The Crazy Just Get Crazier-Trump Reinstated?

[tallguy]

Jul 10, 2022 14:33:22 GMT -5 billisonboard said:

Jul 10, 2022 14:17:20 GMT -5 tallguy said:

Probably.  The fact that 73 million people could vote for Donald Trump AFTER his first four years is sufficient proof that the system is broken.  A better system would have never let him anywhere near the nomination in 2016.  The "smoke-filled back room" at least would be more likely to keep the truly bad candidates from being nominated, and leave it more in the hands of those better qualified to choose.  The Electoral College must also be abolished first and foremost.  It entrenches the inequity of one person's vote being worth more than another's, gives outsized power to some states at the expense of others, and ensures that many states will be ignored during the primary process.  And a national primary would be a good idea too, as long as you're asking....

Jul 9, 2022 22:31:56 GMT -5 tallguy said:

At this point I don't think there is a single issue that I feel comfortable entrusting to the American public.  The future of our democracy?  Not a chance in hell.  Too many have already demonstrated that they don't give a f***, and far too many are actually proud of their ignorance and stupidity.

Eliminating the Electoral College and a national primary would increase the power of the American public you indicate can't be trusted to make good decisions.

Perhaps to a small extent, but even increasing the power of the incompetent at the expense of the corrupt would be an improvement, would it not?  If I have 30% confidence in one option and 10% confidence in another, the 30 is still better.  Plus their failures would not be as damaging.  Those who mismanage government are not as bad as those who actively work to destroy it.  Plus, eliminating primaries completely would more likely leave us with "less bad" options in the first place, negating some of the potential damage.

I have said for a long time that one of the biggest problems with our presidential election system is that those most qualified, and who would make the best presidents, are too smart to actually run.  Why would anybody of real qualification put themselves through the complete and utter bullsh** of a presidential campaign?  Yes, okay, there are a few exceptions here and there.  For the most part, however, our system is built to raise up politicians, not statesmen.  We have not had a true statesman as president for an awfully long time.        

[djAdvocate]

Jul 10, 2022 15:08:57 GMT -5 tallguy said:

Jul 10, 2022 14:33:22 GMT -5 billisonboard said:

Eliminating the Electoral College and a national primary would increase the power of the American public you indicate can't be trusted to make good decisions.

Perhaps to a small extent, but even increasing the power of the incompetent at the expense of the corrupt would be an improvement, would it not?  If I have 30% confidence in one option and 10% confidence in another, the 30 is still better.  Plus their failures would not be as damaging.  Those who mismanage government are not as bad as those who actively work to destroy it.  Plus, eliminating primaries completely would more likely leave us with "less bad" options in the first place, negating some of the potential damage.

I have said for a long time that one of the biggest problems with our presidential election system is that those most qualified, and who would make the best presidents, are too smart to actually run.  Why would anybody of real qualification put themselves through the complete and utter bullsh** of a presidential campaign?  Yes, okay, there are a few exceptions here and there.  For the most part, however, our system is built to raise up politicians, not statesmen.  We have not had a true statesman as president for an awfully long time.        

i agree with this pretty much entirely.

our current system has several LAYERS of vulnerability.  this "state slate" crap is very dangerous.  the electors themselves are malleable and not governed by anything solid.  and then there is the electorate.  having only ONE of these three is far better than having a system with these three different points of attack.

[billisonboard]

Jul 10, 2022 15:08:57 GMT -5 tallguy said:

Jul 10, 2022 14:33:22 GMT -5 billisonboard said:

Eliminating the Electoral College and a national primary would increase the power of the American public you indicate can't be trusted to make good decisions.

Perhaps to a small extent, but even increasing the power of the incompetent at the expense of the corrupt would be an improvement, would it not?  If I have 30% confidence in one option and 10% confidence in another, the 30 is still better.  Plus their failures would not be as damaging.  Those who mismanage government are not as bad as those who actively work to destroy it.  Plus, eliminating primaries completely would more likely leave us with "less bad" options in the first place, negating some of the potential damage.

I have said for a long time that one of the biggest problems with our presidential election system is that those most qualified, and who would make the best presidents, are too smart to actually run.  Why would anybody of real qualification put themselves through the complete and utter bullsh** of a presidential campaign?  Yes, okay, there are a few exceptions here and there.  For the most part, however, our system is built to raise up politicians, not statesmen.  We have not had a true statesman as president for an awfully long time.        

