Kasich-Hickenlooper eye Bid for 2020: Mixed Ticket for President and VP?

[Toddsterpatriot]

Kasich, Hickenlooper eye joint 2020 bid

YES! After a website went down that had been advocating to allow Mixed Tickets,
These two candidates may be able to pull that off if they run as Independents.

Wow. I had been pushing for this also: for Democrats to focus on the VP position
and manage programs by States through the Senate. While Republicans focus on
the Presidential position as Commander in Chief for national security, foreign relations and global economy. Split the White House responsibilities between Domestic policies and International.

Do you think we can start organizing this NOW?
Start collaborations between parties instead of divisive rhetoric to bully for dominance?

Are these the right leaders for the job?
Or do you see other people taking charge if parties start collaborating on public policy?

I want to see Ralph Nader and Paul Glover of the Greens in cabinet positions also.
Do you support these two candidates in pushing for inter-party collaboration?
Or others? Who?
===============

Ohio Gov. John Kasich (R) and Colorado Gov. John Hickenlooper (D) — "the Johns," as insiders are calling them — have been making a flurry of joint appearances to talk about state-driven improvements to health care.

But Axios has learned that their duet is part of an alliance that's gaining momentum toward a possible joint independent bid for president in 2020, likely with Kasich at the top of the ticket:

Keep reading 346 words

• The two, who got to know each other at conferences, plan to extend their joint platform from health care to two other hot policy areas: immigration and job creation.
• On health care (with a detailed plan to be released soon), the two have broadened their efforts to a bipartisan group that includes 11 governors.
• The Johns' jobs plan will focus on the coming displacement from automation, with prescriptions that include trade, workforce training — and an optimistic and hopeful message, balanced with an honest admission that some jobs just aren't coming back.
• The two are talking to major media companies about a possible podcast or cable show to continue cementing their brand. Their conversations would include politics, policy, and pop culture.
• In D.C. in early September, the two will hold a health-care conference that includes policy input from the American Enterprise Institute on the right and the Center for American Progress on the left.
• Kasich, who's being advised by veteran consultant John Weaver, is keeping open all his options, including the possibility of primarying Trump in 2020.
• Nothing subtle about any of this: Kasich has urged Hickenlooper to visit New Hampshire.
• Both are 65 and both were born in the crucial electoral state of Pennsylvania, Kasich from the Pittsburgh side and Hickenlooper from the Philly side (corrected).
• Both are proud policy wonks, and their staffs are said to get along famously.

Why it matters: National Dems so far haven't capitalized on Trump's record unpopularity and obsession with his base. But this is a creative coupling that'll get a ton of airtime, and maybe even traction.

The pushback: Some establishment Dems are apoplectic about the idea of Hickenlooper teaming up with a Republican. One top strategist told me: "No Dem wants Kasich anywhere near our ticket. Sounds like a No Labels fantasy, but moderate Dems would hate it."

But a veteran operative emails: "Our political system is completely broken. Something big and historic needs to happen to break the logjam. I'm a big Dem but I'm for anything that ... does away with this hyper-partisanship on both sides that is paralyzing our government."

A quisling Republican....and the other guy......Kasich couldn't beat Trump one on one and Trump wasn't even in office........kasich has revealed himself to be a republican member of the democrat party.....never happen.

So, for the spirit of the thread, what Repub and Dem would you choose?

The only Democrat I ever liked was Ronald Reagan.

 

[Rexx Taylor]

Kasich, Hickenlooper eye joint 2020 bid

YES! After a website went down that had been advocating to allow Mixed Tickets,
These two candidates may be able to pull that off if they run as Independents.

Wow. I had been pushing for this also: for Democrats to focus on the VP position
and manage programs by States through the Senate. While Republicans focus on
the Presidential position as Commander in Chief for national security, foreign relations and global economy. Split the White House responsibilities between Domestic policies and International.

Do you think we can start organizing this NOW?
Start collaborations between parties instead of divisive rhetoric to bully for dominance?

Are these the right leaders for the job?
Or do you see other people taking charge if parties start collaborating on public policy?

I want to see Ralph Nader and Paul Glover of the Greens in cabinet positions also.
Do you support these two candidates in pushing for inter-party collaboration?
Or others? Who?
===============

Ohio Gov. John Kasich (R) and Colorado Gov. John Hickenlooper (D) — "the Johns," as insiders are calling them — have been making a flurry of joint appearances to talk about state-driven improvements to health care.

But Axios has learned that their duet is part of an alliance that's gaining momentum toward a possible joint independent bid for president in 2020, likely with Kasich at the top of the ticket:

Keep reading 346 words

• The two, who got to know each other at conferences, plan to extend their joint platform from health care to two other hot policy areas: immigration and job creation.
• On health care (with a detailed plan to be released soon), the two have broadened their efforts to a bipartisan group that includes 11 governors.
• The Johns' jobs plan will focus on the coming displacement from automation, with prescriptions that include trade, workforce training — and an optimistic and hopeful message, balanced with an honest admission that some jobs just aren't coming back.
• The two are talking to major media companies about a possible podcast or cable show to continue cementing their brand. Their conversations would include politics, policy, and pop culture.
• In D.C. in early September, the two will hold a health-care conference that includes policy input from the American Enterprise Institute on the right and the Center for American Progress on the left.
• Kasich, who's being advised by veteran consultant John Weaver, is keeping open all his options, including the possibility of primarying Trump in 2020.
• Nothing subtle about any of this: Kasich has urged Hickenlooper to visit New Hampshire.
• Both are 65 and both were born in the crucial electoral state of Pennsylvania, Kasich from the Pittsburgh side and Hickenlooper from the Philly side (corrected).
• Both are proud policy wonks, and their staffs are said to get along famously.

Why it matters: National Dems so far haven't capitalized on Trump's record unpopularity and obsession with his base. But this is a creative coupling that'll get a ton of airtime, and maybe even traction.

The pushback: Some establishment Dems are apoplectic about the idea of Hickenlooper teaming up with a Republican. One top strategist told me: "No Dem wants Kasich anywhere near our ticket. Sounds like a No Labels fantasy, but moderate Dems would hate it."

But a veteran operative emails: "Our political system is completely broken. Something big and historic needs to happen to break the logjam. I'm a big Dem but I'm for anything that ... does away with this hyper-partisanship on both sides that is paralyzing our government."

I like the idea. This could get support from middle America and return some much needed sanity and cooperation to the government.

isnt it a bit early to form a ticket? look at what happened when Cruz chose his VP before the primaries were over

 

[emilynghiem]

Though I'm almost certain Trump will face a primary challenge, I fear that too many Republicans will enter the race and allow the incumbency effect to carry Trump to his second GOP nomination.

This would be an opportune moment for Democrats and Republicans alike to figure out what in hell REALLY happened that got Trump elected. We've had plenty of pointing at the surface issues. But how he manipulated the media and ran an overwhelmingly successful campaign based on television hype and fairly standard sales techniques has to be analyzed. He just filled a niche and spoke to a large constituency that had not been recognized in a long time. And then there was the explosion of fake news against the Dems. Obviously, he didn't win on the basis of his character, his credentials or the potency of his ideas. He won on celebrity.
Figure it out, everyone, before we rinse and repeat.

He just filled a niche and spoke to a large constituency that had not been recognized in a long time.

That pretty well summarizes his strategy. It's not a novel strategy, but it is the strategy that best describes how Trump won.

Politics is nothing but the marketing of ideas, namely public policy ideas. Trump is a decent enough marketer. It's not much of a leap to apply service marketing principles to the end of marketing ideas and oneself. A major problem with Trump is that he is like a person who interviews really well and gets hired and who, upon completing their training, shows that for as strong an interviewer as they are, they are lousy (for whatever reason(s)) at actually doing the job. The job at which Trump stinks is governing.

I think Trump really appealed to the working people left out of left-wing politics.
Xelor it's the liberals who have been able to market their political agenda.

That's why all the media keep pushing Obamacare while working ppl on Both Left and Right were Silenced in our protests and demands to end corporate insurance benefits "sold to the public" as health care reforms. Even the Democrats were split over this, demanding REAL universal care but being silenced politically by leftist elitists selling out the party to get votes only.

