were smart and took into account human nature when forming our new government.... individuals can be smart, but the people enmasse are stupid, and lazy, and too preoccupied with their own affairs to take the time to grasp affairs of state. Representatives are ultimately accountable to the people, and their judgement and voting record are evaluated over time and not just the emotions of the moment.
  
  That it doesn't always work that way is not the fault of the system or the designers, nor is it reason to scrap it or ignore it. The system, though not perfect, is the best that can be designed....and we should strive for the ideal.

  Then why bother having an election at all? If they are so smart, why don't they just select our leader?
• BoatShoes

  jmog;1801785 wrote:Wow, still blaming Bush 9 years later? When will liberals give that up, 10 more years? 20?

  Wow. Derped hard on this one eh? I see our resident scientist still has problems with reading comprehension. Nowhere did I blame anything on Bush. I suggested that all of the former Republican presidential nominees who are still alive will strongly consider voting for Hillary over the buffoon and many of them will do so privately.
• HitsRus

  

  FatHobbit;1802080 wrote:Then why bother having an election at all? If they are so smart, why don't they just select our leader?

  really? You have to have some accountability to the people, and the executive branch is already directly accountable.
  You elect representatives to best serve your interests in Washington. Those reprsentatives don't always vote your opinions/ views on an issue straight down the line, just as they don't exactly represent all of their constituents every single issue. Every 2 years you and the rest of the constituency hold them accountable on balance for their record. It is the job of the representative to vote the best interest of the people he serves... Not necessarily the whim of a narrow majority at any particular moment.
• FatHobbit

  

  HitsRus;1802367 wrote:really? You have to have some accountability to the people, and the executive branch is already directly accountable.
  You elect representatives to best serve your interests in Washington. Those reprsentatives don't always vote your opinions/ views on an issue straight down the line, just as they don't exactly represent all of their constituents every single issue. Every 2 years you and the rest of the constituency hold them accountable on balance for their record. It is the job of the representative to vote the best interest of the people he serves... Not necessarily the whim of a narrow majority at any particular moment.

  It is one thing to vote for George Bush when he says "read my lips, no new taxes" and then we get new taxes. It is another thing completely to check the box beside Donald Trump's name and have that representative vote for someone other than Donald Trump because that representative thinks Trump is a bad idea. I think Donald Trump would be a terrible president, but the people have definitely spoken.
• HitsRus

  

  I think Donald Trump would be a terrible president, but the people have definitely spoken.

  Only in a handful of states did he approach/exceed 50%, so it could be argued that a great majority voted for someone other than him...hardly a mandate. Couple that with the multiple gaffes, insensitive statements, lack of Republican values....