GOP Official: Voters don't choose the nominee, we do - Polidicks

[QUOTE=Thlis;49963668]That's not the question though. You have already stated that It's not a matter of what [B]should[/B] be done, it's a matter of what [B]can[/B] be done now by the politician. By your own rules, Trump can propose the deporting of fundamentalists.[/QUOTE] He can propose it, yes. That doesn't invalidate due process, and deportation wouldn't be a justifiable punishment in the court of law for us citizens. Fines should be levied, tax exempt status revoked, particularly violent individuals monitored or arrested. Deportation wouldn't be a thing unless they were on a temporary visa, in which case it would violate the terms of their admittance into the USA

[QUOTE=bitches;49963662]the WBC is not a good example to your point, considering that they are a group that exists strictly for harassing people, a crime[/QUOTE] They're a hate group that hides behind religious freedom and the first amendment to get away with what they do. My point is that if Snoberry Tea got his way, the slippery slope would begin by shutting down the WBC (who're loopholing everything) and then move on to legitimate parishes and kill them off in a wide sweep. The joke being that I "like" the notion of being able to redefine the first amendment to not include any hate speech protection for the sake of using it vindictively (like how Sno wants to exclude Trump by inventing a new rule that strangely is only of primary relevance to one potential candidate this time around), so that makes it "okay".

[QUOTE=Snoberry Tea;49963678]He can propose it, yes. That doesn't invalidate due process, and deportation wouldn't be a justifiable punishment in the court of law for us citizens. Fines should be levied, tax exempt status revoked, particularly violent individuals monitored or arrested. Deportation wouldn't be a thing unless they were on a temporary visa, in which case it would violate the terms of their admittance into the USA[/QUOTE] You don't get it, your "simple" rules for throwing out parties you disagree with doesn't work. It has been thoroughly fucked to the point where it now supports the person you disagree with. The person you were trying to ban in the first place. The argument was never about punishment or process or anything. It's how your system of banning disagreeable people doesn't work.

[QUOTE=DaMastez;49963604]Banning Trump is an extremely slippery slope which will just be used to ban anyone anti-establishment or who doesn't fall in line behind the corporations who run the government. The will of the people is massively flawed, I fully agree. The problem is, until a super-intelligent impartial AI is created, it's still far better than basically the only other option of vesting all of the power in some group of people who will be corrupted by money.[/QUOTE] The problem with this is not the fact that they're banning Trump, but it would be against the party interest to nominate him. They choose who they nominate, doesn't block Trump from running. Anyone who says that the Republicans disqualifying him running means he'd lose the ability to run for president is an idiot. It just makes it harder to run for someone who isn't supported by the parties. In the end it IS their choice whether you think it's an affront to democracy or not.

[QUOTE=elixwhitetail;49963679]They're a hate group that hides behind religious freedom and the first amendment to get away with what they do. My point is that if Snoberry Tea got his way, the slippery slope would begin by shutting down the WBC (who're loopholing everything) and then move on to legitimate parishes and kill them off in a wide sweep. The joke being that I "like" the notion of being able to redefine the first amendment to not include any hate speech protection for the sake of using it vindictively (like how Sno wants to exclude Trump by inventing a new rule that strangely is only of primary relevance to one potential candidate this time around), so that makes it "okay".[/QUOTE] You're misunderstanding what I meant by not being eligible for protection. If a group wants to spread hate speech, fine, go ahead and be a bigoted asshole. But they should have their tax exempt status revoked, their charitable donations taxed, probably at a higher rate, they should have fines levied against them for breaking laws concerned with keeping the peace, etc. If you want to have protection as a church, be a church. For the most part, organized religion advocates peace above all else. If you want to be a hate group, be a hate group.