Trump capitalised on this corruption and rallied working ppl to vote for him. That proves the liberal media was wrong, and there wasn't mass support for bureaucracy that costs taxpayers more.

Just like Obama , ppl voted for change. There were enough ppl fed up with Both parties selling out. Clinton and Sanders both push for more dependence on govt. Cruz was the front runner pushing for Constitutional reforms of govt, but he couldn't play the media bullying games as well as Trump did who even outdid the Democrats. Hillary played the game enough to beat Sanders, where Hillary had more support from Republicans crossing parties as did Democrats votijg for Trump.
Between Clinton and Trump, Trump was still deemed the lesser of two evils. At least Trump will listen and back down to Constitutional rebukes by opponents among his own constituents; while Hillary wouldn't listen but silenced opposing Democrats. Unlike Clinton, Trump was able to reconcile enough with Cruz to enforce Constitutional policies. Hillary and the high end Democrats still aren't fully representing the grassroots progressives including the Sanders supporters calling for exit.

At the DNC chair convention in Houston, candidates there acknowledged they lost touch with working ppl turned away by the political rhetoric with no real results. Trump and Cruz are fighting a battle to stop co opting of the GOP by career politicians and sellouts. The Democrats face a similar battle but it's the rich oppressing the poor from within. If the Republicans kick out their liars and unite the real leaders first, they may get to unity first. The Democrats have to renounce and quit playing the lying games, push for transparency, and real solutions to prison, health care, and immigration reform, or it's just more "battle of the bullshit" in the media. Trump is fighting that battle with the Democrats; and where it looks like a deadlock, all the public loses. We waste our energy, resources and attention which means real solutions go neglected and unfunded.

The real fate and future of the country depends on leaders from all parties working together transparently on solutions that require all of us to work out. Not hateful negative campaigns through the media just to get ppl to the polls. But real life longterm business and reform plans we agree to invest our taxes in.

See other msg on prison reforms, on Zuckerberg and other liberals,
Liberal movement for Prison reforms? Mark Zuckerberg, Durrel Douglas, Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee
that can change how health Care is funded to work toward universal care.

 

[emilynghiem]

Kasich, Hickenlooper eye joint 2020 bid

YES! After a website went down that had been advocating to allow Mixed Tickets,
These two candidates may be able to pull that off if they run as Independents.

Wow. I had been pushing for this also: for Democrats to focus on the VP position
and manage programs by States through the Senate. While Republicans focus on
the Presidential position as Commander in Chief for national security, foreign relations and global economy. Split the White House responsibilities between Domestic policies and International.

Do you think we can start organizing this NOW?
Start collaborations between parties instead of divisive rhetoric to bully for dominance?

Are these the right leaders for the job?
Or do you see other people taking charge if parties start collaborating on public policy?

I want to see Ralph Nader and Paul Glover of the Greens in cabinet positions also.
Do you support these two candidates in pushing for inter-party collaboration?
Or others? Who?
===============

Ohio Gov. John Kasich (R) and Colorado Gov. John Hickenlooper (D) — "the Johns," as insiders are calling them — have been making a flurry of joint appearances to talk about state-driven improvements to health care.

But Axios has learned that their duet is part of an alliance that's gaining momentum toward a possible joint independent bid for president in 2020, likely with Kasich at the top of the ticket:

Keep reading 346 words

• The two, who got to know each other at conferences, plan to extend their joint platform from health care to two other hot policy areas: immigration and job creation.
• On health care (with a detailed plan to be released soon), the two have broadened their efforts to a bipartisan group that includes 11 governors.
• The Johns' jobs plan will focus on the coming displacement from automation, with prescriptions that include trade, workforce training — and an optimistic and hopeful message, balanced with an honest admission that some jobs just aren't coming back.
• The two are talking to major media companies about a possible podcast or cable show to continue cementing their brand. Their conversations would include politics, policy, and pop culture.
• In D.C. in early September, the two will hold a health-care conference that includes policy input from the American Enterprise Institute on the right and the Center for American Progress on the left.
• Kasich, who's being advised by veteran consultant John Weaver, is keeping open all his options, including the possibility of primarying Trump in 2020.
• Nothing subtle about any of this: Kasich has urged Hickenlooper to visit New Hampshire.
• Both are 65 and both were born in the crucial electoral state of Pennsylvania, Kasich from the Pittsburgh side and Hickenlooper from the Philly side (corrected).
• Both are proud policy wonks, and their staffs are said to get along famously.

Why it matters: National Dems so far haven't capitalized on Trump's record unpopularity and obsession with his base. But this is a creative coupling that'll get a ton of airtime, and maybe even traction.

The pushback: Some establishment Dems are apoplectic about the idea of Hickenlooper teaming up with a Republican. One top strategist told me: "No Dem wants Kasich anywhere near our ticket. Sounds like a No Labels fantasy, but moderate Dems would hate it."

But a veteran operative emails: "Our political system is completely broken. Something big and historic needs to happen to break the logjam. I'm a big Dem but I'm for anything that ... does away with this hyper-partisanship on both sides that is paralyzing our government."

I like the idea. This could get support from middle America and return some much needed sanity and cooperation to the government.

isnt it a bit early to form a ticket? look at what happened when Cruz chose his VP before the primaries were over

Dear Rexx Taylor
as I replied earlier to Peach and OldLady
we need more transparency to plan out ALL positions, create jobs for ALL leaders
with strengths or winning solutions in any area they specialize in.

Why not have a CONSTANT process of conferencing between party members
on each issue or department/program in need of reform?
Why should we wait until elections to discuss what is right or wrong with each policy or proposal?

We have the internet. We have party structures to organize resources, leaders, and
members/taxpayers by like beliefs. Why not use these structures to set up representation
to work out these issues UNTIL THEY ARE RESOLVED.

That's not a 4 year cycle. But it's a CONSTANT process of redressing grievances,
resolving conflicts, and working out settlement plans and policies.

I'd rather pay to support jobs for interns, mentors, business and civic leaders
working out SOLUTIONS rather than empty campaigns once every 4-6 years.

Why waste money campaigning back and forth where the two cancel each other out?
Why not take those donations and invest them DIRECTLY into solutions.
Change tax policies where we can CHOOSE which platforms to fund that represent us.
And manage our benefits, health care, etc. through the collective management team we CHOOSE
to fund with policies and terms of benefits we AGREE to participate under?

We are so close to separating which people and which states are under which party.
Why not just USE that to re-organize funding, representation, and terms of policies.
And let taxpayers exercise equal choice of which to fund, statewide or nationally.
We can do this now, using the technology we have. Why abuse that to argue over
imposing one policy over another, when we could agree to separate these choices and work out our own policies equally!

 

[usmbguest5318]

Though I'm almost certain Trump will face a primary challenge, I fear that too many Republicans will enter the race and allow the incumbency effect to carry Trump to his second GOP nomination.

This would be an opportune moment for Democrats and Republicans alike to figure out what in hell REALLY happened that got Trump elected. We've had plenty of pointing at the surface issues. But how he manipulated the media and ran an overwhelmingly successful campaign based on television hype and fairly standard sales techniques has to be analyzed. He just filled a niche and spoke to a large constituency that had not been recognized in a long time. And then there was the explosion of fake news against the Dems. Obviously, he didn't win on the basis of his character, his credentials or the potency of his ideas. He won on celebrity.
Figure it out, everyone, before we rinse and repeat.

He just filled a niche and spoke to a large constituency that had not been recognized in a long time.

That pretty well summarizes his strategy. It's not a novel strategy, but it is the strategy that best describes how Trump won.

Politics is nothing but the marketing of ideas, namely public policy ideas. Trump is a decent enough marketer. It's not much of a leap to apply service marketing principles to the end of marketing ideas and oneself. A major problem with Trump is that he is like a person who interviews really well and gets hired and who, upon completing their training, shows that for as strong an interviewer as they are, they are lousy (for whatever reason(s)) at actually doing the job. The job at which Trump stinks is governing.

I get what you're saying, but it seems to me that the bang-up job Trump did manipulating the American public was a bit beyond the standard "marketing techniques" used by other politicians in past elections. It worries me that we will continue to run on such antics in the future.

