Low Energy Jeb Bush says he 'can't imagine having to attack someone to win an election'.

[frigidweirdo]

Oh God.

You think it's amusing that I use my brain? This isn't going to work out between us if you think that using your brain is "amusing".

Firstly, I can PROVE what I say.

Yes, you can prove what you say, regarding German elections. Never challenged that. But your opinions on US elections and the system are horseshit.

Which you proved with NOTHING.

Yes, you have no argument whatsoever.

Great, another person on this board with no clue, no idea, nothing but a big mouth.

It's so tiring.

 

[JBvM]

Oh God.

You think it's amusing that I use my brain? This isn't going to work out between us if you think that using your brain is "amusing".

Firstly, I can PROVE what I say.

Yes, you can prove what you say, regarding German elections. Never challenged that. But your opinions on US elections and the system are horseshit.

Which you proved with NOTHING.

Yes, you have no argument whatsoever.

Great, another person on this board with no clue, no idea, nothing but a big mouth.

It's so tiring.

Do you have a R&C deficit? Seriously dude/dudes. wtf?

 

[frigidweirdo]

Oh God.

You think it's amusing that I use my brain? This isn't going to work out between us if you think that using your brain is "amusing".

Firstly, I can PROVE what I say.

Yes, you can prove what you say, regarding German elections. Never challenged that. But your opinions on US elections and the system are horseshit.

Which you proved with NOTHING.

Yes, you have no argument whatsoever.

Great, another person on this board with no clue, no idea, nothing but a big mouth.

It's so tiring.

Do you have a R&C deficit? Seriously dude/dudes. wtf?

No, what I do have is the ignore button, and you're so fucking close to being on that.

 

[deanrd]

Jeb Bush: 'I can't imagine having to attack someone to make yourself look strong'

That's like the New England Patriots saying 'we're not getting into a shoving match just to win a game'

His brother attacked America which led us directly to Donald Trump.

 

[Deno]

Jeb was 100% correct on this: "When I ran for office, I said he is a chaos candidate and would be a chaos president," and Trump bloviating and trying to claim his administration is a 'Well oiled machine" is almost as laughable as the claims of his inaugural crowd size and his fingers

Nothing but BUTT HURT.....

 

[JBvM]

No, what I do have is the ignore button, and you're so fucking close to being on that.

Maybe you forgot what you posted as factual and not as opinion:

I know if the US had PR instead of FPTP, that there'd be more political parties, that the Republicans and Democrats would lose a large share of their votes. Hence why they don't want a change.

Simple said, a country cannot be divided into two groups on the political spectrum.

In Germany there is the CDU/CSU which is traditional right. The SPD which is traditional left. There's the FDP which is center right, the AfD which is further right, the left which is further left, the Greens which are environmentalist left.

That's six different groups at different parts of the political spectrum.

The US voters are really getting fucked over. They don't have real choice, so they vote negatively, for the party they don't like. Because the reality is, about half the people probably wouldn't vote Republican or Democrat if given a real choice.​

 

[JWBooth]

JEB Bush, unable to differentiate himself from a rotting stump in the minds of the electorate.

 

[Deno]

I loved and respected all the Bush’s….

But…………

When I heard jeb say he didn’t need the

Tea party to win because he had a few bazillion

Bucks in the bank that was it for me with jeb.

w’s big mistake was never standing up for himself

and letting all the liberal BULLSHIT go unanswered.

carl rove was a DUMB ASS……

President Donald J. Trump has shown us all how it’s done……..

The thing that really pissed me off about w was he never

Criticized obongo but he Criticized TRUMP….

I now consider them part of the swamp………

 

[frigidweirdo]

No, what I do have is the ignore button, and you're so fucking close to being on that.

Maybe you forgot what you posted as factual and not as opinion:

I know if the US had PR instead of FPTP, that there'd be more political parties, that the Republicans and Democrats would lose a large share of their votes. Hence why they don't want a change.

Simple said, a country cannot be divided into two groups on the political spectrum.

In Germany there is the CDU/CSU which is traditional right. The SPD which is traditional left. There's the FDP which is center right, the AfD which is further right, the left which is further left, the Greens which are environmentalist left.

That's six different groups at different parts of the political spectrum.