I encourage people to think in detail who could win a one day national primary. The first question is who would control access to being on the ballot. I would have to assume there would only be one list of names. How strict would the requirements need to be to keep it a manageable number. If it were the middle teens like where numerous races have started recently, what percentage would it take to win the plurality. I can easily see nominees who have around 20% support. Think about the type of candidate that could appeal to that narrow a group. And a statesman? Not seeing it.

[djAdvocate]

speaking of crazy, i have not heard much from Madd Rabbit #1, Sydney Powell, much lately.

[djAdvocate]

by the way, have y'all read this?;

www.documentcloud.org/documents/21066248-eastman-memo


the entire argument hinges on Pence's authority to act.
the fact that he called for advise on this to Mr. Potatoehead is kinda scary.
but whatever, at least he got the right advise.

what if he had NOT?

there are so many what-if's in all of this.
so many levels of vulnerability that can be exploited in the future.
i fear for this country.
i really do.

[djAdvocate]

Jul 10, 2022 15:27:11 GMT -5 billisonboard said:

Jul 10, 2022 15:08:57 GMT -5 tallguy said:

Perhaps to a small extent, but even increasing the power of the incompetent at the expense of the corrupt would be an improvement, would it not?  If I have 30% confidence in one option and 10% confidence in another, the 30 is still better.  Plus their failures would not be as damaging.  Those who mismanage government are not as bad as those who actively work to destroy it.  Plus, eliminating primaries completely would more likely leave us with "less bad" options in the first place, negating some of the potential damage.

I have said for a long time that one of the biggest problems with our presidential election system is that those most qualified, and who would make the best presidents, are too smart to actually run.  Why would anybody of real qualification put themselves through the complete and utter bullsh** of a presidential campaign?  Yes, okay, there are a few exceptions here and there.  For the most part, however, our system is built to raise up politicians, not statesmen.  We have not had a true statesman as president for an awfully long time.        

I encourage people to think in detail who could win a one day national primary. The first question is who would control access to being on the ballot. I would have to assume there would only be one list of names. How strict would the requirements need to be to keep it a manageable number. If it were the middle teens like where numerous races have started recently, what percentage would it take to win the plurality. I can easily see nominees who have around 20% support. Think about the type of candidate that could appeal to that narrow a group. And a statesman? Not seeing it.

the constitution only requires that they be a US Citizen and over 35.  
if you are suggesting further impediments, then i would question what
you are suggesting for guidance.

[billisonboard]

Jul 10, 2022 15:39:15 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

Jul 10, 2022 15:27:11 GMT -5 billisonboard said:

I encourage people to think in detail who could win a one day national primary. The first question is who would control access to being on the ballot. I would have to assume there would only be one list of names. How strict would the requirements need to be to keep it a manageable number. If it were the middle teens like where numerous races have started recently, what percentage would it take to win the plurality. I can easily see nominees who have around 20% support. Think about the type of candidate that could appeal to that narrow a group. And a statesman? Not seeing it.

the constitution only requires that they be a US Citizen and over 35.  
if you are suggesting further impediments, then i would question what
you are suggesting for guidance.

Well, what were the state requirements in 2020. One requirement to gain ballot access in the Democratic presidential primary in California was signatures "From each congressional district, 1% of registered party members or 500, whichever is fewer" and for the Republicans "1% of registered party members". Filing fee? Texas was $2,500 for the Democrats and $5,000 for the Republicans. Those are at the high end. A lot have no fee. link If 35 and natural born citizen is all it would take to get your name on a national primary ballot, how many people in the United States would say, "Please put my name on it?" Do you think it would be ten? Fifteen? Perhaps fifty, one from each state. Or more?

[tallguy]

Jul 10, 2022 19:03:16 GMT -5 billisonboard said:

Jul 10, 2022 15:39:15 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

the constitution only requires that they be a US Citizen and over 35.  
if you are suggesting further impediments, then i would question what
you are suggesting for guidance.