The thing that distinguishes Trump's prevarications, his mendacity, from the mere manipulativeness of other modern politicians is that he has no reticence about fabricating things. I believe that the campaign and later effectiveness of his canards has as much to do (1) with the dilettante critical thinking exercised by the majority of the American public, and (2) with enough of the public being disaffected with the American Dream and ascribing their status in that regard to external etiologies rather than to themselves and therefrom commencing the charge to overcome their estrangement, as it does with Trump.

The New York Times maintains a "wall" that tracks Trump's lies. In describing what qualifies for inclusion on their "wall," the Times writes:

We have set a conservative standard here, leaving out many dubious statements (like the claim that his travel ban is “similar” to Obama administration policy). Some people may still take issue with this standard, arguing that the president wasn't speaking literally. But we believe his long pattern of using untruths to serve his purposes, as a businessman and politician, means that his statements are not simply careless errors.

We are using the word “lie” deliberately. Not every falsehood is deliberate on Trump's part. But it would be the height of naïveté to imagine he is merely making honest mistakes. He is lying.​

That wall doesn't contain parsed statements Trump made. The rigor of the Times methodology for including remarks there greatly exceeds that applied -- regardless of whether the object be a conservative or a liberal -- in many other publications and greatly outstrips the lack of rigor typically found in castigatory posts on this Internet forum.

the bang-up job Trump did manipulating the American public was a bit beyond the standard "marketing techniques" used by other politicians in past elections.

Perhaps. Having done graduate work in marketing and having been a member of teams that provided, among other things, marketing strategy, I've come to be amazed at just how very effective and very subtle certain marketing techniques are, and the thing that few consumers realize is that there are literally hundreds of those very subtle tactics and most marketers apply or deliberately eschew the vast majority of them in honing their various marketing messages.

• Consumer Behavior and Marketing
• 15 Psychological Studies That Will Boost Your Social Media Marketing
  
• Manipulative marketing: persuasion and manipulation of the consumer through advertising
  
• Preference Fluency in Choice

Trump has somewhat of an intrinsic sense of how those tactics work. (He may actually understand them, but given his short attention span, I doubt it. I can't imagine him taking the time to read the studies and listen to the presentations that he'd have to in order to fully understand all the relevant concepts and tactics.) Another that Trump "gets," is that the country has markedly more provincial voters than it has catholic ones. Being quite parochial himself, it's not hard for him to "click" with those people, and click with them he has.

 

[OldLady]

Though I'm almost certain Trump will face a primary challenge, I fear that too many Republicans will enter the race and allow the incumbency effect to carry Trump to his second GOP nomination.

This would be an opportune moment for Democrats and Republicans alike to figure out what in hell REALLY happened that got Trump elected. We've had plenty of pointing at the surface issues. But how he manipulated the media and ran an overwhelmingly successful campaign based on television hype and fairly standard sales techniques has to be analyzed. He just filled a niche and spoke to a large constituency that had not been recognized in a long time. And then there was the explosion of fake news against the Dems. Obviously, he didn't win on the basis of his character, his credentials or the potency of his ideas. He won on celebrity.
Figure it out, everyone, before we rinse and repeat.

He just filled a niche and spoke to a large constituency that had not been recognized in a long time.

That pretty well summarizes his strategy. It's not a novel strategy, but it is the strategy that best describes how Trump won.

Politics is nothing but the marketing of ideas, namely public policy ideas. Trump is a decent enough marketer. It's not much of a leap to apply service marketing principles to the end of marketing ideas and oneself. A major problem with Trump is that he is like a person who interviews really well and gets hired and who, upon completing their training, shows that for as strong an interviewer as they are, they are lousy (for whatever reason(s)) at actually doing the job. The job at which Trump stinks is governing.

I get what you're saying, but it seems to me that the bang-up job Trump did manipulating the American public was a bit beyond the standard "marketing techniques" used by other politicians in past elections. It worries me that we will continue to run on such antics in the future.

The thing that distinguishes Trump's prevarications, his mendacity, from the mere manipulativeness of other modern politicians is that he has no reticence about fabricating things. I believe that the campaign and later effectiveness of his canards has as much to do (1) with the dilettante critical thinking exercised by the majority of the American public, and (2) with enough of the public being disaffected with the American Dream and ascribing their status in that regard to external etiologies rather than to themselves and therefrom commencing the charge to overcome their estrangement, as it does with Trump.

The New York Times maintains a "wall" that tracks Trump's lies. In describing what qualifies for inclusion on their "wall," the Times writes:

We have set a conservative standard here, leaving out many dubious statements (like the claim that his travel ban is “similar” to Obama administration policy). Some people may still take issue with this standard, arguing that the president wasn't speaking literally. But we believe his long pattern of using untruths to serve his purposes, as a businessman and politician, means that his statements are not simply careless errors.

We are using the word “lie” deliberately. Not every falsehood is deliberate on Trump's part. But it would be the height of naïveté to imagine he is merely making honest mistakes. He is lying.​

That wall doesn't contain parsed statements Trump made. The rigor of the Times methodology for including remarks there greatly exceeds that applied -- regardless of whether the object be a conservative or a liberal -- in many other publications and greatly outstrips the lack of rigor typically found in castigatory posts on this Internet forum.

the bang-up job Trump did manipulating the American public was a bit beyond the standard "marketing techniques" used by other politicians in past elections.

Perhaps. Having done graduate work in marketing and having been a member of teams that provided, among other things, marketing strategy, I've come to be amazed at just how very effective and very subtle certain marketing techniques are, and the thing that few consumers realize is that there are literally hundreds of those very subtle tactics and most marketers apply or deliberately eschew the vast majority of them in honing their various marketing messages.

• Consumer Behavior and Marketing
• 15 Psychological Studies That Will Boost Your Social Media Marketing
  
• Manipulative marketing: persuasion and manipulation of the consumer through advertising
  
• Preference Fluency in Choice

Trump has somewhat of an intrinsic sense of how those tactics work. (He may actually understand them, but given his short attention span, I doubt it. I can't imagine him taking the time to read the studies and listen to the presentations that he'd have to in order to fully understand all the relevant concepts and tactics.) Another that Trump "gets," is that the country has markedly more provincial voters than it has catholic ones. Being quite parochial himself, it's not hard for him to "click" with those people, and click with them he has.

So, you think we're all good here as long as no liars are nominated next time?

 

[EvilCat Breath]

A Kasich Hickenlooper ticket would drain just enought democrats and never Trump republicans to enable Trump to coast to a resounding victory.

Oh....

You thought there would be just ONE unity ticket. Ah no.

 

[Nova78]

Kasich, Hickenlooper eye joint 2020 bid

YES! After a website went down that had been advocating to allow Mixed Tickets,
These two candidates may be able to pull that off if they run as Independents.

Hickenstupor has turned Colorado into an armpit ,and some dumb fucks want him in the white house, you might as well move to Cuba to get a glimpse of your new life you pathetic sheeples .

 

[usmbguest5318]

Though I'm almost certain Trump will face a primary challenge, I fear that too many Republicans will enter the race and allow the incumbency effect to carry Trump to his second GOP nomination.

This would be an opportune moment for Democrats and Republicans alike to figure out what in hell REALLY happened that got Trump elected. We've had plenty of pointing at the surface issues. But how he manipulated the media and ran an overwhelmingly successful campaign based on television hype and fairly standard sales techniques has to be analyzed. He just filled a niche and spoke to a large constituency that had not been recognized in a long time. And then there was the explosion of fake news against the Dems. Obviously, he didn't win on the basis of his character, his credentials or the potency of his ideas. He won on celebrity.
Figure it out, everyone, before we rinse and repeat.

He just filled a niche and spoke to a large constituency that had not been recognized in a long time.

That pretty well summarizes his strategy. It's not a novel strategy, but it is the strategy that best describes how Trump won.

Politics is nothing but the marketing of ideas, namely public policy ideas. Trump is a decent enough marketer. It's not much of a leap to apply service marketing principles to the end of marketing ideas and oneself. A major problem with Trump is that he is like a person who interviews really well and gets hired and who, upon completing their training, shows that for as strong an interviewer as they are, they are lousy (for whatever reason(s)) at actually doing the job. The job at which Trump stinks is governing.

