|
Re: 2016 Election
Originally Posted by dakota44
(Post 11846178)
Waste of time for sure. I suspect there would be constitutional issues trying to mandate a single national primary. A lot of latitude is granted to the states when it comes to voting. States even distribute the delegates differently. It is quite an odd setup.
June 7th is rather late in the game... |
Re: 2016 Election
Originally Posted by Jsmth321
(Post 11846228)
I suspect the same. Likely far too difficult to change and no political will to change it for it to ever happen.
June 7th is rather late in the game... |
Re: 2016 Election
Originally Posted by Leslie
(Post 11846102)
Sorry, Dad.
|
Re: 2016 Election
Originally Posted by Boiler
(Post 11846239)
Great Grandad, soon.
|
Re: 2016 Election
Oh that Trump. What sane person would say this. http://edition.cnn.com/2016/01/23/politics/donald-trump-shoot-somebody-support/index.html
|
Re: 2016 Election
Originally Posted by dakota44
(Post 11846268)
Oh that Trump. What sane person would say this. Donald Trump: I could 'shoot somebody and I wouldn't lose voters' - CNNPolitics.com
|
Re: 2016 Election
Originally Posted by CelticRover
(Post 11846303)
What is even more to the point is that all of his rants and threats are ostensibly playing quite well to a fairly large targeted audience. What does that say about that segment of the US voter eligible population?
|
Re: 2016 Election
Originally Posted by CelticRover
(Post 11846303)
What is even more to the point is that all of his rants and threats are ostensibly playing quite well to a fairly large targeted audience. What does that say about that segment of the US voter eligible population?
|
Re: 2016 Election
Well, at least we can't say we weren't warned.
|
Re: 2016 Election
Gotta love Tina.
|
Re: 2016 Election
Originally Posted by dakota44
(Post 11846399)
|
Re: 2016 Election
Originally Posted by Leslie
(Post 11846106)
I was thinking about Trump and why he's unsuited for the presidency and I guess my biggest issue, now that I'm coming out of denial and realizing this could actually happen, does have to do with temperament. He's been so rich for so long, he has no skills for compromise. I don't think he understands how (mostly) impotent the president is, specially when he has no alliances. |
Re: 2016 Election
Time to start limiting how much can be spent on elections?
https://www.washingtonpost.com/polit...6a0_story.html The media in Canada has been reporting that the net worth of the Koch brothers has doubled since Obama has been in office, seems they have done pretty well since 2008...... |
Re: 2016 Election
Originally Posted by Shard
(Post 11846568)
I was thinking about that too. He talks very tough and can-do, but the reality of the position is so much different. Maybe he would just install a capable team like Bush or Reagan, and sit back and bask in the presidential glow. At the end of the day, I don't think he gives a 4X about the USA, he just sees a crowning opportunity for his name. He's dial the rhetoric down, and take a back seat, because there's no way his property development deal making skills (the "main thing" as Mrs Palin calls it) will translate into the alliances and compromises required in politics. But hopefully, it won't come to that.
|
Re: 2016 Election
Originally Posted by Leslie
(Post 11846694)
I agree, he doesn't care on any subcutaneous level. His needs begin and end with attention and being worshipped. He's shown that he only has three speeds (1) bullying and character assassination (2) throwing money at any obstacles, and (3) sue anybody who 1&2 didn't work on. This approach will not work on Putin or the Ayatollah. They don't give a shit - they've got their own countries.
It still amounts to a choice between piles or the clap though. |
| All times are GMT -12. The time now is 3:23 am. |
Powered by vBulletin: ©2000 - 2026, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.