Well, what were the state requirements in 2020. One requirement to gain ballot access in the Democratic presidential primary in California was signatures "From each congressional district, 1% of registered party members or 500, whichever is fewer" and for the Republicans "1% of registered party members". Filing fee? Texas was $2,500 for the Democrats and $5,000 for the Republicans. Those are at the high end. A lot have no fee. link If 35 and natural born citizen is all it would take to get your name on a national primary ballot, how many people in the United States would say, "Please put my name on it?" Do you think it would be ten? Fifteen? Perhaps fifty, one from each state. Or more?

What difference would it make?  Are you thinking that a national primary would be one election with the same ballot everywhere?  No, it simply means that all states have their primary on the same day.  If various crackpots and attention-seekers want to be on the ballot in a particular state, it will be the same as it has always been.  They'll be on the state ballot, they will get their four votes, and then never be heard from until the next election.  As far as the timing, have it later in the election season, say in August or September, after campaigning has taken place.  A good thing to propose at the same time would be to limit the campaign season so that ads can only be run for a couple of months before the primary date.  I would guess that would have a tremendous effect on campaign financing too, and would eliminate donors switching from their preferred candidate to another because "their guy" got knocked out.  All in all, wouldn't those things be an improvement over our current morass?

[billisonboard]

Jul 10, 2022 19:27:37 GMT -5 tallguy said:

Jul 10, 2022 19:03:16 GMT -5 billisonboard said:

Well, what were the state requirements in 2020. One requirement to gain ballot access in the Democratic presidential primary in California was signatures "From each congressional district, 1% of registered party members or 500, whichever is fewer" and for the Republicans "1% of registered party members". Filing fee? Texas was $2,500 for the Democrats and $5,000 for the Republicans. Those are at the high end. A lot have no fee. link If 35 and natural born citizen is all it would take to get your name on a national primary ballot, how many people in the United States would say, "Please put my name on it?" Do you think it would be ten? Fifteen? Perhaps fifty, one from each state. Or more?

What difference would it make?  Are you thinking that a national primary would be one election with the same ballot everywhere?  No, it simply means that all states have their primary on the same day.  If various crackpots and attention-seekers want to be on the ballot in a particular state, it will be the same as it has always been.  They'll be on the state ballot, they will get their four votes, and then never be heard from until the next election.  As far as the timing, have it later in the election season, say in August or September, after campaigning has taken place.  A good thing to propose at the same time would be to limit the campaign season so that ads can only be run for a couple of months before the primary date.  I would guess that would have a tremendous effect on campaign financing too, and would eliminate donors switching from their preferred candidate to another because "their guy" got knocked out.  All in all, wouldn't those things be an improvement over our current morass?

You got me there. I did assume that a national primary would be a primary instead of fifty primaries all on the same day.

Jul 10, 2022 14:17:20 GMT -5 tallguy said:

Jul 10, 2022 14:03:54 GMT -5 billisonboard said:

One relatively new change is how nominees for president from the major parties are selected. Should they do away with primary voting and/or restrengthen "super-delegate" power at conventions?

Probably.  The fact that 73 million people could vote for Donald Trump AFTER his first four years is sufficient proof that the system is broken.  A better system would have never let him anywhere near the nomination in 2016.  The "smoke-filled back room" at least would be more likely to keep the truly bad candidates from being nominated, and leave it more in the hands of those better qualified to choose.  The Electoral College must also be abolished first and foremost.  It entrenches the inequity of one person's vote being worth more than another's, gives outsized power to some states at the expense of others, and ensures that many states will be ignored during the primary process.  And a national primary would be a good idea too, as long as you're asking....

Okay fifty states all in one day - plus a shortened campaign season. If you were advising a presidential candidate with this parameters, how many hours would you propose they spend in say Vermont? Montana? 8n what markets would you spend finite advertising dollars? You think states are ignored now ...

[tallguy]

How much time is spent in those states now?  Washington is much bigger than both and the only reason candidates come here is for fund-raising speeches.  I would guess it would become much more strategic than now, which places a premium on your advisory team.  Do you go where you are a little bit ahead to try and lock down that state?  Do you go where you are a little bit behind to try and overtake your opponent?  Does the national media follow the major candidates wherever they go precisely because everything matters in a condensed schedule?  Probably.  If you also abolish the Electoral College then it doesn't really matter where your appearances are because every vote ultimately counts the same in November anyway.  No advantage is gained by spending a lot of time in so-called swing states. 