I think Trump really appealed to the working people left out of left-wing politics.
Xelor it's the liberals who have been able to market their political agenda.

That's why all the media keep pushing Obamacare while working ppl on Both Left and Right were Silenced in our protests and demands to end corporate insurance benefits "sold to the public" as health care reforms. Even the Democrats were split over this, demanding REAL universal care but being silenced politically by leftist elitists selling out the party to get votes only.

Trump capitalised on this corruption and rallied working ppl to vote for him. That proves the liberal media was wrong, and there wasn't mass support for bureaucracy that costs taxpayers more.

Just like Obama , ppl voted for change. There were enough ppl fed up with Both parties selling out. Clinton and Sanders both push for more dependence on govt. Cruz was the front runner pushing for Constitutional reforms of govt, but he couldn't play the media bullying games as well as Trump did who even outdid the Democrats. Hillary played the game enough to beat Sanders, where Hillary had more support from Republicans crossing parties as did Democrats votijg for Trump.
Between Clinton and Trump, Trump was still deemed the lesser of two evils. At least Trump will listen and back down to Constitutional rebukes by opponents among his own constituents; while Hillary wouldn't listen but silenced opposing Democrats. Unlike Clinton, Trump was able to reconcile enough with Cruz to enforce Constitutional policies. Hillary and the high end Democrats still aren't fully representing the grassroots progressives including the Sanders supporters calling for exit.

At the DNC chair convention in Houston, candidates there acknowledged they lost touch with working ppl turned away by the political rhetoric with no real results. Trump and Cruz are fighting a battle to stop co opting of the GOP by career politicians and sellouts. The Democrats face a similar battle but it's the rich oppressing the poor from within. If the Republicans kick out their liars and unite the real leaders first, they may get to unity first. The Democrats have to renounce and quit playing the lying games, push for transparency, and real solutions to prison, health care, and immigration reform, or it's just more "battle of the bullshit" in the media. Trump is fighting that battle with the Democrats; and where it looks like a deadlock, all the public loses. We waste our energy, resources and attention which means real solutions go neglected and unfunded.

The real fate and future of the country depends on leaders from all parties working together transparently on solutions that require all of us to work out. Not hateful negative campaigns through the media just to get ppl to the polls. But real life longterm business and reform plans we agree to invest our taxes in.

See other msg on prison reforms, on Zuckerberg and other liberals,
Liberal movement for Prison reforms? Mark Zuckerberg, Durrel Douglas, Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee
that can change how health Care is funded to work toward universal care.

Xelor it's the liberals who have been able to market their political agenda. That's why all the media keep pushing Obamacare while working ppl on Both Left and Right were Silenced in our protests and demands to end corporate insurance benefits "sold to the public" as health care reforms.

Some "working ppl" allowed themselves to be "silenced." (I'd call it "marginalized," not "silenced," but that's me.) Working people like me, like many other individuals I know well are routinely heard when they want to be. Other working people I know make no effort to be heard despite their having strong views on a specific or assortment of issues. Nobody did that to those people; they allow it to happen even though they don't have to.

There were enough ppl fed up with Both parties selling out.

Did they really "sell out?" I don't think so.

I posit that instead that many members of the electorate have an errant sense of what the two major parties indeed stand for nominally versus pivotally. Furthermore, from what I can tell, the individuals and organizations that most strenuously express and exercise their political preferences do so with a degree of focus and coherence of principle and ends that few individual voters even conceive of having, let alone actually have.

For instance:

A business that lobbies Congress will do so for every proposed and actual piece of legislation and legislative provision. The business' stance will, without exception, derive from the one thing that a business exists to advance: the earnings it produces for its owner(s). Quite simply, businesses don't care whether the elected office holder is a Democrat or a Republican; they care whether they get what they want. Even if it doesn't get what it wants, business managers nonetheless look at the actual policy outcome, ask themselves "how can I make what did result 'work' for this firm?", and then they go about making it work. (If there happens also to be a cadre of individuals who press for alteration of the enacted policy, a business may out of convenience join the push, but even as it does so, it's moving forward with availing itself of the opportunity(s) made available by the enacted policy, even though it's not the one the business preferred.

Individuals, in contrast are not nearly so focused. Individuals quite often are "single issue" rather than "single purpose" voters. Far too many individual voters simply do not develop a set of compatible, cogent and coherent principles that in turn guide their political choices and activities. Individuals' combined sloth and predilection for political incoherence makes it (1) hard for them to clearly and accurately understand the true nature of parties and the candidates elected in association with the parties, and (2) easy for candidates, parties, political action groups, etc. to misrepresent, well, frankly, pretty much anything. Most issues have enough "angles" that it's just a matter of finding out what "angle" appeals to the most people "right now," and then show them that angle.

That's what happens when one is (1) grounded by nothing, (2) grounded by sophistry, or (3) "grounded" by too many things. The thing is that that is nobody's fault but the individual's. The individuals and organizations that are aptly and clearly focused, ideologically coherent, etc. know it and and they use individuals' multifurcation to their advantage; one cannot really blame them for doing so.​

Trump will listen and back down to Constitutional rebukes by opponents among his own constituents

Are you serious? Is the 4th Amendment and utter disregard of it not in your mind a Constitutional matter. I'm certain Trump heard the recent resounding 4th-related admonishments from attorneys and Constitutional scholars in his own party, and yet Trump has completely abrogated the 4th and the rule of law, behaving not like a president, but like a monarch, and it's not the first time he's done so. Hearing someone and heeding the input of one's subject-matter betters are not the same things.

Trump was still deemed the lesser of two evils.

No, he was not. He won the electoral vote, not the popular vote. What that means is he is lawfully the POTUS; however, most voters did not consider him "the lesser of two evils;" only the right voters in the right places did. That produced a win, but not a win that supports the assertion you've made.

At the DNC chair convention in Houston, candidates there acknowledged they lost touch with working ppl turned away by the political rhetoric with no real results. Trump and Cruz are fighting a battle to stop co opting of the GOP by career politicians and sellouts.

What everyone should be fighting to correct is an electoral model wherein the qualities that make one successful as a candidate are not the qualities that make one successful as a governing head of state. The former is all about effective marketing. The latter is all about effective leadership and management. People who are very good at one may or may not be good at the other. I think you see as much too, but your statements just above refute the notion that you do even as the remark below supports it.

The real fate and future of the country depends on leaders

When you talk about co-opting and "selling out," you must necessarily also have some notions of accountability. How about the notion of one's being accountable for their published statements of position? If you think politicians are rightly held to those positions, I bid you go find Trump's campaign positions on his website. Of course, you won't be able to. (Hillary's positions -- and in all their detail, something which Trump's statements never approached matching -- on the issues of the 2016 campaign are still there for all to see.)

• Trump reverses himself on 4 campaign positions in just 1 day
  
• The four campaign positions Trump flip-flopped on in 24-hour span

 

[jon_berzerk]

Kasich-Hickenlooper eye Bid for 2020: Mixed Ticket for President and VP?


vote for em

not a chance of it

--LOL

third party trump if need be

 

[usmbguest5318]

Though I'm almost certain Trump will face a primary challenge, I fear that too many Republicans will enter the race and allow the incumbency effect to carry Trump to his second GOP nomination.

This would be an opportune moment for Democrats and Republicans alike to figure out what in hell REALLY happened that got Trump elected. We've had plenty of pointing at the surface issues. But how he manipulated the media and ran an overwhelmingly successful campaign based on television hype and fairly standard sales techniques has to be analyzed. He just filled a niche and spoke to a large constituency that had not been recognized in a long time. And then there was the explosion of fake news against the Dems. Obviously, he didn't win on the basis of his character, his credentials or the potency of his ideas. He won on celebrity.
Figure it out, everyone, before we rinse and repeat.

He just filled a niche and spoke to a large constituency that had not been recognized in a long time.

That pretty well summarizes his strategy. It's not a novel strategy, but it is the strategy that best describes how Trump won.

Politics is nothing but the marketing of ideas, namely public policy ideas. Trump is a decent enough marketer. It's not much of a leap to apply service marketing principles to the end of marketing ideas and oneself. A major problem with Trump is that he is like a person who interviews really well and gets hired and who, upon completing their training, shows that for as strong an interviewer as they are, they are lousy (for whatever reason(s)) at actually doing the job. The job at which Trump stinks is governing.