[QUOTE=FreakyMe;49963661]We should however add a clause saying that the President has to demonstrate integrity and promote ideals which do not dismantle the constitution. He wants to abolish the 1st Amendment. He wants to abolish due process. He wants to, from the position of the highest power in the US Government, denounce a large portion of the country's population as enemies of the state, creating a new Red Scare - based on religion, not political or national affiliation. If we are to compare him to anyone other than Hitler, it should be McCarthy. He threatens to bring a new era of McCarthyism, with all of its profound negative impacts on anybody seen as 'the enemy.' Except in this case McCarthy would be the President, and in charge of appointing anybody who supports his agenda. He talks with great zeal of violating international law regarding prisoners of war and having a military that would not hesitate to do so if given the order. He talks of bullying our allies with our military might to achieve economic ends, and of cutting Japan off to fend for its own against Chinese intrusion on their territories, effectively making us in relation to the world everything that the North Korean regime aspires to be. He wants to make an enemy of the world just to justify trying to conquer it. He wants to promote a state of national chaos that would potentially allow him to suspend new elections and modify national law, with fear as the primary motivator for his supporters cheering him on as he dismantles everything that this country has developed since the 50's.[/QUOTE] If you want to add a clause, propose it to Congress. Due process has unfortunately already been destroyed with the Patriot Act, and Bush should've been reprimanded for that. Regarding Muslims, I don't recall him ever declaring enemies of state. He sees a threat in the practice of Islam by non-U.S. citizens within the U.S. If you bring up the ID issue, politicians have words put in their mouths by the questions they are asked. Trump said he wasn't against it, don't extrapolate. Interesting point: America had its revolution because we refused to pay for taxes that would largely support the British Navy, which was seen as unnecessary in the American colonies after the French-Indian War. With Japan, they need the U.S. Navy for defense against China and Korea, yet the costs of military expenditures are left on the U.S. If they directly benefit from our actions then they should contribute to it as well in one form or another. I have no idea what you are referring to in the last paragraph.

[QUOTE=TheDestroyerOfall;49963690]The problem with this is not the fact that they're banning Trump, but it would be against the party interest to nominate him. They choose who they nominate, doesn't block Trump from running. Anyone who says that the Republicans disqualifying him running means he'd lose the ability to run for president is an idiot. It just makes it harder to run for someone who isn't supported by the parties. In the end it IS their choice whether you think it's an affront to democracy or not.[/QUOTE] It's also the choice of the electors in 21 states to not vote for who the citizens of the state voted for. Faithless Electors are a thing American "Democracy" isn't as Democratic as it seems, and considering that there are already checks in place that aren't far off from "this person is a fuck wit don't let him run" I don't see why "this person is a fuck wit don't let him run" is such a big deal. Literally 21 states could vote against their state's popular candidate, and barring Hitler's babby from running is the bad thing?

[QUOTE=Snoberry Tea;49963704]barring Hitler's babby from running is the bad thing?[/QUOTE] Godwin once again, and you don't get to get away from the fact that you advocated overturning the will of the people and denying Trump his right to run for President. While I'd rather not see Trump be on the ballot myself (as a Canadian I can't even vote but we have to deal with America's shit constantly, like many world nations do), you're not proposing a legitimate method of keeping him off -- you're proposing a subversion of democracy. The same argument applies to gun control. The Second Amendment won't be repealed until the people overwhelmingly demand it, when opinion columns and editorials across the nation are calling for controls on civilian firearm ownership and surveys in nearly every state show two-thirds-majority support for restricting weapons. Until then, anti-gun activists can dream all they want, but they can't ban guns. You can't ban Trump from running for president without a legitimate reason and if you invent reasons to ban him from being eligible, you're in extremely dangerous territory because you're setting precedents that could easily be used against you next time. "If you give me six lines written by the hand of the most honest of men, I will find something in them which will hang him." -attributed to Cardinal Richelieu

[QUOTE=Thlis;49963668]That's not the question though. You have already stated that It's not a matter of what [B]should[/B] be done, it's a matter of what [B]can[/B] be done now by the politician. By your own rules, Trump can propose the deporting of fundamentalists.[/QUOTE] Sure, but he's not proposing that. Trump and his supporters are inciting hatred against Muslims in general, the same way they're inciting it against anybody who opposes them. Hate [i]and[/i] violence, actually. This is not a hard concept to grasp: freedom of speech is not unlimited, and it's absolutely acceptable in a democracy to cut people/organizations off and destroy them if they threaten that system of democracy in the first place. There are some people and organizations with certain political and religious ideologies that will forever remain incompatible with our democratic values and societal ethical/moral values; i.e. neo-Nazis, the Klu Klux Klan, the Westboro Baptist Church, etc. Tolerance of intolerance leads nowhere good. When times get tough or scary, and when people become gullible as a consequence, that's when you see people like Hitler, McCarthy, George Wallace, etc. gain mainstream acceptability. All because "we have to respect them" was the mantra in the first place. That's not a commendable mindset to have when you're dealing with people like that; it's ignorantly naive, and you'll just be taken advantage of for having it. It's retardedly paradoxical to say, "This is a democratic society. We respect people who have no respect for democracy and actually actively preach and intend to abolish it if they're given the chance." Not only that, it's dangerous. Because as history has taught us, figures and organizations [i]do[/i] arise that take advantage of this permissiveness, and the results are fucking terrifying because of how destructive they turn out to be in the end. Not everything and everyone can or should be tolerated. A country and its society absolutely has to determine what it stands for, what it believes in, and what the limits are with respect to these things. If you just leave it at "freedom" and let people do whatever and say whatever they want, then nothing is under control, and things will inevitably fall apart. There are people out there who will arise eventually that will say, "I want control now," and they'll impose their will on everybody else in the end, and democracy will die. True/absolute democracy like what you're going on about is impossible to create and sustain indefinitely. There must be limits, and there must be guidelines or some sort of code that says, "This is what we believe in, this is what we feel is right, this is how far we're willing to extend our patience and tolerance, etc." The United States unfortunately has never really gotten around to doing this with respect to religion and politics. We have however already established that free speech has limits, so that's at least a start.