And don't forget that there is not necessarily going to be that much less money spent overall, it would just be spent in a shorter time frame.  Of course that would kill Trump, since he would gain far less from auto-enrolling small donors into recurring contributions until they finally have to sue him for refunds.   

[billisonboard]

Jul 10, 2022 20:17:50 GMT -5 tallguy said:

How much time is spent in those states now?  So your change doesn't fix the issue of some states being ignored Washington is much bigger than both and the only reason candidates come here is for fund-raising speeches.  I would guess it would become much more strategic than now, which places a premium on your advisory team.  So it would empower political operatives and candidates with the money to hire them Do you go where you are a little bit ahead to try and lock down that state?  Do you go where you are a little bit behind to try and overtake your opponent?  So you have early polling numbers based on little to no campaigning and make campaigning decisions based on questionable data.  Does the national media follow the major candidates wherever they go precisely because everything matters in a condensed schedule?  Probably.  Agreed. The media will follow who they decide are the major candidates. If you also abolish the Electoral College then it doesn't really matter where your appearances are because every vote ultimately counts the same in November anyway.  No advantage is gained by spending a lot of time in so-called swing states.  Advantage will be gained by appearances in high population areas.

And don't forget that there is not necessarily going to be that much less money spent overall, it would just be spent in a shorter time frame.  Of course that would kill Trump, since he would gain far less from auto-enrolling small donors into recurring contributions until they finally have to sue him for refunds.    It would certainly give more power to big money donors

[djAdvocate]

Jul 10, 2022 19:03:16 GMT -5 billisonboard said:

Jul 10, 2022 15:39:15 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

the constitution only requires that they be a US Citizen and over 35.  
if you are suggesting further impediments, then i would question what
you are suggesting for guidance.

Well, what were the state requirements in 2020. One requirement to gain ballot access in the Democratic presidential primary in California was signatures "From each congressional district, 1% of registered party members or 500, whichever is fewer" and for the Republicans "1% of registered party members". Filing fee? Texas was $2,500 for the Democrats and $5,000 for the Republicans. Those are at the high end. A lot have no fee. link If 35 and natural born citizen is all it would take to get your name on a national primary ballot, how many people in the United States would say, "Please put my name on it?" Do you think it would be ten? Fifteen? Perhaps fifty, one from each state. Or more?

overly restrictive.
i would like to think a sufficiently worldly grocery clerk could become president.

[djAdvocate]

Jul 10, 2022 19:49:49 GMT -5 billisonboard said:

Jul 10, 2022 19:27:37 GMT -5 tallguy said:

What difference would it make?  Are you thinking that a national primary would be one election with the same ballot everywhere?  No, it simply means that all states have their primary on the same day.  If various crackpots and attention-seekers want to be on the ballot in a particular state, it will be the same as it has always been.  They'll be on the state ballot, they will get their four votes, and then never be heard from until the next election.  As far as the timing, have it later in the election season, say in August or September, after campaigning has taken place.  A good thing to propose at the same time would be to limit the campaign season so that ads can only be run for a couple of months before the primary date.  I would guess that would have a tremendous effect on campaign financing too, and would eliminate donors switching from their preferred candidate to another because "their guy" got knocked out.  All in all, wouldn't those things be an improvement over our current morass?

You got me there. I did assume that a national primary would be a primary instead of fifty primaries all on the same day.

Jul 10, 2022 14:17:20 GMT -5 tallguy said:

Probably.  The fact that 73 million people could vote for Donald Trump AFTER his first four years is sufficient proof that the system is broken.  A better system would have never let him anywhere near the nomination in 2016.  The "smoke-filled back room" at least would be more likely to keep the truly bad candidates from being nominated, and leave it more in the hands of those better qualified to choose.  The Electoral College must also be abolished first and foremost.  It entrenches the inequity of one person's vote being worth more than another's, gives outsized power to some states at the expense of others, and ensures that many states will be ignored during the primary process.  And a national primary would be a good idea too, as long as you're asking....