I get what you're saying, but it seems to me that the bang-up job Trump did manipulating the American public was a bit beyond the standard "marketing techniques" used by other politicians in past elections. It worries me that we will continue to run on such antics in the future.

The thing that distinguishes Trump's prevarications, his mendacity, from the mere manipulativeness of other modern politicians is that he has no reticence about fabricating things. I believe that the campaign and later effectiveness of his canards has as much to do (1) with the dilettante critical thinking exercised by the majority of the American public, and (2) with enough of the public being disaffected with the American Dream and ascribing their status in that regard to external etiologies rather than to themselves and therefrom commencing the charge to overcome their estrangement, as it does with Trump.

The New York Times maintains a "wall" that tracks Trump's lies. In describing what qualifies for inclusion on their "wall," the Times writes:

We have set a conservative standard here, leaving out many dubious statements (like the claim that his travel ban is “similar” to Obama administration policy). Some people may still take issue with this standard, arguing that the president wasn't speaking literally. But we believe his long pattern of using untruths to serve his purposes, as a businessman and politician, means that his statements are not simply careless errors.

We are using the word “lie” deliberately. Not every falsehood is deliberate on Trump's part. But it would be the height of naïveté to imagine he is merely making honest mistakes. He is lying.​

That wall doesn't contain parsed statements Trump made. The rigor of the Times methodology for including remarks there greatly exceeds that applied -- regardless of whether the object be a conservative or a liberal -- in many other publications and greatly outstrips the lack of rigor typically found in castigatory posts on this Internet forum.

the bang-up job Trump did manipulating the American public was a bit beyond the standard "marketing techniques" used by other politicians in past elections.

Perhaps. Having done graduate work in marketing and having been a member of teams that provided, among other things, marketing strategy, I've come to be amazed at just how very effective and very subtle certain marketing techniques are, and the thing that few consumers realize is that there are literally hundreds of those very subtle tactics and most marketers apply or deliberately eschew the vast majority of them in honing their various marketing messages.

• Consumer Behavior and Marketing
• 15 Psychological Studies That Will Boost Your Social Media Marketing
  
• Manipulative marketing: persuasion and manipulation of the consumer through advertising
  
• Preference Fluency in Choice

Trump has somewhat of an intrinsic sense of how those tactics work. (He may actually understand them, but given his short attention span, I doubt it. I can't imagine him taking the time to read the studies and listen to the presentations that he'd have to in order to fully understand all the relevant concepts and tactics.) Another that Trump "gets," is that the country has markedly more provincial voters than it has catholic ones. Being quite parochial himself, it's not hard for him to "click" with those people, and click with them he has.

So, you think we're all good here as long as no liars are nominated next time?

I wouldn't go so far as to say "all good," but nominating people whose "Politifact" file is 70% dominated by "True" and "Mostly true" statements rather than "Mostly false," "False" and "Pants on Fire" statements is definitely a good start.

 

[leftwinger]

Haley will be President some day. I'd bank on it. What is wrong with either of them? Just calling them "fruitcakes" doesn't really make much of a case for you.

I don't think I can save you? Its' too late baby now its' too late, but we really did try to make it..............sample

"Manchin, who said he was "totally behind" health care reform in 2009, has been steadily walking back his support for the legislation in recent weeks as polls show his race to be far closer than Democrats initially expected. (CBS News is currently calling the race a toss up.)" anything for a vote, including shooting a rifle at paperwork during TV ad stunt.

Haley? Can't remember why I hate her besides normal RINO hate? Maybe it was "shooting her mouth off at the UN" lecturing some other country about some wacko stuff? There is a reason Trump put her at the UN. The UN has accomplished nothing that I am aware of in my lifetime. Send her over there to muck it up more. Who cares? I wish Trump would propose to pull out and kick the UN out of the country. Lay her off as part of cost reduction.

 

[OKTexas]

Kasich, Hickenlooper eye joint 2020 bid

YES! After a website went down that had been advocating to allow Mixed Tickets,
These two candidates may be able to pull that off if they run as Independents.

Wow. I had been pushing for this also: for Democrats to focus on the VP position
and manage programs by States through the Senate. While Republicans focus on
the Presidential position as Commander in Chief for national security, foreign relations and global economy. Split the White House responsibilities between Domestic policies and International.

Do you think we can start organizing this NOW?
Start collaborations between parties instead of divisive rhetoric to bully for dominance?

Are these the right leaders for the job?
Or do you see other people taking charge if parties start collaborating on public policy?

I want to see Ralph Nader and Paul Glover of the Greens in cabinet positions also.
Do you support these two candidates in pushing for inter-party collaboration?
Or others? Who?
===============

Ohio Gov. John Kasich (R) and Colorado Gov. John Hickenlooper (D) — "the Johns," as insiders are calling them — have been making a flurry of joint appearances to talk about state-driven improvements to health care.

But Axios has learned that their duet is part of an alliance that's gaining momentum toward a possible joint independent bid for president in 2020, likely with Kasich at the top of the ticket:

Keep reading 346 words

• The two, who got to know each other at conferences, plan to extend their joint platform from health care to two other hot policy areas: immigration and job creation.
• On health care (with a detailed plan to be released soon), the two have broadened their efforts to a bipartisan group that includes 11 governors.
• The Johns' jobs plan will focus on the coming displacement from automation, with prescriptions that include trade, workforce training — and an optimistic and hopeful message, balanced with an honest admission that some jobs just aren't coming back.
• The two are talking to major media companies about a possible podcast or cable show to continue cementing their brand. Their conversations would include politics, policy, and pop culture.
• In D.C. in early September, the two will hold a health-care conference that includes policy input from the American Enterprise Institute on the right and the Center for American Progress on the left.
• Kasich, who's being advised by veteran consultant John Weaver, is keeping open all his options, including the possibility of primarying Trump in 2020.
• Nothing subtle about any of this: Kasich has urged Hickenlooper to visit New Hampshire.
• Both are 65 and both were born in the crucial electoral state of Pennsylvania, Kasich from the Pittsburgh side and Hickenlooper from the Philly side (corrected).
• Both are proud policy wonks, and their staffs are said to get along famously.

Why it matters: National Dems so far haven't capitalized on Trump's record unpopularity and obsession with his base. But this is a creative coupling that'll get a ton of airtime, and maybe even traction.

The pushback: Some establishment Dems are apoplectic about the idea of Hickenlooper teaming up with a Republican. One top strategist told me: "No Dem wants Kasich anywhere near our ticket. Sounds like a No Labels fantasy, but moderate Dems would hate it."

But a veteran operative emails: "Our political system is completely broken. Something big and historic needs to happen to break the logjam. I'm a big Dem but I'm for anything that ... does away with this hyper-partisanship on both sides that is paralyzing our government."

The biggest mistake Hickenlooper could make, is tie his political wagon to Kasich, very few in either part have any love for Kasich.


.

 

[leftwinger]

Kasich, Hickenlooper eye joint 2020 bid

YES! After a website went down that had been advocating to allow Mixed Tickets,
These two candidates may be able to pull that off if they run as Independents.

Wow. I had been pushing for this also: for Democrats to focus on the VP position
and manage programs by States through the Senate. While Republicans focus on
the Presidential position as Commander in Chief for national security, foreign relations and global economy. Split the White House responsibilities between Domestic policies and International.

Do you think we can start organizing this NOW?
Start collaborations between parties instead of divisive rhetoric to bully for dominance?

Are these the right leaders for the job?
Or do you see other people taking charge if parties start collaborating on public policy?

I want to see Ralph Nader and Paul Glover of the Greens in cabinet positions also.
Do you support these two candidates in pushing for inter-party collaboration?
Or others? Who?
===============

Ohio Gov. John Kasich (R) and Colorado Gov. John Hickenlooper (D) — "the Johns," as insiders are calling them — have been making a flurry of joint appearances to talk about state-driven improvements to health care.