The US voters are really getting fucked over. They don't have real choice, so they vote negatively, for the party they don't like. Because the reality is, about half the people probably wouldn't vote Republican or Democrat if given a real choice.​

I posted it as factual because it's factual. But you decided to go on the attack before even listening to what I have to say.

You've already decided you're right and I'm wrong, and you probably don't even know what I'm talking about.

When judging how things work, you take evidence from places and put it together to make an argument. I can't make a 10,000 word essay on this, because nobody would read this. So, I presented one piece of evidence, and you're like "this is the USA, not Germany, so it's irrelevant."

Such arguments, heard so many times, are ridiculous.

Basically the ONLY way for me to prove my point, in your eyes, would be to have the US voting with PR. Anything else is simply not valid. Which is complete and utter bullshit.

In Germany, there are HUMAN BEINGS. They get to vote TWICE under two different systems. One of those systems just happens to be very similar to the system the US uses for Congressional elections. The US also contains HUMAN BEINGS.

In the US there is right wing and left wing. In Germany there is right wing and left wing.

Germany isn't the only country to use such a system.

As far as I can tell there aren't many which use a system where people vote twice. Scotland's parliament does.

Scottish Parliament election, 2016 - Wikipedia

The three main parties, SNP, and Labour lost votes from FPTP to PR.

SNP lost 4.8% of their votes, Labour lost 3.5% of their votes.

The Greens gained 6%.
Scottish Christian gained 0.5% (they only got 0.1% in the FPTP)

Again you have examples of negative voting. Of people changing their votes from one system to another to be tactical.

PR isn't tactical. You just vote for who you want to get elected.

FPTP is completely different.

If you support one party who stand no chance (in your opinion) in your constituency, you vote against a party you don't want to see get in, seeing as you actual choice doesn't appear valid.

National Assembly for Wales election, 2016 - Wikipedia

Wales also does a similar thing.

Labour lost 3.2% of the votes from FPTP to PR
The Conservatives lost 3.3% of the vote.
Lib Dems lost 1.2%

Labour gained the most, massively from FPTP. Had it been FPTP they'd have had 27 seats to 13 seats for all the other parties.

That Labour then lost votes when it came to PR and gained 29 seats or 48.3% of the seats, rather than a massive majority, shows the difference in how FPTP and PR works, and that people will vote tactically with FPTP.

 

[JBvM]

You've already decided you're right and I'm wrong, and you probably don't even know what I'm talking about.

I did not posit the side of an argument contrary to what I clearly stated was you posing opinions as facts. Now it appears you are setting up a facsimile of some sort of a caricature, and arguing with it. For you have no argument with me, except one that exists alone in your head and on these web pages

 

[frigidweirdo]

You've already decided you're right and I'm wrong, and you probably don't even know what I'm talking about.

I did not posit the side of an argument contrary to what I clearly stated was you posing opinions as facts. Now it appears you are setting up a facsimile of some sort of a caricature, and arguing with it. For you have no argument with me, except one that exists alone in your head and on these web pages

Dude, I can tell talking to you is going to be painful.

You've got nothing to add to anything.

The ignore list is your friend. Welcome it with aplomb.

 

[JBvM]

...

Ignore list? That seems to be a favorite threat of yours. LOL

"You've got nothing to add to anything." - Is that Eeengleeesh?

 

[Papageorgio]

Jeb is a weeny.

That may be true, not saying it is, but he had Donald's number early on.

we all knew that... that's why he was cc'd elected...

at one point 3 of the top 5 Republicans were
trump
Fiorina
Carson

all 3 have never held office.....there is a reason for that

Trump played the egos of the what was it 17 or 13 Republicans? He rarely got any of the votes of the dropouts during the primaries. He was the last pick of many by default, as it was all about Hillary being the alternative.

We have many people today acting like children saying "Hillary made me do it" in reference to voting for Trump

In Presidential elections it usually comes down to voting the lesser of two evils and if you think about it many voted for Trump because he wasn’t Hillary and many voted for Hillary because she wasn’t Trump. Both parties have a broke system and need to attract and promote better candidates.

 

[JBvM]

In Presidential elections it usually comes down to voting the lesser of two evils and if you think about it many voted for Trump because he wasn’t Hillary and many voted for Hillary because she wasn’t Trump. Both parties have a broke system and need to attract and promote better candidates.