Okay fifty states all in one day - plus a shortened campaign season. If you were advising a presidential candidate with this parameters, how many hours would you propose they spend in say Vermont? Montana? 8n what markets would you spend finite advertising dollars? You think states are ignored now ...

i am missing the significance of national leaders disproportionately spending time in unpopulated states.  don't they have over-representation in the Senate already?  it seems like they have all of the advantages and none of the disadvantages currently, and that this fact is NO service whatsoever to the Republic.

point out the error in my logic.

[billisonboard]

I realized I misstated earlier that there would be fifty individual states primaries. Not all state political parties host a primary.

There is a complex reality in regards to the systems of how political parties end up with a nominee being placed on state ballots for president. There is some power that a state government can exert based on the fact that if a political party wants to have a public vote, the state government is able to set a take it or leave it date. The state can also determine if they are willing to register voters with a party designation and limit voting options based on such. The national political party organizations have the power over who they will seat at their conventions and can reject delegates selected in a manner they don't approve.

While the idea of a national primary day might be appealing (to some), there is simply no way to make it happen in a meaningful way. No entity is empowered to establish it and force states to follow it. National political parties can't be forced to act in a way that relies on the results. It just won't work.

[djAdvocate]

the complex reality is an undemocratic mess, rife with opportunity for corruption and abuse.

[billisonboard]

Jul 11, 2022 9:25:25 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

the complex reality is an undemocratic mess, rife with opportunity for corruption and abuse.

And I have pondered a great deal on the question of a better way to get high quality options presented to the American voter and have failed to come up with one that does not present equal shortcomings.

[djAdvocate]

Jul 11, 2022 9:30:40 GMT -5 billisonboard said:

Jul 11, 2022 9:25:25 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

the complex reality is an undemocratic mess, rife with opportunity for corruption and abuse.

And I have pondered a great deal on the question of a better way to get high quality options presented to the American voter and have failed to come up with one that does not present equal shortcomings.

what about doing what they do in 90% of the nations we call nominally democratic?
open the field to anyone who wants to run?

it is pretty clear that the parties are out of step with the mainstream voter.
but they have a lock on our political system due to the primary system.

furthermore, this cumbersome and complex system forces politicians to spend half their time fundraising and campaigning rather than governing.  whose interest does that serve?  certainly not the voter.  it best serves elite interests that are forcing them to raise money.

i think our system as it is is hopelessly corrupt.  fortunately, the world is replete with examples of how to do it better.  it probably won't happen because we have lost control of our democracy.

[billisonboard]

Jul 11, 2022 9:56:26 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

Jul 11, 2022 9:30:40 GMT -5 billisonboard said:

And I have pondered a great deal on the question of a better way to get high quality options presented to the American voter and have failed to come up with one that does not present equal shortcomings.

what about doing what they do in 90% of the nations we call nominally democratic?
open the field to anyone who wants to run?

it is pretty clear that the parties are out of step with the mainstream voter.
but they have a lock on our political system due to the primary system.

furthermore, this cumbersome and complex system forces politicians to spend half their time fundraising and campaigning rather than governing.  whose interest does that serve?  certainly not the voter.  it best serves elite interests that are forcing them to raise money.

i think our system as it is is hopelessly corrupt.  fortunately, the world is replete with examples of how to do it better.  it probably won't happen because we have lost control of our democracy.

Please cite me an example of a country you think does it well. I will research that system and offer critique.

[dondub]

Jul 11, 2022 10:05:15 GMT -5 billisonboard said:

Jul 11, 2022 9:56:26 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

what about doing what they do in 90% of the nations we call nominally democratic?
open the field to anyone who wants to run?

it is pretty clear that the parties are out of step with the mainstream voter.
but they have a lock on our political system due to the primary system.

furthermore, this cumbersome and complex system forces politicians to spend half their time fundraising and campaigning rather than governing.  whose interest does that serve?  certainly not the voter.  it best serves elite interests that are forcing them to raise money.

i think our system as it is is hopelessly corrupt.  fortunately, the world is replete with examples of how to do it better.  it probably won't happen because we have lost control of our democracy.

Please cite me an example of a country you think does it well. I will research that system and offer critique.

New Zealand?

[billisonboard]

Jul 11, 2022 10:11:02 GMT -5 dondub said:

Jul 11, 2022 10:05:15 GMT -5 billisonboard said:

Please cite me an example of a country you think does it well. I will research that system and offer critique.