But Axios has learned that their duet is part of an alliance that's gaining momentum toward a possible joint independent bid for president in 2020, likely with Kasich at the top of the ticket:

Keep reading 346 words

• The two, who got to know each other at conferences, plan to extend their joint platform from health care to two other hot policy areas: immigration and job creation.
• On health care (with a detailed plan to be released soon), the two have broadened their efforts to a bipartisan group that includes 11 governors.
• The Johns' jobs plan will focus on the coming displacement from automation, with prescriptions that include trade, workforce training — and an optimistic and hopeful message, balanced with an honest admission that some jobs just aren't coming back.
• The two are talking to major media companies about a possible podcast or cable show to continue cementing their brand. Their conversations would include politics, policy, and pop culture.
• In D.C. in early September, the two will hold a health-care conference that includes policy input from the American Enterprise Institute on the right and the Center for American Progress on the left.
• Kasich, who's being advised by veteran consultant John Weaver, is keeping open all his options, including the possibility of primarying Trump in 2020.
• Nothing subtle about any of this: Kasich has urged Hickenlooper to visit New Hampshire.
• Both are 65 and both were born in the crucial electoral state of Pennsylvania, Kasich from the Pittsburgh side and Hickenlooper from the Philly side (corrected).
• Both are proud policy wonks, and their staffs are said to get along famously.

Why it matters: National Dems so far haven't capitalized on Trump's record unpopularity and obsession with his base. But this is a creative coupling that'll get a ton of airtime, and maybe even traction.

The pushback: Some establishment Dems are apoplectic about the idea of Hickenlooper teaming up with a Republican. One top strategist told me: "No Dem wants Kasich anywhere near our ticket. Sounds like a No Labels fantasy, but moderate Dems would hate it."

But a veteran operative emails: "Our political system is completely broken. Something big and historic needs to happen to break the logjam. I'm a big Dem but I'm for anything that ... does away with this hyper-partisanship on both sides that is paralyzing our government."

A quisling Republican....and the other guy......Kasich couldn't beat Trump one on one and Trump wasn't even in office........kasich has revealed himself to be a republican member of the democrat party.....never happen.

So, for the spirit of the thread, what Repub and Dem would you choose?

The only Democrat I ever liked was Ronald Reagan.

"The only Democrat I ever liked was Ronald Reagan"

I heard he was the last good one. I paid no attention back then and I am ignorant of history.

I will say..........the Jim Webb (name?) guy was the only "D" I have ever seen that did not make me hurl. He was so good he had to quit.

Cruz/Webb.....if they are going to force me to play this horrible game.

 

[Avatar4321]

So Kasich wants to give Trump a second term?

Cause that's what will happen.

Think about it. Kasichs appeal is to the left. Most of the Republicans already backed Trump over Kasich, which is why he wont the primary. Kasich has almost zero likeability among Republicans. Conservatives who went third party wont be going to Kasich, they will likely remain third party unless trump does better than expected.

So Kasich will appeal to the less radical left. He might do better running as a Dem. But if independent it is he syphons off dems more than Republicans.

He might even put Cali in play if the left is divided between the Dem and Kasich

If Kasich had dropped out earlier Cruz may have managed to beat Trump. Ironic if he gives us a second term for trump

 

[emilynghiem]

Though I'm almost certain Trump will face a primary challenge, I fear that too many Republicans will enter the race and allow the incumbency effect to carry Trump to his second GOP nomination.

This would be an opportune moment for Democrats and Republicans alike to figure out what in hell REALLY happened that got Trump elected. We've had plenty of pointing at the surface issues. But how he manipulated the media and ran an overwhelmingly successful campaign based on television hype and fairly standard sales techniques has to be analyzed. He just filled a niche and spoke to a large constituency that had not been recognized in a long time. And then there was the explosion of fake news against the Dems. Obviously, he didn't win on the basis of his character, his credentials or the potency of his ideas. He won on celebrity.
Figure it out, everyone, before we rinse and repeat.

He just filled a niche and spoke to a large constituency that had not been recognized in a long time.

That pretty well summarizes his strategy. It's not a novel strategy, but it is the strategy that best describes how Trump won.

Politics is nothing but the marketing of ideas, namely public policy ideas. Trump is a decent enough marketer. It's not much of a leap to apply service marketing principles to the end of marketing ideas and oneself. A major problem with Trump is that he is like a person who interviews really well and gets hired and who, upon completing their training, shows that for as strong an interviewer as they are, they are lousy (for whatever reason(s)) at actually doing the job. The job at which Trump stinks is governing.

I get what you're saying, but it seems to me that the bang-up job Trump did manipulating the American public was a bit beyond the standard "marketing techniques" used by other politicians in past elections. It worries me that we will continue to run on such antics in the future.

The thing that distinguishes Trump's prevarications, his mendacity, from the mere manipulativeness of other modern politicians is that he has no reticence about fabricating things. I believe that the campaign and later effectiveness of his canards has as much to do (1) with the dilettante critical thinking exercised by the majority of the American public, and (2) with enough of the public being disaffected with the American Dream and ascribing their status in that regard to external etiologies rather than to themselves and therefrom commencing the charge to overcome their estrangement, as it does with Trump.

The New York Times maintains a "wall" that tracks Trump's lies. In describing what qualifies for inclusion on their "wall," the Times writes:

We have set a conservative standard here, leaving out many dubious statements (like the claim that his travel ban is “similar” to Obama administration policy). Some people may still take issue with this standard, arguing that the president wasn't speaking literally. But we believe his long pattern of using untruths to serve his purposes, as a businessman and politician, means that his statements are not simply careless errors.

We are using the word “lie” deliberately. Not every falsehood is deliberate on Trump's part. But it would be the height of naïveté to imagine he is merely making honest mistakes. He is lying.​

That wall doesn't contain parsed statements Trump made. The rigor of the Times methodology for including remarks there greatly exceeds that applied -- regardless of whether the object be a conservative or a liberal -- in many other publications and greatly outstrips the lack of rigor typically found in castigatory posts on this Internet forum.

the bang-up job Trump did manipulating the American public was a bit beyond the standard "marketing techniques" used by other politicians in past elections.

Perhaps. Having done graduate work in marketing and having been a member of teams that provided, among other things, marketing strategy, I've come to be amazed at just how very effective and very subtle certain marketing techniques are, and the thing that few consumers realize is that there are literally hundreds of those very subtle tactics and most marketers apply or deliberately eschew the vast majority of them in honing their various marketing messages.

• Consumer Behavior and Marketing
• 15 Psychological Studies That Will Boost Your Social Media Marketing
  
• Manipulative marketing: persuasion and manipulation of the consumer through advertising
  
• Preference Fluency in Choice

Trump has somewhat of an intrinsic sense of how those tactics work. (He may actually understand them, but given his short attention span, I doubt it. I can't imagine him taking the time to read the studies and listen to the presentations that he'd have to in order to fully understand all the relevant concepts and tactics.) Another that Trump "gets," is that the country has markedly more provincial voters than it has catholic ones. Being quite parochial himself, it's not hard for him to "click" with those people, and click with them he has.

Dear Xelor do you also acknowledge how much the corporate media spins or omits things? To the point that defenders argue Trump is just playing the same game but trying to beat them at it? The advantage the liberal left has is if they abuse media too much to push biased agenda through govt, the media and Democrats won't stop it. But where Trump pushes or gets out of line, both Republicans and Democrats block him. The Democrats wouldn't stop Obama or either Clinton but pushed whatever it took, through the media spin machine. Conservative Constitutionalists will block their own before letting them pull that crap. The left will just overlook the propaganda and push their agenda through.

 

[emilynghiem]

Though I'm almost certain Trump will face a primary challenge, I fear that too many Republicans will enter the race and allow the incumbency effect to carry Trump to his second GOP nomination.

This would be an opportune moment for Democrats and Republicans alike to figure out what in hell REALLY happened that got Trump elected. We've had plenty of pointing at the surface issues. But how he manipulated the media and ran an overwhelmingly successful campaign based on television hype and fairly standard sales techniques has to be analyzed. He just filled a niche and spoke to a large constituency that had not been recognized in a long time. And then there was the explosion of fake news against the Dems. Obviously, he didn't win on the basis of his character, his credentials or the potency of his ideas. He won on celebrity.
Figure it out, everyone, before we rinse and repeat.

He just filled a niche and spoke to a large constituency that had not been recognized in a long time.

