Welcome to Thunderdome

Seems to me the reason people contribute to politicians... or run for office... is so you can get favorable attention when it is time for new laws to be made. Some companies actually write the laws their paid for politician submits for a vote.

So.

Where do we go from here.

Anything less than changing how we do elections would be temporary at best.

It don't think we can get there from here. Hopefully things won't fall completely apart before governments become irrelevant.

TPRJones wrote:The analogy works better if you are forced to pay for a burger and you get to pick either McD, Burger King, or just not getting a burger you have to pay for. Not getting the burger may be the best choice for you, but they still get your money so they don't really care.

But they AREN'T getting your money in this analogy. Your vote is your money. They are only getting to drive the menu selection for the town. Admittedly, it's not a perfect analogy.

They want power, that's true. But they also realize that they only get to have power if they hold on to more voters than the other side. That's why both sides are so desperately screaming at you that a neither vote is a vote for the other side. I think there's a decent chance that we may hit a turnout below 505 of eligible voters for the first time since the '20s. If that happens, there will be a lot of soul searching and examination of messaging by the parties because whoever can pick up most of those voters and instill some conviction in them will be set for a decade or more. You saw of that already at the DNC Convention. They were waiving the pocket Constitution and quoting Tocqueville and mentioned the founding fathers far more than Trump or the RNC did at their convention. Now they screwed it up by allowing their base into the Convention to boo things that were ridiculous, but the party leaders knew they needed to make that plea to disenfranchised conservatives because their candidate isn't liked either.

They want the power, but they also realize that without the votes they get no power. The only way to force change within a party is not just for them to lose elections, but for them to lose elections badly. Republicans lost the last two Presidential elections. They're about (I'd wager) to lose a third. Everyone is talking about how Trump is such a different candidate than the Republicans have had in the past, but he really isn't. Republicans chose the moderate to liberal old white guy with the highest name recognition and the most ties to business like they'd done the last two times. Only this time he's a bigger douche than the last couple of elections.

I think your prediction is optimistic... I don't think their instinct will be "get better to pick up more votes." They already learned that a black guy will get 100% of the black vote. I think they'll continue going down that sort of road.

GORDON wrote:Seems to me the reason people contribute to politicians... or run for office... is so you can get favorable attention when it is time for new laws to be made. Some companies actually write the laws their paid for politician submits for a vote.

So.

Where do we go from here.

I've long said that the problem isn't all the politicians being bought, the problem is that we've allowed the federal government to accrue so much power that it has become a very valuable commodity to trade in. Take away 90% of the power of the federal government and suddenly the big money has little interest in what the government can get done for them because it isn't much.

But I don't think we can get there again from here. A moral people can self rule. We aren't those people anymore.

I think if the last two election cycles taught us anything, it's that "Free Candy" is an easy platform to run on.

GORDON wrote:I think your prediction is optimistic... I don't think their instinct will be "get better to pick up more votes." They already learned that a black guy will get 100% of the black vote. I think they'll continue going down that sort of road.

I don't think it will happen quickly, but it will eventually happen. Here's an interesting note on the black guy getting 100% of the black vote, McCain got 4% of the black vote in '08. Currently Trump is trending at 1% support among blacks.

Let that soak in a minute. The Republican nominee this time around is doing worse against an old white woman among blacks than the first African American nominee of a major party did.

Also of note, since Roe v Wade no Republican has won the popular vote without winning the majority of catholics (Bush won in '00 without the Catholic majority, but lost the popular vote). Republicans have only won the catholic vote with a strong pro-life message from the candidate. Abortion was never mentioned during the RNC during prime time at their convention. Still not sure where Trump is on funding Planned Parenthood.

Still not sure where Trump is on funding Planned Parenthood.

That depends on the audience of cocks in front of him he's sucking off for money and support.

Dead horse shocked into one last jig.

But they AREN'T getting your money in this analogy. Your vote is your money.

Not exactly. McD and BK want money. The politicians don't want votes, they want power, so for the analogy to work money = power not money = votes.

I mean you could always choose not to eat any burgers, but in the real world not voting doesn't mean someone isn't still going to get into office.

Maybe a better analogy is that the local government is going to pay for everyone's food but you have to vote for McD or BK as your only options. Don't vote and your tax dollars are still go to paying for burgers you don't want.

They want the power, but they also realize that without the votes they get no power.

As the total number of voters goes down their job of getting votes becomes much easier as they need fewer votes to win. Given the choice of getting one vote for themselves or getting rid of two votes for the other guy they'll choose the latter every time. They have no intrinsic respect for votes.

TPRJones wrote:As the total number of voters goes down their job of getting votes becomes much easier as they need fewer votes to win. Given the choice of getting one vote for themselves or getting rid of two votes for the other guy they'll choose the latter every time. They have no intrinsic respect for votes.

I agree to a point. One of the things that's always talked about after an election is whether or not the winner has a clear mandate. If we have a super low turnout, the opposition party will be emboldened to be a big hindrance to the winner. Also, a super low turnout should be a wakeup call for one party or the other to reform. Though more likely it'll be an opening for a third party to replace one of the big two (a this point probably the Republicans).

Trump supporters.