[QUOTE=Snoberry Tea;49963704]Literally 21 states could vote against their state's popular candidate, and barring Hitler's babby from running is the bad thing?[/QUOTE] Yes; barring anyone, including Hitler himself (pre massive crimes against humanity) because you don't agree with what they are saying is a road that should not be turned down. Also, you can say America isn't a Democracy, and it isn't in law but the people view it to be, and the outcry would be massive to clearly go against the will of the people.

[QUOTE=Govna;49963731] This is not a hard concept to grasp: freedom of speech is not unlimited, and it's absolutely acceptable in a democracy to cut people/organizations off and [B]destroy them if they threaten that system of democracy in the first place[/B]. [/QUOTE] What like people that advocate the banning of politicians because they disagree with them? Furthermore it is irrelevant what Trump is actually advocating, the point is that the suggested way of banning politicians doesn't work. Even then, the only thing it requires is redefining what you call fundamentalist and then the whole thing fits easily. And if you think that such a redefinition is outlandish then consider back to the time of black and white PSAs. How binary was it being a perfectly good American or being a "sick" homosexual?

[QUOTE=elixwhitetail;49963724]Godwin once again, and you don't get to get away from the fact that you advocated overturning the will of the people and denying Trump his right to run for President. While I'd rather not see Trump be on the ballot myself (as a Canadian I can't even vote but we have to deal with America's shit constantly, like many world nations do), you're not proposing a legitimate method of keeping him off -- you're proposing a subversion of democracy. The same argument applies to gun control. The Second Amendment won't be repealed until the people overwhelmingly demand it, when opinion columns and editorials across the nation are calling for controls on civilian firearm ownership and surveys in nearly every state show two-thirds-majority support for restricting weapons. Until then, anti-gun activists can dream all they want, but they can't ban guns. You can't ban Trump from running for president without a legitimate reason and if you invent reasons to ban him from being eligible, you're in extremely dangerous territory because you're setting precedents that could easily be used against you next time. "If you give me six lines written by the hand of the most honest of men, I will find something in them which will hang him." -attributed to Cardinal Richelieu[/QUOTE] Am I supposed to care whenever you point out Godwin's Law? Or are you just doing it for your own personal enjoyment? Because it doesn't REALLY make sense considering my entire reasoning why Trump shouldn't be allowed to run is because he is literally mimicking Hitler's rise to power in the Weimar Republic so OF COURSE I'm going to make references to Nazis because I am comparing him TO A NAZI. [editline]19th March 2016[/editline] Anyway it's 3:30am where I live so I'm going to bed. I hope to god y'all are right about the "will of the people" and "due process". I guess we'll find out in November, won't we? God help us all if Trump wins.

[QUOTE=Snoberry Tea;49963749]Am I supposed to care whenever you point out Godwin's Law? Or are you just doing it for your own personal enjoyment? Because it doesn't REALLY make sense considering my entire reasoning why Trump shouldn't be allowed to run is because he is literally mimicking Hitler's rise to power in the Weimar Republic so OF COURSE I'm going to make references to Nazis because I am comparing him TO A NAZI.[/QUOTE] Care to respond to the rest of my post or are you just going to keep getting defensive about the first three words?