That pretty well summarizes his strategy. It's not a novel strategy, but it is the strategy that best describes how Trump won.

Politics is nothing but the marketing of ideas, namely public policy ideas. Trump is a decent enough marketer. It's not much of a leap to apply service marketing principles to the end of marketing ideas and oneself. A major problem with Trump is that he is like a person who interviews really well and gets hired and who, upon completing their training, shows that for as strong an interviewer as they are, they are lousy (for whatever reason(s)) at actually doing the job. The job at which Trump stinks is governing.

I think Trump really appealed to the working people left out of left-wing politics.
Xelor it's the liberals who have been able to market their political agenda.

That's why all the media keep pushing Obamacare while working ppl on Both Left and Right were Silenced in our protests and demands to end corporate insurance benefits "sold to the public" as health care reforms. Even the Democrats were split over this, demanding REAL universal care but being silenced politically by leftist elitists selling out the party to get votes only.

Trump capitalised on this corruption and rallied working ppl to vote for him. That proves the liberal media was wrong, and there wasn't mass support for bureaucracy that costs taxpayers more.

Just like Obama , ppl voted for change. There were enough ppl fed up with Both parties selling out. Clinton and Sanders both push for more dependence on govt. Cruz was the front runner pushing for Constitutional reforms of govt, but he couldn't play the media bullying games as well as Trump did who even outdid the Democrats. Hillary played the game enough to beat Sanders, where Hillary had more support from Republicans crossing parties as did Democrats votijg for Trump.
Between Clinton and Trump, Trump was still deemed the lesser of two evils. At least Trump will listen and back down to Constitutional rebukes by opponents among his own constituents; while Hillary wouldn't listen but silenced opposing Democrats. Unlike Clinton, Trump was able to reconcile enough with Cruz to enforce Constitutional policies. Hillary and the high end Democrats still aren't fully representing the grassroots progressives including the Sanders supporters calling for exit.

At the DNC chair convention in Houston, candidates there acknowledged they lost touch with working ppl turned away by the political rhetoric with no real results. Trump and Cruz are fighting a battle to stop co opting of the GOP by career politicians and sellouts. The Democrats face a similar battle but it's the rich oppressing the poor from within. If the Republicans kick out their liars and unite the real leaders first, they may get to unity first. The Democrats have to renounce and quit playing the lying games, push for transparency, and real solutions to prison, health care, and immigration reform, or it's just more "battle of the bullshit" in the media. Trump is fighting that battle with the Democrats; and where it looks like a deadlock, all the public loses. We waste our energy, resources and attention which means real solutions go neglected and unfunded.

The real fate and future of the country depends on leaders from all parties working together transparently on solutions that require all of us to work out. Not hateful negative campaigns through the media just to get ppl to the polls. But real life longterm business and reform plans we agree to invest our taxes in.

See other msg on prison reforms, on Zuckerberg and other liberals,
Liberal movement for Prison reforms? Mark Zuckerberg, Durrel Douglas, Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee
that can change how health Care is funded to work toward universal care.

Xelor it's the liberals who have been able to market their political agenda. That's why all the media keep pushing Obamacare while working ppl on Both Left and Right were Silenced in our protests and demands to end corporate insurance benefits "sold to the public" as health care reforms.

Some "working ppl" allowed themselves to be "silenced." (I'd call it "marginalized," not "silenced," but that's me.) Working people like me, like many other individuals I know well are routinely heard when they want to be. Other working people I know make no effort to be heard despite their having strong views on a specific or assortment of issues. Nobody did that to those people; they allow it to happen even though they don't have to.

There were enough ppl fed up with Both parties selling out.

Did they really "sell out?" I don't think so.

I posit that instead that many members of the electorate have an errant sense of what the two major parties indeed stand for nominally versus pivotally. Furthermore, from what I can tell, the individuals and organizations that most strenuously express and exercise their political preferences do so with a degree of focus and coherence of principle and ends that few individual voters even conceive of having, let alone actually have.

For instance:

A business that lobbies Congress will do so for every proposed and actual piece of legislation and legislative provision. The business' stance will, without exception, derive from the one thing that a business exists to advance: the earnings it produces for its owner(s). Quite simply, businesses don't care whether the elected office holder is a Democrat or a Republican; they care whether they get what they want. Even if it doesn't get what it wants, business managers nonetheless look at the actual policy outcome, ask themselves "how can I make what did result 'work' for this firm?", and then they go about making it work. (If there happens also to be a cadre of individuals who press for alteration of the enacted policy, a business may out of convenience join the push, but even as it does so, it's moving forward with availing itself of the opportunity(s) made available by the enacted policy, even though it's not the one the business preferred.

Individuals, in contrast are not nearly so focused. Individuals quite often are "single issue" rather than "single purpose" voters. Far too many individual voters simply do not develop a set of compatible, cogent and coherent principles that in turn guide their political choices and activities. Individuals' combined sloth and predilection for political incoherence makes it (1) hard for them to clearly and accurately understand the true nature of parties and the candidates elected in association with the parties, and (2) easy for candidates, parties, political action groups, etc. to misrepresent, well, frankly, pretty much anything. Most issues have enough "angles" that it's just a matter of finding out what "angle" appeals to the most people "right now," and then show them that angle.

That's what happens when one is (1) grounded by nothing, (2) grounded by sophistry, or (3) "grounded" by too many things. The thing is that that is nobody's fault but the individual's. The individuals and organizations that are aptly and clearly focused, ideologically coherent, etc. know it and and they use individuals' multifurcation to their advantage; one cannot really blame them for doing so.​

Trump will listen and back down to Constitutional rebukes by opponents among his own constituents

Are you serious? Is the 4th Amendment and utter disregard of it not in your mind a Constitutional matter. I'm certain Trump heard the recent resounding 4th-related admonishments from attorneys and Constitutional scholars in his own party, and yet Trump has completely abrogated the 4th and the rule of law, behaving not like a president, but like a monarch, and it's not the first time he's done so. Hearing someone and heeding the input of one's subject-matter betters are not the same things.

Trump was still deemed the lesser of two evils.

No, he was not. He won the electoral vote, not the popular vote. What that means is he is lawfully the POTUS; however, most voters did not consider him "the lesser of two evils;" only the right voters in the right places did. That produced a win, but not a win that supports the assertion you've made.

At the DNC chair convention in Houston, candidates there acknowledged they lost touch with working ppl turned away by the political rhetoric with no real results. Trump and Cruz are fighting a battle to stop co opting of the GOP by career politicians and sellouts.

What everyone should be fighting to correct is an electoral model wherein the qualities that make one successful as a candidate are not the qualities that make one successful as a governing head of state. The former is all about effective marketing. The latter is all about effective leadership and management. People who are very good at one may or may not be good at the other. I think you see as much too, but your statements just above refute the notion that you do even as the remark below supports it.

The real fate and future of the country depends on leaders

When you talk about co-opting and "selling out," you must necessarily also have some notions of accountability. How about the notion of one's being accountable for their published statements of position? If you think politicians are rightly held to those positions, I bid you go find Trump's campaign positions on his website. Of course, you won't be able to. (Hillary's positions -- and in all their detail, something which Trump's statements never approached matching -- on the issues of the 2016 campaign are still there for all to see.)

• Trump reverses himself on 4 campaign positions in just 1 day
  
• The four campaign positions Trump flip-flopped on in 24-hour span

Dear Xelor what matters with Trump or any federal official is they uphold their oath to defend the Constitution and due process of laws there under. If Trump keeps pushing wall or other immigration policies that don't solve the problem s but create more, of course, those versions of the reforms are going to fail if they don't meet Constititionalist standards. Trump and all govt officials need to enforce the Constitution, not violating it left and right!

Note: Obama violated the Constitution by passing and enforcing ACA mandates that violated Constitutional beliefs. Roberts has also been contested for ruling on this as a tax when it wasn't passed by voting on it as a tax. Clinton abused power to obstruct Justice and bypass due process of laws regarding breaches of security policy with classified information which doesn't require "criminal intent" to establish negligence.

Trump should not be able to see any wall policy or health care reform except it is laid out and corrected Constitutionally.