“We have a wonderful OPPORTUNITY here folks, that may never come again, at the RIGHT time,” Suhayda wrote, according to BuzzFeed. “Donald Trump’s campaign statements, if nothing else, have SHOWN that ‘our views’ are NOT so ‘unpopular’ as the Political Correctness crowd have told everyone they are!”

Suhayda is far from the first avowed white supremacist to publicize his support and enthusiasm for Trump.
...
“Well, of course they are!” Duke replied. “Because I represent the ideas of preserving this country and the heritage of this country, and I think Trump represents that as well.”

That'd be David Duke.

The whole, "If you don't vote it's a vote for the other guy" argument is such horse shit. It's the two party system saying they own you and your vote.

That's why I think everyone upset about this election needs to vote for a third party candidate.

Ben Shapiro tweet on Trump's latest dick stepping...

At Trump HQ, a lonely intern gazes sadly at the"DAYS WITHOUT ACCIDENT" sign, erases the 1, and writes in a 0.

RNC staffers jump ship.

Politico reported a spreading dismay particularly among younger staffers over the Trump campaign.

"It sucks to wake up every morning and go into the office and do things to help Donald Trump become president. They don't like that. It's bad for morale," an unnamed GOP consultant told Politico.

"All these senior people went on board and saluted and said ‘I'm with you Donald Trump.' It's been the most shocking thing of this cycle for me, even more shocking than the fact that he won."

Secret Service is tired of having to tell Donald Trump that veiled threats aren't ok.

The Secret Service has spoken to Donald Trump's campaign about the candidate's remark that gun owners might take action against Hillary Clinton, according to CNN.

The agency has had "more than one conversation" with Trump about his rhetoric, the network reported Wednesday.
...
The conversation is an unprecedented step for the agency to take with one of its own protectees.

Donnie the Ambulatory Disgrace plays damage control.

Donald Trump on Wednesday disputed a CNN report that the Secret Service spoke with his campaign about his "Second Amendment people" remarks.
...
But an unnamed agency official told CNN's Jim Sciutto that campaign aides told the Secret Service that Trump did not intend to incite violence.

Sciutto stood by his story despite Trump's assertion that no conversation took place.

Who do I believe more? Trump or a fictional source that might not exist? Toss up.

Twenty women, mostly swing voters, sitting at conference tables in Columbus, Ohio, and Phoenix on Tuesday night, provide another.

“He’s crazy,” says one.

“He kind of acts like a 2-year-old,” says another. “I have a 2-year-old. I see the similarities.”

Asked to imagine a President Trump, the women in Phoenix call out in a cascade: “doomed,” “scary,” “hang on” and “are you joking?”

That second one is hilarious. The movers and shakers of each party should be publicly drawn and quartered for the spectacle they encouraged. We can display their dismembered limbs from various state capital buildings throughout the country.

I know I say this a lot, but WTF Donnie Dickless?

Donald Trump said Thursday that he meant exactly what he said when he called President Barack Obama the "founder of ISIS" and objected when a conservative radio show host tried to clarify the GOP nominee's position.

Trump was asked by host Hugh Hewitt about the comments Trump made Wednesday night in Florida, and Hewitt said he understood Trump to mean "that he (Obama) created the vacuum, he lost the peace."

Trump objected.

"No, I meant he's the founder of ISIS," Trump said. "I do. He was the most valuable player. I give him the most valuable player award. I give her, too, by the way, Hillary Clinton."

Why Don the Dumpster Fire generates more media interest than Mrs. Bill.

Trump gets the airtime, the ink and the clicks far more often than Clinton because his controversies are generated largely by his own live performances on TV for all the world to see. Witnessing his debates or speeches is far more compelling than hearing about the possible implications of old emails from another decade.

And so we have all become rubber-neckers, slowing down to view the car wreck as we pass it on the highway.

Talking about the potential for corruption in some of Clinton's practices is serious business, but it is dull compared to watching one's daily dose of the Donald.

A few pachyderms get a petition going to get the RNC to cut funding to their candidate.

Trump's twitter ghostwriter.

David Robinson, a data scientist at Stack Overflow, suggests that the angrier tweets from Trump's official Twitter handle @realDonaldTrump, were sent from an Android device. However, some not-so-angry tweets related to campaign strategy and events are posted via an iPhone.

Drumpf uses a droid.

De Niro compares Trump to Travis Bickle.

With little else to do, Trump prepares for unprecedented ass-kicking in November.

"We're going to watch Pennsylvania. Go down to certain areas and watch and study and make sure other people don't come in and vote five times," he said at a rally in Altoona. "If you do that, we're not going to lose. The only way we can lose, in my opinion -- I really mean this, Pennsylvania -- is if cheating goes on."

Trump, who campaigned earlier Friday in Erie, Pennsylvania, said he "knows the state very well" and knows Clinton "can't beat what's happening here."

Unless there's cheating.

"The only way they can beat it, in my opinion -- and I mean this 100% -- if in certain sections of the state, they cheat," he said.

Trump's latest moves echoed -- but went even further than -- his statements last week in Ohio that he's "afraid the election is going to be rigged."

Keep making excuses, you prick.