Big Guy Posted August 7, 2016 Report Share Posted August 7, 2016 There is no alternative. This is what Democrats and Repubkicans decided that they wanted, despite Trump getting support from less than 50% of Republicans in the primaries. FPTP is great, eh? In any case, no matter how many alternative candidates there are, the president will be either Teump or Clinton, unless one of them decides to drop out. Some suggest that Trump will be "forced" out if his support drops below 35%, whatever "forced" means. I doubt his ego would allow it. Regarding statistics, I was watching Fareed Zakaria this morning and he stated that only about 9% of eligible voters actually voted for Trump and Clinton. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ReeferMadness Posted August 7, 2016 Report Share Posted August 7, 2016 I don't think there are enough red neck voters to put trump over the top. I really wish and hope that is true; but I'm not confident. There was a time when I would have laughed out loud if anyone could have suggested there are enough red necks in Toronto to elect Rob Ford. And yet.... There are a l-o-o-o-o-t of people out there who feel that they lead a pretty marginal existence and are now coming to the completely understandable (and perhaps correct) conclusion that their millennial kids or grand kids are going to have it even worse. They're looking for someone to blame and Donald Trump is providing them lots of someones. Mexicans. Muslims. China. "The establishment". Trump's claims don't even bear up to a casual review of fact checking but his followers aren't looking for facts. They're looking for someone to believe in. The recent gaffs (especially Trump going after the dead soldier's parents) have dented his appeal but this is far from over. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ReeferMadness Posted August 7, 2016 Report Share Posted August 7, 2016 Ralph Nader lost to George W Bush and Al Gore in 2000, also ridiculous. 3rd party candidates lose for the same reason great music few people have heard of sells a lot less records compared to pop music that's plastered all over mainstream radio. It's a marketing problem, but also a problem of "team loyalty". The real problem is an archaic and obsolete voting system. For positions where there is a single winner (like a president), PR isn't possible but alternative vote allows people to vote their preference and not waste their vote. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moonlight Graham Posted August 8, 2016 Report Share Posted August 8, 2016 I really wish and hope that is true; but I'm not confident. There was a time when I would have laughed out loud if anyone could have suggested there are enough red necks in Toronto to elect Rob Ford. And yet.... There are a l-o-o-o-o-t of people out there who feel that they lead a pretty marginal existence and are now coming to the completely understandable (and perhaps correct) conclusion that their millennial kids or grand kids are going to have it even worse. They're looking for someone to blame and Donald Trump is providing them lots of someones. Mexicans. Muslims. China. "The establishment". Trump's claims don't even bear up to a casual review of fact checking but his followers aren't looking for facts. They're looking for someone to believe in. The recent gaffs (especially Trump going after the dead soldier's parents) have dented his appeal but this is far from over. Great post. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted August 8, 2016 Report Share Posted August 8, 2016 I really wish and hope that is true; but I'm not confident. There was a time when I would have laughed out loud if anyone could have suggested there are enough red necks in Toronto to elect Rob Ford. And yet.... There are a l-o-o-o-o-t of people out there who feel that they lead a pretty marginal existence and are now coming to the completely understandable (and perhaps correct) conclusion that their millennial kids or grand kids are going to have it even worse. They're looking for someone to blame and Donald Trump is providing them lots of someones. Mexicans. Muslims. China. "The establishment". Trump's claims don't even bear up to a casual review of fact checking but his followers aren't looking for facts. They're looking for someone to believe in. The recent gaffs (especially Trump going after the dead soldier's parents) have dented his appeal but this is far from over. These are people to stupid to vote their interests. They've been electing politicians who want to do away with any support for them and funnel money into the upper election of wealth-holders. Hell, even Hillary fits that bill. The only answer is literally a violent revolution but people are too placated by dross entertainment and infighting with their own social class in order to take up arms and remodel the systems that are oppressing them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dre Posted August 8, 2016 Report Share Posted August 8, 2016 Perhaps I should clarify. I meant that the Johnson/Weld ticket is the best I have seen. It's shocking and extremely unfortunate that no one is taking them seriously, especially when they are going up against the likes of Trump and Clinton. I'm sorry, I misunderstood. I went back and read again and now it makes sense. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted August 8, 2016 Report Share Posted August 8, 2016 These are people to stupid to vote their interests. They've been electing politicians who want to do away with any support for them and funnel money into the upper election of wealth-holders. Hell, even Hillary fits that bill. The only answer is literally a violent revolution.... Of course...they are too stupid. Americans already did the violent revolution thing. It's just another election...and a lot of eligible voters won't even go to the polls. There's more to life than hating wealthy people...in another country. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TimG Posted August 8, 2016 Report Share Posted August 8, 2016 The only answer is literally a violent revolution but people are too placated by dross entertainment and infighting with their own social class in order to take up arms and remodel the systems that are oppressing them.ROTFL. Channeling Marx again. Since when did violent revolution ever accomplishing anything other than setting up a different group of elites that milk the system for their own benefit? Also why do you think that your preferred "elites" are really interested in doing anything to help the average person? Most policy positions in a left wing politician's play book are designed to screw average people who don't fall into the designated victim category and even when people are lucky enough to be a designated victim they are harmed because unintended consequences of these policies. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted August 9, 2016 Report Share Posted August 9, 2016 Boo fucking hoo. I'm sure the rich are happy to have a sucker like you licking their boots. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TimG Posted August 9, 2016 Report Share Posted August 9, 2016 Boo fucking hoo. I'm sure the rich are happy to have a sucker like you licking their boots.Answer the question: Since when did violent revolution ever accomplishing anything other than setting up a different group of elites that milk the system for their own benefit? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moonlight Graham Posted August 9, 2016 Report Share Posted August 9, 2016 These are people to stupid to vote their interests. They've been electing politicians who want to do away with any support for them and funnel money into the upper election of wealth-holders. Hell, even Hillary fits that bill. The only answer is literally a violent revolution but people are too placated by dross entertainment and infighting with their own social class in order to take up arms and remodel the systems that are oppressing them. Why would you need "violent" revolution? MLK did a lot without violence, same with Gandhi and Jesus. All people need to do is change their voting behaviours, it's that simple. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
