Mega-Leak: Transcripts of Trump's foreign leader phone calls emerge

[VictorG]

Anyone notice how there hasn't been any leaks since trump went on vacation?

[GannonFan]

Guys, on the Democratic Primary thing:

Yes, the Democrats have the Super Delegates. The Republicans would be smart to do it as well. Maybe that way they could reduce the odds of having future situations in which an atrocity like Trump gets the nomination.

Are you kidding me? The Republicans have enough problems without super delegates. Can you imagine the likes of McConnell, McCain, and other establishment types making sure that no Amash or Mike Lee type of "small government" Republican sees the light of day? Have you seen what the Chinless Wonder is doing in the Alabama Senate primary for the special election to succeed Sessions? It ain't pretty. Drumpf will get a toady in that seat. The Big Orange is just another part of the swamp now.

Indeed, a return to party bosses and political machines, as they existed a century again and not the neutered version that exists today (well, neutered mostly on the RNC side, but possibly surviving just fine on the DNC side as there is little angst today about their rigging of the last primary), is an interesting position to take. Basically saying "screw the people, they aren't smart enough to know what they want, we'll just give them what they should want". Hillary was going to put that on her campaign signs but it got condensed into "I'm with Her". I'm not sure what version JSO had tattooed onto his posterior. Nor do I want to know.

[JohnStOnge]

How can you guys possibly say, right now, that the current system of selecting Party candidates through primaries has worked well?

When the general election comes then, yes, principle dictates that the People decide. But when you're talking about Political Parties selecting who their candidates for the general election are going to be, that's a different thing.

[JohnStOnge]

The 2016 election Democratic Party primaries were not rigged. Yes, there were people with the DNC including Wasserman Schultz who clearly favored Hillary. But there is no evidence at ALL that there was a discrepancy between what Democrat voters wanted and what Democrat voters got.

I went through a big thing on that last year with the primary polls. The only times the polls were wrong during the Democratic Party primaries...and there weren't many of those times...Sanders won when Hillary was favored. There was never ANY evidence that people really wanted Sanders but something was going on to "rig" things so that Hillary won instead.

It wasn't really even all that close overall. A solid majority of Democrats favored Clinton over Sanders early. A solid majority of Democrats favored Clinton over Sanders in the middle of the race. A solid majority of Democrats favored Clinton over Sanders late.

And the existence of Super Delegates was irrelevant. If you'd have had a situation where Sanders was favored by the majority of Democrats the Super Delegates would've switched. There is NO way they'd have put Clinton in if Sanders had won the majority of primary delegates. But it didn't matter there was never any doubt that Clinton was going to get a substantial majority of the primary delegates.

[JohnStOnge]

Basically saying "screw the people, they aren't smart enough to know what they want, we'll just give them what they should want".

It's not that they aren't smart enough to know what they want. It's that that they're not smart enough to want what is reasonable. I think it's pretty much self evident right now that leaving the selection of candidates up to the primary process can result in an absurd outcome.

[Ivytalk]

How can you guys possibly say, right now, that the current system of selecting Party candidates through primaries has worked well?

When the general election comes then, yes, principle dictates that the People decide. But when you're talking about Political Parties selecting who their candidates for the general election are going to be, that's a different thing.

Man, you are a trip! So you trust the establishment superdelegate mugwumps, who gave the Democrats Hillary Clinton, one of the most corrupt and flawed candidates in history. You're saying that you don't trust the people to select party candidates, because they choose "atrocities," but "principle" entitles the people to install an "atrocity" in office. Not very small-l libertarian of you, John. Not very small-l logical, either.

[Ivytalk]

Basically saying "screw the people, they aren't smart enough to know what they want, we'll just give them what they should want".

It's not that they aren't smart enough to know what they want. It's that that they're not smart enough to want what is reasonable. I think it's pretty much self evident right now that leaving the selection of candidates up to the primary process can result in an absurd outcome.