[QUOTE=Govna;49963731]*words*[/QUOTE] I guess you live in some magic world where such a system wouldn't be abused to further entrench the status quo. [quote]This is not a hard concept to grasp: freedom of speech is not unlimited, and it's absolutely acceptable in a democracy to cut people/organizations off and destroy them if they threaten that system of democracy in the first place. There are some people and organizations with certain political and religious ideologies that will forever remain incompatible with our democratic values and societal ethical/moral values[/quote] Like Communism yes? Good, and Socialism is basically Communism, so we simply can't allow that Communist Sanders run for president then.

[QUOTE=DaMastez;49963732]Yes; barring anyone, including Hitler himself (pre massive crimes against humanity) because you don't agree with what they are saying is a road that should not be turned down. Also, you can say America isn't a Democracy, and it isn't in law but the people view it to be, and the outcry would be massive to clearly go against the will of the people.[/QUOTE] So it's fine then to commit democratic suicide, allow someone to come to power who will clearly fuck your nation and other people up and abolish democracy (Hitler made it no secret "pre-massive crimes against humanity" that what the National Socialists advocated was not peaceful, nor was it democratic, nor was it ultimately sustainable), etc.? Apparently, we have no obligations to codify limits to ensure this exact kind of fiasco doesn't happen in the first place, and we should just allow ourselves to be an overly-permissive free-for-all absolute democracy (which we're already not actually absolute, for the record)-- which will inevitably with that kind of mantra implode in on itself when the wrong someone and their followers take power. That kind of thinking flies in the face of sense. And history proves that. Oh man is this election going to be fun when Trump wins, royally fucks us up, and we can sit back and point out how this all could have been (and should have been) prevented from happening in the first place.

[QUOTE=elixwhitetail;49963724]Godwin once again, and you don't get to get away from the fact that you advocated overturning the will of the people and denying Trump his right to run for President. While I'd rather not see Trump be on the ballot myself (as a Canadian I can't even vote but we have to deal with America's shit constantly, like many world nations do), you're not proposing a legitimate method of keeping him off -- you're proposing a subversion of democracy. The same argument applies to gun control. The Second Amendment won't be repealed until the people overwhelmingly demand it, when opinion columns and editorials across the nation are calling for controls on civilian firearm ownership and surveys in nearly every state show two-thirds-majority support for restricting weapons. Until then, anti-gun activists can dream all they want, but they can't ban guns. You can't ban Trump from running for president without a legitimate reason and if you invent reasons to ban him from being eligible, you're in extremely dangerous territory because you're setting precedents that could easily be used against you next time. "If you give me six lines written by the hand of the most honest of men, I will find something in them which will hang him." -attributed to Cardinal Richelieu[/QUOTE] He won't be banned in any sense of the word. He'll not be able to run as a Republican candidate is all. That's completely legal. Hell, the Republicans could nominate the ghost of Abe Lincoln's balls and it's still fine.

[QUOTE=TheDestroyerOfall;49963762]He won't be banned in any sense of the word. He'll not be able to run as a Republican candidate is all. That's completely legal. Hell, the Republicans could nominate the ghost of Abe Lincoln's balls and it's still fine.[/QUOTE] Uh Let me remind you of Snoberry's first post in this thread: [QUOTE=Snoberry Tea;49963458]I don't give a shit how close to pseudo-democratic dictatorship level 'approved candidates' we get with this, fucking get Trump out of the race. [B]In this case I will 100% support any level of government or organization flat out banning Trump from running for president, be it the GOP's officials, the senate, the house, whoever and whatever.[/B] Get this thing out of the running.[/QUOTE] He wants Trump banned from running for office, period.

[QUOTE=DaMastez;49963757]I guess you live in some magic world where such a system wouldn't be abused to further entrench the status quo. Like Communism yes? Good, and Socialism is basically Communism, so we simply can't allow that Communist Sanders run for president then.[/QUOTE] This is wrong (about socialism being communism), and that's not how it works. Sanders unlike Trump has not advocated/incited hatred against religious groups and ethnic minorities, and he hasn't supported violence either. Trump has. Not that hard to understand why this naturally is a problem in a society that supposedly believes in equality, the right to life and liberty, etc., and why on that basis it shouldn't be tolerated. I guess you live in some magic world where this kind of contradictory thinking makes sense and isn't implosive to democracy in the first place.

[QUOTE=Govna;49963765]This is wrong (about socialism being communism), and that's not how it works. Sanders unlike Trump has not advocated/incited hatred against religious groups and ethnic minorities, and he hasn't supported violence either. Trump has. Not that hard to understand why this naturally is a problem in a society that supposedly believes in equality, the right to life and liberty, etc., and why on that basis it shouldn't be tolerated.[/QUOTE] If you took that last bit seriously your sarcasm meter might be broken. That or mine is.