-1=e^ipi Posted August 9, 2016 Report Share Posted August 9, 2016 Answer the question: Since when did violent revolution ever accomplishing anything other than setting up a different group of elites that milk the system for their own benefit? The french revolution accomplished quite a bit. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TimG Posted August 9, 2016 Report Share Posted August 9, 2016 (edited) The french revolution accomplished quite a bit.Paved the way for Napoleon to go rampaging across Europe. I would not say it was for the better. The British never had to deal with that chaos because incremental change accomplished more without the social upheaval. Edited August 9, 2016 by TimG Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
-1=e^ipi Posted August 9, 2016 Report Share Posted August 9, 2016 The British had a civil war... And Napoleon rampaging across Europe, if he actually won humanity would have been much better off. He would have united Europe, spread liberalism across the globe, and we would be much more technologically advanced today. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
-1=e^ipi Posted August 9, 2016 Report Share Posted August 9, 2016 Lots of good things occurred due to the French revolution, from equal rights for jews, to decriminalization of homosexuality, to female empowerment. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moonlight Graham Posted August 9, 2016 Report Share Posted August 9, 2016 Answer the question: Since when did violent revolution ever accomplishing anything other than setting up a different group of elites that milk the system for their own benefit? Loaded question because you can argue that any large-scale political system ever created was for "setting up a different group of elites that milk the system for their own benefit". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TimG Posted August 9, 2016 Report Share Posted August 9, 2016 Loaded question because you can argue that any large-scale political system ever created was for "setting up a different group of elites that milk the system for their own benefit".Which is my point. People ranting about the 'elites' today have very selective memory. That is why worry more about principles such as free speech, equality under the law and other esoteric concepts. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted August 9, 2016 Report Share Posted August 9, 2016 I reject your premise that it has always been this way so it will always be this way. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TimG Posted August 9, 2016 Report Share Posted August 9, 2016 (edited) I reject your premise that it has always been this way so it will always be this way.Do you have any basis for this belief other than wishful thinking? In real world I see the most corrupt elites tend to be those spouting anti-elite rhetoric because they use their rhetoric as an excuse to eliminate competition that interferes with their kleptocracy (many union leaders comes to mind as an example).. Edited August 9, 2016 by TimG Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted August 9, 2016 Report Share Posted August 9, 2016 Do you have any answer to the problems that are perpetuated by limiting the choices of the electorate the handpicked candidates of the elite? Elections provide no real choice. The only solution is a violent upheaval. The wealthy elite will not give up their power without a fight. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TimG Posted August 9, 2016 Report Share Posted August 9, 2016 (edited) Do you have any answer to the problems that are perpetuated by limiting the choices of the electorate the handpicked candidates of the elite? Elections provide no real choice.I think Trump proves this notion of 'candidates hand picked by elites is false'. In Trump's case he was nominated based on his personal name recognition despite the strenuous objections of the current elites. Of course, once he demonstrated an ability to succeed he was quickly surrounded by various elites looking for personal gain (e.g. hedge fund managers looking to role back the banking regulations). Personally, I think the only issue you have with the current system is not that it makes it difficult for the Trumps of the world to succeed. It is that your personal choices don't have much of a chance so you want to manipulate the system so minority views which you approve of can impact policy decisions. This sounds wonderful on paper except what happens when that same system allows many Trumps to have a much greater impact than your choices? Would you demand change again until you have rigged the system sufficiently to ensure that only your choices have any chance at power? Edited August 9, 2016 by TimG Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted August 9, 2016 Report Share Posted August 9, 2016 Trump wasn't hand picked? Give me a break. Did you see who his economic advisors are? What a joke. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TimG Posted August 9, 2016 Report Share Posted August 9, 2016 (edited) Trump wasn't hand picked? Give me a break. Did you see who his economic advisors are? What a joke.You are mixing up cause and effect. No one "picked" Trump. He won the nomination on his own over the strenuous objections of the "elites". But once he won he attracted people that seek power the same way flies are attracted to dung. But your rhetoric illustrates the hypocrisy intrinsic in your arguments. You don't like Trump so you have decided he was 'picked by elites' when the exact opposite was true. Similarly, you would likely insist that your preferred candidates represent the 'common man' when they are most likely extremely privileged and well connected. Edited August 9, 2016 by TimG Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted August 9, 2016 Report Share Posted August 9, 2016 Okay Tim. In Tim's fantasy world Trump is the every man candidate. He's the candidate of the people! Nevermind that less than half of Republicans voted for him. Nevermind that some 9% of the electorat had anything to do with choosing Trump and Clinton combined. Let's just operate in your fantasy land where Trump is a fine example of the power of the people. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TimG Posted August 9, 2016 Report Share Posted August 9, 2016 (edited) Nevermind that less than half of Republicans voted for him.That is the point. Rank and file republicans voted for him. Trump would have gotten no where if the 'common man' did not show up at primaries and cast a ballot. You have a really twisted idea of democracy if you think that there is something inherently 'elitist' about the fact that members of a party vote for a leader. Also, there can be only one leader so in a contest with >2 candidates the winner will have less than 50% of the popular vote. That is the way it has to work. Edited August 9, 2016 by TimG Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.