Iowa Caucuses Thread

The #1 community for Gun Owners in Indiana

Member Benefits:

  • Fewer Ads!
  • Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership
  • Discuss anti-gun legislation
  • Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section
  • Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses
  • Discover free outdoor shooting areas
  • View up to date on firearm-related events
  • Share photos & video with other members
  • ...and so much more!
  • Alpo

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 100%
    2   0   0
    Sep 23, 2014
    13,877
    113
    Indy Metro Area
    You're trolling pudly. Don't you have more productive things to occupy your time today? I'm going to the beach and get something with rum in it.

    Tata.
     

    IndyDave1776

    Grandmaster
    Emeritus
    Rating - 100%
    12   0   0
    Jan 12, 2012
    27,286
    113
    You're trolling pudly. Don't you have more productive things to occupy your time today? I'm going to the beach and get something with rum in it.

    Tata.

    Are you going to buy a drink or diddle a drunk beach bimbo? :):
     

    jamil

    code ho
    Site Supporter
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Jul 17, 2011
    62,269
    113
    Gtown-ish
    739d38f0-f2c9-0132-44e5-0a2ca390b447.jpg

    I don't fallow. I've already seen that father/son photo in whatever pictures threads it was posted.
     

    Libertarian01

    Grandmaster
    Site Supporter
    Rating - 100%
    3   0   0
    Jan 12, 2009
    6,019
    113
    Fort Wayne
    That we don't vote until it's usually decided anyway is what bothers me most about the primary/caucus system.

    I'll leave the other stuff alone. We've already beat that horse to death.


    I cannot agree more!!! Many millions of voters are always disenfranchised by the time the primary gets to them. This is easily fixable.

    If for some silly a** reason Iowa has to be first - fine. Let Iowa be the first Monday in February, THEN make EVERY OTHER STATE the first Tuesday in February.

    We do it with the regular election. What would be wrong with doing it with the primaries?

    Regards,

    Doug
     

    Lowe0

    Expert
    Rating - 100%
    2   0   0
    Feb 22, 2015
    797
    18
    Indianapolis


    I cannot agree more!!! Many millions of voters are always disenfranchised by the time the primary gets to them. This is easily fixable.

    If for some silly a** reason Iowa has to be first - fine. Let Iowa be the first Monday in February, THEN make EVERY OTHER STATE the first Tuesday in February.

    We do it with the regular election. What would be wrong with doing it with the primaries?

    Regards,

    Doug

    I'd prefer that they rotate by region, 8 states every two weeks for 12 weeks, 1 week in Alaska, 1 in Hawaii. That'd let candidates spend less time flying between states and more time in front of the voters. Every presidential election, rotate the first region to the back of the list (excl. Alaska or Hawaii). That way, most of the country gets to go "first" once every 24 years.
     

    jamil

    code ho
    Site Supporter
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Jul 17, 2011
    62,269
    113
    Gtown-ish


    I cannot agree more!!! Many millions of voters are always disenfranchised by the time the primary gets to them. This is easily fixable.

    If for some silly a** reason Iowa has to be first - fine. Let Iowa be the first Monday in February, THEN make EVERY OTHER STATE the first Tuesday in February.

    We do it with the regular election. What would be wrong with doing it with the primaries?

    Regards,

    Doug
    Why do we even need primaries? That's partly the mechanism that ensures the two party system. I think a better system would have candidates with party backing or not, and they all run in a general election. And then we elect the president/vice president using ranked voting. Top ranked gets president. Second place gets vice president.
     

    T.Lex

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 100%
    15   0   0
    Mar 30, 2011
    25,859
    113
    Why do we even need primaries? That's partly the mechanism that ensures the two party system. I think a better system would have candidates with party backing or not, and they all run in a general election. And then we elect the president/vice president using ranked voting. Top ranked gets president. Second place gets vice president.

    Oy vey. Check out European multi-party elections for a flavor of how that would work. Or, even better, think about who California and New York would chose for [strike]senator[/strike] president.

    Now, if we want to re-revolutionize elections, let's go back to the original way of determining senators.
     

    IndyDave1776

    Grandmaster
    Emeritus
    Rating - 100%
    12   0   0
    Jan 12, 2012
    27,286
    113
    Why do we even need primaries? That's partly the mechanism that ensures the two party system. I think a better system would have candidates with party backing or not, and they all run in a general election. And then we elect the president/vice president using ranked voting. Top ranked gets president. Second place gets vice president.

    We found out the hard way that this doesn't work worth a damn. As a vice-president elected under this method, Jefferson was virtually excluded from government while Adams was president.

    Anyone who can collect a requisite number of signatures can be on the general election ballot as it is, and if they can't then it is very easy to argue that they have no chance whatsoever thus justifying their exclusion from the ballot. After all, in Indiana with less than 10K signatures, I could be on the ballot.
     

    Alpo

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 100%
    2   0   0
    Sep 23, 2014
    13,877
    113
    Indy Metro Area
    Beach. 80 degrees. Warm sand. Cuba Libre? And you're on INGO? And you're saying something about how we spend OUR time?

    There is a lot of time between beach babes. Only about 1 in 4 should be wearing a bikini anyway. A couple could do with a harpoon.
     
    Top Bottom