New Zealand?

There is universal suffrage for those 18 years of age and older. In 1996 the country’s long-standing simple plurality (“first past the post”) system was replaced with the mixed member proportional (MMP) method, in which each voter has two votes, one for an electorate (district) candidate and one for a political party. A party’s representation in the legislature is proportional to the number of party votes it receives. The new system also enlarged the Parliament to 120 seats—71 elected (including 7 reserved for Māori) from the electorates and 49 from party lists.

EDIT whoops link: www.britannica.com/place/New-Zealand/Political-process

So we would vote for a representative and also for a political party. Congress would be 2/3rds people we elect and 1/3 people appointed by the governing bodies of political parties. Interesting. I guess if you have faith in political parties that would be good.

[tallguy]

Jul 10, 2022 20:50:22 GMT -5 billisonboard said:

Jul 10, 2022 20:17:50 GMT -5 tallguy said:

How much time is spent in those states now?  So your change doesn't fix the issue of some states being ignored Washington is much bigger than both and the only reason candidates come here is for fund-raising speeches.  I would guess it would become much more strategic than now, which places a premium on your advisory team.  So it would empower political operatives and candidates with the money to hire them Do you go where you are a little bit ahead to try and lock down that state?  Do you go where you are a little bit behind to try and overtake your opponent?  So you have early polling numbers based on little to no campaigning and make campaigning decisions based on questionable data.  Does the national media follow the major candidates wherever they go precisely because everything matters in a condensed schedule?  Probably.  Agreed. The media will follow who they decide are the major candidates. If you also abolish the Electoral College then it doesn't really matter where your appearances are because every vote ultimately counts the same in November anyway.  No advantage is gained by spending a lot of time in so-called swing states.  Advantage will be gained by appearances in high population areas.

And don't forget that there is not necessarily going to be that much less money spent overall, it would just be spent in a shorter time frame.  Of course that would kill Trump, since he would gain far less from auto-enrolling small donors into recurring contributions until they finally have to sue him for refunds.    It would certainly give more power to big money donors

I think you are reaching with pretty much all of this.  I am not saying that any of my ideas are perfect.  I AM saying that what we have currently is a ridiculous mess.  If we can rid ourselves of some of the biggest abuses, why not start there?

Posted by billisonboard40 minutes ago

45 minutes ago djAdvocate said:

the complex reality is an undemocratic mess, rife with opportunity for corruption and abuse.

And I have pondered a great deal on the question of a better way to get high quality options presented to the American voter and have failed to come up with one that does not present equal shortcomings.

There is likely not going to ever be a perfect solution, but do not let the perfect be the enemy of the good.  Get rid of the biggest abuses first.  Does that begin with the power of the national parties?  Does it begin with true campaign finance reform?  Something else?  I don't know.  Ideally it would be solved by a truly informed and involved electorate putting the good of the many over the good of the few, but does anybody anywhere think that will ever happen?  Perhaps it is the "liberal thinker" aspect of my personality weighing in, but I always believe we can do better than we are.  It would not be difficult to do better in the area of our elections.

[billisonboard]

Jul 11, 2022 10:31:36 GMT -5 tallguy said:

Jul 10, 2022 20:50:22 GMT -5 billisonboard said:

I think you are reaching with pretty much all of this.  I am not saying that any of my ideas are perfect.  I AM saying that what we have currently is a ridiculous mess.  If we can rid ourselves of some of the biggest abuses, why not start there?

Posted by billisonboard40 minutes ago


And I have pondered a great deal on the question of a better way to get high quality options presented to the American voter and have failed to come up with one that does not present equal shortcomings.

There is likely not going to ever be a perfect solution, but do not let the perfect be the enemy of the good.  Get rid of the biggest abuses first.  Does that begin with the power of the national parties?  Does it begin with true campaign finance reform?  Something else?  I don't know.  Ideally it would be solved by a truly informed and involved electorate putting the good of the many over the good of the few, but does anybody anywhere think that will ever happen?  Perhaps it is the "liberal thinker" aspect of my personality weighing in, but I always believe we can do better than we are.  It would not be difficult to do better in the area of our elections.

It is certainly the "conservative thinker" aspect of my personality weighing in. I do think it is difficult to meaningfully improve the system.