[QUOTE=elixwhitetail;49963770]If you took that last bit seriously your sarcasm meter might be broken. That or mine is.[/QUOTE] I didn't. I understand what he's trying to do. Doesn't make it any less retarded.

[QUOTE=elixwhitetail;49963764]Uh Let me remind you of Snoberry's first post in this thread: He wants Trump banned from running for office, period.[/QUOTE] Pretty sure I missed that, thanks mate.

[QUOTE=Govna;49963759]So it's fine then to commit democratic suicide, allow someone to come to power who will clearly fuck your nation and other people up and abolish democracy (Hitler made it no secret "pre-massive crimes against humanity" that what the National Socialists advocated was not peaceful, nor was it democratic, nor was it ultimately sustainable), etc.? Apparently, we have no obligations to codify limits to ensure this exact kind of fiasco doesn't happen in the first place, and we should just allow ourselves to be an overly-permissive free-for-all absolute democracy (which we're already not actually absolute, for the record)-- which will inevitably with that kind of mantra implode in on itself when the wrong someone and their followers take power. That kind of thinking flies in the face of sense. And history proves that. Oh man is this election going to be fun when Trump wins, royally fucks us up, and we can sit back and point out how this all could have been (and should have been) prevented from happening in the first place.[/QUOTE] Any rule that is put in place will be used as a tool for the established party to cling onto their power. Opening that door removes the last option for the people to dispel with the government leaders who they are dissatisfied with. The problem of course in America is the passive propaganda that permeates the mainstream media, by in large, means the ruling class can hold their power easily regardless.

[QUOTE=Snoberry Tea;49963476]Our entire system of government needs an overhaul regardless of the outcome of this election. If the GOP forcing Trump out of the running sparks that necessary overhaul then I'm all for it. [B]Even then just removing him from the running is good enough[/B]. He is a MASSIVE threat to the stability of our country. There is no way in hell he will do any good for this nation, none whatsoever.[/QUOTE] Lol, what you suggested in the bolded bit alone is some true nazi style type tyrannical bullshit.

[QUOTE=Govna;49963765]This is wrong (about socialism being communism), and that's not how it works. Sanders unlike Trump has not advocated/incited hatred against religious groups and ethnic minorities, and he hasn't supported violence either. Trump has. Not that hard to understand why this naturally is a problem in a society that supposedly believes in equality, the right to life and liberty, etc., and why on that basis it shouldn't be tolerated. I guess you live in some magic world where this kind of contradictory thinking makes sense and isn't implosive to democracy in the first place.[/QUOTE] You're missing my point; this is the logic that will be used should such a law come to pass. Communism is evil, Socialism is Communism, thus Sanders is evil. It's illogical and retarded, but nothing some propaganda won't solve. After all, how many people still actually think Communism in of itself is evil and a terrible threat to Democracy?

[QUOTE=DaMastez;49963798]You're missing my point; this is the logic that will be used should such a law come to pass. Communism is evil, Socialism is Communism, thus Sanders is evil. It's illogical and retarded, but nothing some propaganda won't solve. After all, how many people still actually think Communism in of itself is evil and a terrible threat to Democracy?[/QUOTE] In other words, DaMastez's argument against you, Govna, is that McCarthy happened. It can happen again. It's already been proven to be possible. Something something history something doomed something repeat something