It is really a vote of picking between the two (or more) leading candidates of major political parties. Construing that as a choice between a 'lesser of two evils' is a personal belief and it misses the fact that parties field candidates in primaries, and those parties are made up of the average citizen who chooses to be involve. There are local committees of major parties and not everyone in those parties get's the choice they initially wanted.

Voters who come along later during elections often whine about the choices they have to choose between, but they are absent from the party's day to day operations and deliberations on the local level.

I've often believed the whiners and complainers should start their own party(s), but we all know where that would go, don't we. It's been tied before and the viscous, acrimonious infighting and partisanship and demands have those attempts at party building fade away.

And worse is people usually want to start a national level, forgetting that the major parties really have their power from the state and locals. That is a glossed over truth.. If the major national parties did not have state and local committees, they would wither away

 

[JWBooth]

In Presidential elections it usually comes down to voting the lesser of two evils and if you think about it many voted for Trump because he wasn’t Hillary and many voted for Hillary because she wasn’t Trump. Both parties have a broke system and need to attract and promote better candidates.

It is really a vote of picking between the two (or more) leading candidates of major political parties. Construing that as a choice between a 'lesser of two evils' is a personal belief and it misses the fact that parties field candidates in primaries, and those parties are made up of the average citizen who chooses to be involve. There are local committees of major parties and not everyone in those parties get's the choice they initially wanted.

Voters who come along later during elections often whine about the choices they have to choose between, but they are absent from the party's day to day operations and deliberations on the local level.

I've often believed the whiners and complainers should start their own party(s), but we all know where that would go, don't we. It's been tied before and the viscous, acrimonious infighting and partisanship and demands have those attempts at party building fade away.

And worse is people usually want to start a national level, forgetting that the major parties really have their power from the state and locals. That is a glossed over truth.. If the major national parties did not have state and local committees, they would wither away

The lesser of two evils, leading candidates of major political parties, these are not mutually exclusive. The lesser of evils is still evil.

 

[Papageorgio]

In Presidential elections it usually comes down to voting the lesser of two evils and if you think about it many voted for Trump because he wasn’t Hillary and many voted for Hillary because she wasn’t Trump. Both parties have a broke system and need to attract and promote better candidates.

It is really a vote of picking between the two (or more) leading candidates of major political parties. Construing that as a choice between a 'lesser of two evils' is a personal belief and it misses the fact that parties field candidates in primaries, and those parties are made up of the average citizen who chooses to be involve. There are local committees of major parties and not everyone in those parties get's the choice they initially wanted.

Voters who come along later during elections often whine about the choices they have to choose between, but they are absent from the party's day to day operations and deliberations on the local level.

I've often believed the whiners and complainers should start their own party(s), but we all know where that would go, don't we. It's been tied before and the viscous, acrimonious infighting and partisanship and demands have those attempts at party building fade away.

And worse is people usually want to start a national level, forgetting that the major parties really have their power from the state and locals. That is a glossed over truth.. If the major national parties did not have state and local committees, they would wither away

If you took the money away the parties would wither away and it is big money that runs both parties.

 

[Papageorgio]

In Presidential elections it usually comes down to voting the lesser of two evils and if you think about it many voted for Trump because he wasn’t Hillary and many voted for Hillary because she wasn’t Trump. Both parties have a broke system and need to attract and promote better candidates.

It is really a vote of picking between the two (or more) leading candidates of major political parties. Construing that as a choice between a 'lesser of two evils' is a personal belief and it misses the fact that parties field candidates in primaries, and those parties are made up of the average citizen who chooses to be involve. There are local committees of major parties and not everyone in those parties get's the choice they initially wanted.

Voters who come along later during elections often whine about the choices they have to choose between, but they are absent from the party's day to day operations and deliberations on the local level.

I've often believed the whiners and complainers should start their own party(s), but we all know where that would go, don't we. It's been tied before and the viscous, acrimonious infighting and partisanship and demands have those attempts at party building fade away.

And worse is people usually want to start a national level, forgetting that the major parties really have their power from the state and locals. That is a glossed over truth.. If the major national parties did not have state and local committees, they would wither away

The lesser of two evils, leading candidates of major political parties, these are not mutually exclusive. The lesser of evils is still evil.