[tallguy]

Jul 11, 2022 10:44:21 GMT -5 billisonboard said:

Jul 11, 2022 10:31:36 GMT -5 tallguy said:

I think you are reaching with pretty much all of this.  I am not saying that any of my ideas are perfect.  I AM saying that what we have currently is a ridiculous mess.  If we can rid ourselves of some of the biggest abuses, why not start there?


There is likely not going to ever be a perfect solution, but do not let the perfect be the enemy of the good.  Get rid of the biggest abuses first.  Does that begin with the power of the national parties?  Does it begin with true campaign finance reform?  Something else?  I don't know.  Ideally it would be solved by a truly informed and involved electorate putting the good of the many over the good of the few, but does anybody anywhere think that will ever happen?  Perhaps it is the "liberal thinker" aspect of my personality weighing in, but I always believe we can do better than we are.  It would not be difficult to do better in the area of our elections.

It is certainly the "conservative thinker" aspect of my personality weighing in. I do think it is difficult to meaningfully improve the system.

I think you may have just identified the biggest problem with being a conservative thinker.   

[billisonboard]

Jul 11, 2022 10:55:50 GMT -5 tallguy said:

Jul 11, 2022 10:44:21 GMT -5 billisonboard said:

It is certainly the "conservative thinker" aspect of my personality weighing in. I do think it is difficult to meaningfully improve the system.

I think you may have just identified the biggest problem with being a conservative thinker.   

And a favorite sarcastic saying of my father I heard growing up was, "Hurry up and do something, even if it is wrong."

[tallguy]

Jul 11, 2022 11:05:22 GMT -5 billisonboard said:

Jul 11, 2022 10:55:50 GMT -5 tallguy said:

I think you may have just identified the biggest problem with being a conservative thinker.   

And a favorite sarcastic saying of my father I heard growing up was, "Hurry up and do something, even if it is wrong."

Isn't that what today's conservatives specialize in?   

[billisonboard]

Jul 11, 2022 11:07:46 GMT -5 tallguy said:

Jul 11, 2022 11:05:22 GMT -5 billisonboard said:

And a favorite sarcastic saying of my father I heard growing up was, "Hurry up and do something, even if it is wrong."

Isn't that what today's conservatives specialize in?   

There are conservative and liberal thinkers and then there are conservative and liberal (American) politicians.

[tallguy]

Jul 11, 2022 11:12:57 GMT -5 billisonboard said:

Jul 11, 2022 11:07:46 GMT -5 tallguy said:

Isn't that what today's conservatives specialize in?   

There are conservative and liberal thinkers and then there are conservative and liberal (American) politicians.

Of course, and thank you for noticing that I did not say "conservative thinkers" in my post.

Uhh, you did notice that, right?   

[billisonboard]

Jul 11, 2022 11:37:41 GMT -5 tallguy said:

Jul 11, 2022 11:12:57 GMT -5 billisonboard said:

There are conservative and liberal thinkers and then there are conservative and liberal (American) politicians.

Of course, and thank you for noticing that I did not say "conservative thinkers" in my post.

Uhh, you did notice that, right?   

yeah

[thyme4change]

Jul 11, 2022 11:07:46 GMT -5 tallguy said:

Jul 11, 2022 11:05:22 GMT -5 billisonboard said:

And a favorite sarcastic saying of my father I heard growing up was, "Hurry up and do something, even if it is wrong."

Isn't that what today's conservatives specialize in?   

Bit are they really doing things, or are they just undoing things? I mean, by definition, conservatives need to either make the country stand still, or move backwards to some fictional "better time". If they wanted to have our society go somewhere new, it would be progressive.

[tallguy]

Jul 11, 2022 16:42:07 GMT -5 thyme4change said:

Jul 11, 2022 11:07:46 GMT -5 tallguy said:

Isn't that what today's conservatives specialize in?   

Bit are they really doing things, or are they just undoing things? I mean, by definition, conservatives need to either make the country stand still, or move backwards to some fictional "better time". If they wanted to have our society go somewhere new, it would be progressive.

Technically, "doing something" can be either positive or negative and does not imply a direction, forward or backward.  Dismantling rights is doing something.  Corrupting elections practices is doing something.  Assaulting the Capitol is doing something.  Even if it is wrong.