OK, Dr. Mengele, why don't you breed the stupid out of the electorate and give us some Wilsonian-Crolyan supermen who will always be smart enough to know what candidate is "reasonable"?

[JohnStOnge]

It's not that they aren't smart enough to know what they want. It's that that they're not smart enough to want what is reasonable. I think it's pretty much self evident right now that leaving the selection of candidates up to the primary process can result in an absurd outcome.

OK, Dr. Mengele, why don't you breed the stupid out of the electorate and give us some Wilsonian-Crolyan supermen who will always be smart enough to know what candidate is "reasonable"?

Look, there is nothing wrong with having the political parties select candidates who are actually qualified for the job and not nut jobs for consideration during the general election.

[Ivytalk]

OK, Dr. Mengele, why don't you breed the stupid out of the electorate and give us some Wilsonian-Crolyan supermen who will always be smart enough to know what candidate is "reasonable"?

Look, there is nothing wrong with having the political parties select candidates who are actually qualified for the job and not nut jobs for consideration during the general election.

Yeah, but you haven't answered my question. Political parties are associations of people with common objectives. So who gets to make the selection of a candidate?

[JohnStOnge]

Look, there is nothing wrong with having the political parties select candidates who are actually qualified for the job and not nut jobs for consideration during the general election.

Yeah, but you haven't answered my question. Political parties are associations of people with common objectives. So who gets to make the selection of a candidate?

You have Parties within each State select representatives to the State Central Committee. Then, instead of having State by State primaries to select each State's delegates to the national convention, you have the State Central Committees do it.

You'd end up with better general election candidates because you would have a situation where people who are truly engaged and paying attention make the selections.

[BDKJMU]

The 2016 election Democratic Party primaries were not rigged. Yes, there were people with the DNC including Wasserman Schultz who clearly favored Hillary. But there is no evidence at ALL that there was a discrepancy between what Democrat voters wanted and what Democrat voters got.

I went through a big thing on that last year with the primary polls. The only times the polls were wrong during the Democratic Party primaries...and there weren't many of those times...Sanders won when Hillary was favored. There was never ANY evidence that people really wanted Sanders but something was going on to "rig" things so that Hillary won instead.

It wasn't really even all that close overall. A solid majority of Democrats favored Clinton over Sanders early. A solid majority of Democrats favored Clinton over Sanders in the middle of the race. A solid majority of Democrats favored Clinton over Sanders late.

And the existence of Super Delegates was irrelevant. If you'd have had a situation where Sanders was favored by the majority of Democrats the Super Delegates would've switched. There is NO way they'd have put Clinton in if Sanders had won the majority of primary delegates. But it didn't matter there was never any doubt that Clinton was going to get a substantial majority of the primary delegates.

-Tilted playing field with Super Delegates.
-The DNC Secretly feeding Clinton debate questions ahead of time.
-Rigging the debates to benefit Clinton (doing them when they'd get the least exposure).
-Changing rules in states to benefit Clinton.
etc, etc, etc
All laid out in the 20k wiki leaks e-mail dump..And the shenanigans absolutely increased the tilt of the polls towards Clinton, the # of donk votes to Clinton in the primaries, and the opposite Sander's way..It was set up so Sanders would have virtually zero chance of winning..

But nah, the donk primaries weren't riggedd..

Heck, I'm glad they did rig them..

[Ivytalk]

Yeah, but you haven't answered my question. Political parties are associations of people with common objectives. So who gets to make the selection of a candidate?

You have Parties within each State select representatives to the State Central Committee. Then, instead of having State by State primaries to select each State's delegates to the national convention, you have the State Central Committees do it.

You'd end up with better general election candidates because you would have a situation where people who are truly engaged and paying attention make the selections.

So you want to revert to those halcyon days of the 1800s, when various state party hacks, bosses, and corrupt hangers-on were "truly engaged and paying attention." Gotcha. I feel much better now.

[GannonFan]

You have Parties within each State select representatives to the State Central Committee. Then, instead of having State by State primaries to select each State's delegates to the national convention, you have the State Central Committees do it.

