Printable View
I would literally rather watch paint dry than one minute of either party's convention. Has a single person in history changed their vote or been convinced to go vote rather than stay home due to watching a party convention on tv? If so, is that person qualified to vote?Quote:
Originally Posted by FriscoDog
😂Quote:
Originally Posted by inudesu
I’ve been watching both conventions since 2000. I’m not normal, I realize that.
That sounds hellish. My skin literally crawls thinking about that (and yes in both this post and the previous one I literally mean it when I say "literally").Quote:
Originally Posted by johnnylightnin
AMEN!Quote:
Originally Posted by inudesu
I have no desire to watch carefully constructed propaganda that tells me nothing. Neither convention has a foothold in reality.
I love watching TCM.Quote:
Originally Posted by BullPupN'46
Something about a beam in one's own eye comes to mind.Quote:
Originally Posted by Guisslapp
I've been watching both conventions since 1980...got ya by 20 years on the whole abnormal thing. As I have mentioned I like the whole POTUS campaign process. From the Iowa Caucus thru the primaries. This year has been a huge disappointment, interrupted by the China virus. Chances are it has changed the process going forward. For instance, the conventions might be more "distance" oriented even after the virus is no longer a threat.Quote:
Originally Posted by johnnylightnin
Over the decades the conventions have gradually been less and less important. There was a time when they meant everything and in smoke-filled rooms, behind closed doors, deals were struck. For instance, the way Truman was selected to replace Henry Wallace as FDR's VP running mate in 1944 because the Dems knew Roosevelt was not likely to survive his 4th term, and they did not want Wallace to become POTUS. Truman did not seek the role, but was drafted at the convention and at first resisted...out of respect for Wallace who had been dutifully serving as FDR's VP for years.
Yes, now, they are just propaganda shows (circuses) because the two major parties have a monopoly on national politics.
Sick.Quote:
Originally Posted by dawg80
This explains so much. ;)
I hate every minute of it - if it were up to me they'd send out a paper listing the candidates and their positions on key policies with maybe a brief general governing philosophy and resume/CV the week before the elections (or primaries). Maybe some links to speeches for those who want to see how they speak/look. Then we all vote based on their positions after just enough time for vetting (from whatever news source you trust I guess). Personally I'd skip debates, but if that's important to enough people you can have one on the day the position statements are issued. Election season would last 7 days. No ads. No canvassing. No conventions. No fundraising. Just here are your options, here's what they've done, here's what they say about X, Y, and Z. I guess that's more or less how lower levels tend to operate. If it's good enough for city dog-catcher it's good enough for chief executive.
Debates!Quote:
Originally Posted by inudesu
They call them debates, but they are really just events where one candidate tries to "look" better on camera than the other. Been that way since the serial womanizer with the eternal flame won the presidency by looking smooth while Nixon sweated. Maybe we should elect the makeup guy.
You have "won" the debate when you have looked more commanding on stage, even if your policies were recognized as being horrible for the nation. If you have enough one liners, you win. I'd hate to think anyone changes their vote because of these things, but I know they do (so and so really kicked the other guy's butt in the debate, so I am voting for him).
Sometimes if you just do a little better than expected you win, even if you lose. Unfortunately these things have nothing to do with policy.
And this is why we need more Trumps running for POTUS. Puts more pizazz in the process! I mentioned a while back, probably over a year ago, I was "trapped" in a car with 4 VERY, VERY liberal women, driving to New Orleans for a conference. 4 1/2 hrs...ugh! But, what I did find interesting was their take on the "Trump phenomenon." While they did not care for his polices :shocked2: they did like his outsider status and how he riled up the old establishment. I suppose Crazy Bernie is the left's version of Trump, although Sanders has been a sitting senator for some time and is not truly an outsider. One of the ladies said, she hoped Trump would not ruin it for future outsiders to run for POTUS. Of course as a lib she sees it as "ruining" but at least she, and the others, lean to supporting outsiders. I have always said, and still maintain, that to get the Swamp completely drained will require the effort coming from both directions. In a way, the rejection of Krooked Killary, by many on the Left, who abandoned her in 2016, is a measure of this.
Looking forward to the 2024 Iowa Caucus when I hope things are back to "normal" for we "abnormal" folks.
Interesting.Quote:
Originally Posted by dawg80
Perhaps Trump should weaponize the federal bureaucracies like Obama did to get everyone on board. That guy made the IRS, FBI, CIA and whole justice department arms of the democrat party. Chicago politics at their best!
While the deep state is a tinfoil hat propaganda/marketing tool, term limits would make sure the "swamp" was routinely getting a lot of fresh water.
This ... and personally, I wish the state senates voted for president and supplied their electors as each state saw fit. It would make the executive serve at the whim of the states and it would remove the polarizing zeal that Americans have for national "issues" over local policy. We would be forced to care who our elected representatives actually are because it would be how a president got selected. Of course, none of that makes cable news a viable enterprise and sells ad money for beer, shampoo and paranoia accessoriesQuote:
Originally Posted by johnnylightnin
We should care far more for our local elections than the one that happens in Washington every 4 years and the mid-term adjustment that is almost always necessary when the party in control presumes a "voter mandate" and overreaches on their agenda.
The way Americans treat our presidential elections you would think we are electing a king.
The Dems are saying the pledge, but leaving out "under God." Hmmm...
The Church Lady would say, "How convenient! Who made you leave out those two words? Oh, I dunno, could it be....Satan!"
I agree with the term limits thing. Large cuts in pay would help, too. Makes me sick to hear someone that has parlayed a "career" in a legislative body into being a multi-millionaire speak of the "hardships" of public "service". Makes me wanna PUKE.Quote:
Originally Posted by johnnylightnin
I disagree about the deep state thing. I remember some sociological theory that stated no matter what an organization was set up to accomplish, it will eventually take on the task of preserving that very organization as its primary goal, and the organization will devolve into an oligarchy whose leaders will use the organization to pursue their own interests (which include preserving the organization that gives them their power). Makes perfect sense to me, and why these bureaucracies don't seem to be working for America much of the time.