[QUOTE=Thlis;49963738]What like people that advocate the banning of politicians because they disagree with them? Furthermore it is irrelevant what Trump is actually advocating, the point is that the suggested way of banning politicians doesn't work. Even then, the only thing it requires is redefining what you call fundamentalist and then the whole thing fits easily. And if you think that such a redefinition is outlandish then consider back to the time of black and white PSAs. How binary was it being a perfectly good American or being a "sick" homosexual?[/QUOTE] It's not a matter of "disagreement". It's a matter of, "You're fucking advocating we be hateful and violent towards people that [i]you[/i] disagree with in the first place, and you're disturbing the peace when the rest of us just want to be left the fuck alone and allowed to go about our lives. [i]You're[/i] infringing upon our rights and are acting incitefully against us, and you're going against everything our country and our society stand for with regards to equality and the right to life and liberty." And "banning" politicians (if you want to call it that) does work, FYI. In Germany for example, if you're too extremist with neo-Nazi views, it's not going to be tolerated; you're quite possibly going to be sent to prison, depending on what you were advocating and actually did, and/or you're going to be fined, and your party/movement is going to be shut down. And it works. And yet somehow, flying in the face of your argument and others claiming this system will be abused, Germany isn't some kind of dystopian nightmare as a result of this. If you want to go back to the Hitler example, for what he actually did in 1923 with the Beer Hall Putsch, he could (and should) have been shot for treason-- or more mildly sentenced to life imprisonment. And that would have been a perfectly justified reaction from the Weimar government, and it would have spared the German people and the world from, you know, the bloodiest conflict in human history that was drenched in genocide. Any system [i]can[/i] be abused. The difference is some systems are more open to abuse than others are. And absolute democracy, which is what you're advocating by saying that "everybody should be respected and given the same political consideration" is, as history proves, incredibly open to being abused. You cite old views on "sick homosexuality" and "being a good American"... these things have nothing to do with what Trump and his supporters are preaching, nor with what they're actually doing, and moreover, they're irrelevant. They were produced in the first place because we allowed them to be, and we tolerated them as being acceptable. But now we don't; they're gone and dead. Having said that, there should be legal guarantees in place which ensure they [i]remain[/i] gone and dead so long as there is still a United States. Do you not understand how this mindset is sensible and applicable to this issue? At the end of the day, you can be as tolerant as you want to be. I don't give a fuck. I know where I stand. All I'm saying is that by being too tolerant, you're bringing your own fate upon yourself when somebody like Hitler, McCarthy, or Trump shows up and starts preaching/actually doing horrible shit. And that's what it's important to define and enforce limits. Or don't and watch what happens as a consequence. You reap what you sow in the end, and that's fair at least; the unfortunate thing is with destructive outcomes, they're more often than not preventable. But again, whatever, it's fine. You've got just as much to lose as any of the rest of us do. [editline]19th March 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=elixwhitetail;49963808]In other words, DaMastez's argument against you, Govna, is that McCarthy happened. It can happen again. It's already been proven to be possible. Something something history something doomed something repeat something[/QUOTE] McCarthy happened in the first place precisely because we allowed him to. But then we thankfully got rid of him, although the damage was already done. The reason why it can happen again is because while we get rid of the individuals that are problematic at the time, we don't ever take preventative measures that will stop future ones from showing up and taking advantage of things the way the ones in the past did. Yeah, history does repeat itself, and this is exactly why it does. [editline]19th March 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=DaMastez;49963781]Any rule that is put in place will be used as a tool for the established party to cling onto their power. Opening that door removes the last option for the people to dispel with the government leaders who they are dissatisfied with. The problem of course in America is the passive propaganda that permeates the mainstream media, by in large, means the ruling class can hold their power easily regardless.[/QUOTE] And saying "there are no rules/there's only a few rules" opens the door for anybody and everybody to rise to power, then cling onto what they manage to eke out for themselves; the established movements/parties and elites will exploit it as well, same as they would if you imposed rules. Nothing changes there until the people themselves decide it's time for a change to occur, and it's time to throw out the leaders/the elites.

[QUOTE=Govna;49963836] If you want to go back to the Hitler example, for what he actually did in 1923 with the Beer Hall Putsch, he could (and should) have been shot for treason-- or more mildly sentenced to life imprisonment. And that would have been a perfectly justified reaction from the Weimar government, [B]and it would have spared the German people and the world from, you know, the bloodiest conflict in human history that was drenched in genocide.[/B][/QUOTE] That is a ridiculous example, it is akin to suggesting that Hitler's father should have beaten him to death as a child as that would have spared the world WW2, and calling it a morally right action. Ignoring that WW2 was a pretty big inevitability regardless of Hitler.

[QUOTE=Killer900;49963494]America is nowhere near the level of fucked that Germany was post WW1[/QUOTE] I'd say he's closer to Andrew Jackson who fucked so badly they set up new rules and restrictions.

America's electoral process needs to be overhauled. Electing the president based on a single round of first past the post voting is a joke. It's absurd that you need to rely on the parties themselves holding their own elections in order to have a semblance of democracy.

It would be the death of the GOP if they tried to stop Trump. They suppressed the populist element of their party for too long and now it's manifested suddenly, not even affording the opportunity for a controlled opposition. They can either lose control of their party willingly or go down painfully.