You'd end up with better general election candidates because you would have a situation where people who are truly engaged and paying attention make the selections.

So you want to revert to those halcyon days of the 1800s, when various state party hacks, bosses, and corrupt hangers-on were "truly engaged and paying attention." Gotcha. I feel much better now.

JSO probably likes the electoral setup in "Moon over Parador" - pick the blue or the red party - same guy running of course, but at least the general masses (for JSO the "stupid people") get to pick a color.

[JohnStOnge]

The 2016 election Democratic Party primaries were not rigged. Yes, there were people with the DNC including Wasserman Schultz who clearly favored Hillary. But there is no evidence at ALL that there was a discrepancy between what Democrat voters wanted and what Democrat voters got.

I went through a big thing on that last year with the primary polls. The only times the polls were wrong during the Democratic Party primaries...and there weren't many of those times...Sanders won when Hillary was favored. There was never ANY evidence that people really wanted Sanders but something was going on to "rig" things so that Hillary won instead.

It wasn't really even all that close overall. A solid majority of Democrats favored Clinton over Sanders early. A solid majority of Democrats favored Clinton over Sanders in the middle of the race. A solid majority of Democrats favored Clinton over Sanders late.

And the existence of Super Delegates was irrelevant. If you'd have had a situation where Sanders was favored by the majority of Democrats the Super Delegates would've switched. There is NO way they'd have put Clinton in if Sanders had won the majority of primary delegates. But it didn't matter there was never any doubt that Clinton was going to get a substantial majority of the primary delegates.

-Tilted playing field with Super Delegates.
-The DNC Secretly feeding Clinton debate questions ahead of time.
-Rigging the debates to benefit Clinton (doing them when they'd get the least exposure).
-Changing rules in states to benefit Clinton.
etc, etc, etc
All laid out in the 20k wiki leaks e-mail dump..And the shenanigans absolutely increased the tilt of the polls towards Clinton, the # of donk votes to Clinton in the primaries, and the opposite Sander's way..It was set up so Sanders would have virtually zero chance of winning..

But nah, the donk primaries weren't riggedd..

Heck, I'm glad they did rig them..

None of what you listed is any evidence at all that that there was a discrepancy between what Democrat voters wanted and what Democrat voters got.

There is absolutely no basis for saying that those "shenanigans" tilted surveys of voter sentiment towards Clinton; especially since the sentiment was consistent throughout. If anything, one would expect all of the constant allegations of "rigging" and the Wikileaks stuff to swing the surveys of voter sentiment towards Sanders.

Sanders was not going to beat Clinton. You could've had none of that stuff you listed happen and Clinton still would've won by a comfortable margin. She's the candidate Democrat primary voters wanted.

Not saying it was smart for Democratic primary voters to be like that. But they WERE like that.

[JohnStOnge]

Just one example of many reports of this nature you can find:

https://thoughtcatalog.com/nico-lang/20 ... l-numbers/

Although a “relatively” high 40% of people were able to name all three of the United States branches of government — executive, legislative and judicial — a far lower percentage knew the length of a Senator’s term. Just 25% responded that a Senator’s term stretches for six years. Even less, 20%, knew how many Senators there were.

When I hear politicians and pundits make statements about how the American People know what's going on I have to chuckle inside. No they don't.

That's why I've said many times in the past that I think there should be poll tests and I'm not kidding when I say that. It's ridiculous to have so many people voting who have not the slightest rudimentary clue as to what's going on. You should be able to demonstrate that you have SOME clue before you are allowed to do something like participate in the selection of the President of the United States.

BTW one specific poll test item I've suggested is "Name the three branches of the Federal Government."

You can see that right off the bat a bunch of people would be eliminated.

And, really, should a person be voting if they don't even know that basic information about the structure of our government?

It's not that it's all that important to know that what the three branches are per se. It's what not knowing indicates. Same with not knowing how many Senators there are.