I agree it is the independents that decide elections, not the Republican s or Democrats. Both candidates had high disapproval ratings. So people went to the voting booth holding their noses.

 

[JBvM]

In Presidential elections it usually comes down to voting the lesser of two evils and if you think about it many voted for Trump because he wasn’t Hillary and many voted for Hillary because she wasn’t Trump. Both parties have a broke system and need to attract and promote better candidates.

It is really a vote of picking between the two (or more) leading candidates of major political parties. Construing that as a choice between a 'lesser of two evils' is a personal belief and it misses the fact that parties field candidates in primaries, and those parties are made up of the average citizen who chooses to be involve. There are local committees of major parties and not everyone in those parties get's the choice they initially wanted.

Voters who come along later during elections often whine about the choices they have to choose between, but they are absent from the party's day to day operations and deliberations on the local level.

I've often believed the whiners and complainers should start their own party(s), but we all know where that would go, don't we. It's been tied before and the viscous, acrimonious infighting and partisanship and demands have those attempts at party building fade away.

And worse is people usually want to start a national level, forgetting that the major parties really have their power from the state and locals. That is a glossed over truth.. If the major national parties did not have state and local committees, they would wither away

The lesser of two evils, leading candidates of major political parties, these are not mutually exclusive. The lesser of evils is still evil.

and calling the choices who have won party battles, battles that other citizens were involved in long before any public election evil? That is evil itself,. Truly.

 

[Papageorgio]

In Presidential elections it usually comes down to voting the lesser of two evils and if you think about it many voted for Trump because he wasn’t Hillary and many voted for Hillary because she wasn’t Trump. Both parties have a broke system and need to attract and promote better candidates.

It is really a vote of picking between the two (or more) leading candidates of major political parties. Construing that as a choice between a 'lesser of two evils' is a personal belief and it misses the fact that parties field candidates in primaries, and those parties are made up of the average citizen who chooses to be involve. There are local committees of major parties and not everyone in those parties get's the choice they initially wanted.

Voters who come along later during elections often whine about the choices they have to choose between, but they are absent from the party's day to day operations and deliberations on the local level.

I've often believed the whiners and complainers should start their own party(s), but we all know where that would go, don't we. It's been tied before and the viscous, acrimonious infighting and partisanship and demands have those attempts at party building fade away.

And worse is people usually want to start a national level, forgetting that the major parties really have their power from the state and locals. That is a glossed over truth.. If the major national parties did not have state and local committees, they would wither away

The lesser of two evils, leading candidates of major political parties, these are not mutually exclusive. The lesser of evils is still evil.

and calling the choices who have won party battles, battles that other citizens were involved in long before any public election evil? That is evil itself,. Truly.

No it’s not, the political process is all about money. Both candidates were terrible and untrustworthy.

 

[JBvM]

In Presidential elections it usually comes down to voting the lesser of two evils and if you think about it many voted for Trump because he wasn’t Hillary and many voted for Hillary because she wasn’t Trump. Both parties have a broke system and need to attract and promote better candidates.

It is really a vote of picking between the two (or more) leading candidates of major political parties. Construing that as a choice between a 'lesser of two evils' is a personal belief and it misses the fact that parties field candidates in primaries, and those parties are made up of the average citizen who chooses to be involve. There are local committees of major parties and not everyone in those parties get's the choice they initially wanted.

Voters who come along later during elections often whine about the choices they have to choose between, but they are absent from the party's day to day operations and deliberations on the local level.

I've often believed the whiners and complainers should start their own party(s), but we all know where that would go, don't we. It's been tied before and the viscous, acrimonious infighting and partisanship and demands have those attempts at party building fade away.

And worse is people usually want to start a national level, forgetting that the major parties really have their power from the state and locals. That is a glossed over truth.. If the major national parties did not have state and local committees, they would wither away

If you took the money away the parties would wither away and it is big money that runs both parties.

For the national elections, some would believe yes. But states and localities have party committees (city/town committees are as local, democratic and (r)epublican as it gets. Congressional Parties have election committees in both houses of the Congress. No way would taking money away from national parties kill them. Now if people want to actually take money out of politics? Good luck thinking that through , let alone attempting to make it constitutional.