Loyalty must be to the Constitution before party and no personal word can be enforced before oath of office. See code of ethics for govt service: www.ethics-commission.net Democrats keep pushing party beliefs and agenda Before oath of office to defend people of ALL beliefs and Creed's equally by the Constitution. Trump won't get anything done unless it satisfies all the people because he gets checked by both Democrats putting party and populist approach first before the Constitution, and Republicans and Libertarians who put their party and Constitutional principles first. Trump gets stopped from both sides. His promised proposals can only go through if they are revised to be fully Constitutional and inclusive of all parties beliefs.

 

[emilynghiem]

[Q hiUOTE="OldLady, post: 18020920, member: 56127"]

Kasich, Hickenlooper eye joint 2020 bid

YES! After a website went down that had been advocating to allow Mixed Tickets,
These two candidates may be able to pull that off if they run as Independents.

Wow. I had been pushing for this also: for Democrats to focus on the VP position
and manage programs by States through the Senate. While Republicans focus on
the Presidential position as Commander in Chief for national security, foreign relations and global economy. Split the White House responsibilities between Domestic policies and International.

Do you think we can start organizing this NOW?
Start collaborations between parties instead of divisive rhetoric to bully for dominance?

Are these the right leaders for the job?
Or do you see other people taking charge if parties start collaborating on public policy?

I want to see Ralph Nader and Paul Glover of the Greens in cabinet positions also.
Do you support these two candidates in pushing for inter-party collaboration?
Or others? Who?
===============

Ohio Gov. John Kasich (R) and Colorado Gov. John Hickenlooper (D) — "the Johns," as insiders are calling them — have been making a flurry of joint appearances to talk about state-driven improvements to health care.

But Axios has learned that their duet is part of an alliance that's gaining momentum toward a possible joint independent bid for president in 2020, likely with Kasich at the top of the ticket:

Keep reading 346 words

• The two, who got to know each other at conferences, plan to extend their joint platform from health care to two other hot policy areas: immigration and job creation.
• On health care (with a detailed plan to be released soon), the two have broadened their efforts to a bipartisan group that includes 11 governors.
• The Johns' jobs plan will focus on the coming displacement from automation, with prescriptions that include trade, workforce training — and an optimistic and hopeful message, balanced with an honest admission that some jobs just aren't coming back.
• The two are talking to major media companies about a possible podcast or cable show to continue cementing their brand. Their conversations would include politics, policy, and pop culture.
• In D.C. in early September, the two will hold a health-care conference that includes policy input from the American Enterprise Institute on the right and the Center for American Progress on the left.
• Kasich, who's being advised by veteran consultant John Weaver, is keeping open all his options, including the possibility of primarying Trump in 2020.
• Nothing subtle about any of this: Kasich has urged Hickenlooper to visit New Hampshire.
• Both are 65 and both were born in the crucial electoral state of Pennsylvania, Kasich from the Pittsburgh side and Hickenlooper from the Philly side (corrected).
• Both are proud policy wonks, and their staffs are said to get along famously.

Why it matters: National Dems so far haven't capitalized on Trump's record unpopularity and obsession with his base. But this is a creative coupling that'll get a ton of airtime, and maybe even traction.

The pushback: Some establishment Dems are apoplectic about the idea of Hickenlooper teaming up with a Republican. One top strategist told me: "No Dem wants Kasich anywhere near our ticket. Sounds like a No Labels fantasy, but moderate Dems would hate it."

But a veteran operative emails: "Our political system is completely broken. Something big and historic needs to happen to break the logjam. I'm a big Dem but I'm for anything that ... does away with this hyper-partisanship on both sides that is paralyzing our government."

Warren/Collins ; )

Please don't take Collins from us--we're hoping she's running for Governor of Maine next year.

Dear Peach and OldLady
Thanks for giving specific names.
Yes I believe we need to plan ahead, with full transparency, which leaders need to serve in which roles. Why compete for the same slots while others go without a good contender? Why not create jobs for all leaders to serve to maximum capacity, instead of wasting millions when candidates from the same party run against each other! That money could have paid to create a whole separate job for someone to reform problem s directly instead of campaigning on promises that come out empty.

OldLady about Trump voters, we do need to focus on what are the real solutions that will redress taxpayers issues, not just what wins campaign votes. Where do taxpayers want to put our money, and what solutions will get our debts paid off or paid back? The solutions I see come from leaders from all parties. The reason I voted for Trump as a Democrat was that he would push for independent business plans and would be held in check by both parties not letting him get away with any Unconstitutional BS as Obama or Clinton would get away with without check. Trump is compelling the people to get involved in govt or else nothing will get done. Unless all sides agree , so we have to come up with solid financial solutions. It has to make sense to all sides, then we won't run into opposition. That's where America is heading.

I believe Cruz Libertarians and Constitutionalists will set up a grievance and settlement process to hold govt accountable for restitition and reimbursement for debts damages waste and corruption owed to taxpayers.

And it will take leaders and members of ALL parties to represent the programs and policies we each want to invest in both statewide and nationally. So which party leaders need to serve in which roles to coordinate between local state and national federal govt?

Can we hold a cross-party Constitutional convention and work out a network system of equal representation on issues? Why can't everyone fund jobs for the candidates and officers we want to hire you manage our programs? Isn't there enough work and demand to create jobs for all leaders who want to get involved?

Why compete for the same slots while others go without a good contender? Why not create jobs for all leaders to serve to maximum capacity, instead of wasting millions when candidates from the same party run against each other!
We're definitely on the same train there, Emily.

While our system may be termed 'wasteful' (I disagree, liberty costs more than authoritaranism) and 'sloppy', it is the best humans have developed, I would not trade our political system.[/QUOTE]
Thanks Peach I appreciate yours and OldLady thoughtful replies and content in encouraging more from others instead of hit and run type posts.

No, Peach I don't mean to trade the system but improve on it. The system used to allow P and VP to come from the two top contenders. Then it got changed to both coming from one party ticket. What if we could use the two top offices to separate domestic and state-federal policies from international and security / military policies. What if we allowed a winning Republican ticket of EXTERNAL P/VP to focus on foreign affairs, global economy and national security while Democrats focus on an INTERNAL P/VP position that manages Donestic policy between states to reduce the burden on federal govt while maximizing resources and services through more cost effective localized management per state.

Our Constitution was amended before concerning the election system. Or we could change how we use our media and our party system, which are already outside the Constitution, without requiring any amendments.

We could start using the VP or even the First Lady position to coordinate conferences with various parties to put together solutions for platforms by party state by state . And that just takes using our media and party structures without changing the election system.

As for electoral college which Xelor interpreted as Clinton winning the popular vote (when this can't be USED as the final count because states quit counting votes after enough is confirmed to win the electoral votes), States can elect to SPLIT their electoral votes per district PROPORTIONALLY and/or a fixed amount going to the winner and then a system for splitting district votes so they go to the winner of each one.

That might be more fair if the point of the Electoral college is not to count the most populous areas more than others and only campaign and cater to those areas.

Peach we don't have to trade or give up the system, we can make further refinements to improve the system we have and make it work even better to ensure representation of all people of all parties/beliefs from all states instead of compromising half the nation by abusing majority rule to impose biased policies as a shortcut instead of working out collaborative solutions in Fuller detail that solves conflicts and accommodates people equally.

 

[my2¢]

I certainly would vote for such a combination. In 12 presidential elections, I've voted Republican twice, Democratic 3 times, and 7 times for Independents/3rd party. Was disappointed Republicans nominated Trump, I was looking forward to the symmetry of that historical voting combination going to 3-3-6.

 

[Care4all]

I think the people have seen their fill Of John Kasick. He is a say anything to get elected kind of politician we already rejected 18 times in the primary and the presidential campaign. He has no chance what so ever. He could team up with whomever he wants it won't work.

didn't trump do the same, make all of these unattainable promises, only magnify it by 100???

he promised health care insurance for everyone, only cheaper and better than they have now...

he told you Mexico was going to pay for the wall...

he said the rich wouldn't get tax cuts...in his plan...

he said he would allow DACA kids to stay here....

he said he was the least racist person on earth...

And THAT isn't even the tip of the iceberg....
Why do you not see he's a liar only 100 times over, other politicians....why give him a pass?