Is Trump's Endgame a Dictatorship?

[nsguy2]

^ The bizarre thing is that you can sue for libel and slander in the US under tort if you can prove malice.

What Trump doesn't realize is that he'd be shut down for about 90% of the shit he spews under his own new rules.

I doubt that "his own new rules" would in any way, shape or form apply to him.

 

[Kulindahr]

^ The bizarre thing is that you can sue for libel and slander in the US under tort if you can prove malice.

There was a movie treating that subject -- Absence of Malice, I think it was.


(Memory was right)

 

[Kulindahr]

That Trump is making a scapegoat of the media simply plays conveniently to those who are his die hard supporters, to maintain their unswerving support. This tactic is predictably used by candidates running for high office, who are trailing in the opinion polls.

I don't think it's a tactic so much as a habit.

 

[TX-Beau]

I know mine (try paying attention). But when I was at OSU, that was virtually impossible because unless you were part of their little power circle, there was no access. And the bigger the population of your "local" area is, the more true that becomes.

In New York, the fraction of people who know their "local" politicians is certainly less than 0.1%; the rest can't, period. Even if the politician doesn't want that to be so, it's impossible; to know even 0.5% would take all the politicians' time and the knowledge would be shallow indeed.

If by "know who they are" you mean a name and a party and maybe what one thing they voted for this year, sure -- people can know about them. But to know them? The very phenomenon of political camaigns is designed to make sure the voters never, ever actually know the politicians!

Mea Culpa, that was a misquote

No,
Doctors vote for their president of AMA
Politicians do the same in Australia, they vote for their own and not the people.

Is what I was responding to.

 

[Aron9000]

It's a result of the worship of democracy, as though that were a goal rather than a tool. Before the political parties got shanghaied by the government into accepting raw democracy as final for primaries, party leaders could filter out the obvious idiots and mental cases. But as Jefferson especially among the Founding Fathers understood, raw democracy is a self-destroying beast, and that's what we're watching.

There has to be a filter somewhere in the system to select for at least moderately competent candidates. China beats the world at that; no one can hold high office in China who hasn't demonstrated a capability of running business, municipal, and military. The U.S., OTOH, is right at the bottom, with no filter but sheer popularity, no requirements for skill at all.

I think a big part of the problem were too many damn candidates in the Republican primary, thus everybody else who was preaching pretty much the same message got drowned out by Trump. If you look at the primary results, Cruze, Rubio, and Kasiach did get more votes combined than Trump. Lack of party leadership led to this cluster-fuck of a primary and the rise of Trump. There should've been one guy running against Trump, instead of fracturing the establishment candidate's votes to 3 different guys. That being said, the Republicans not having their shit together has handed this election to Hillary. I'd imagine Ted Cruz might have actually won in the general election.

Very true. We should have the parliamentary system as Britain and most democracies. Our system used to work better when the candidates were chosen in smoke filled rooms at conventions.

There is something to be said about the "smoke filled room" approach to the primaries. The person they select has to be well liked and respected in his own party, which means no crazies like Trump make it through. Their candidate also has a good history of working with other politicians to get things done, knows how to compromise, knows how to run the government. A lot of these Tea Party Republican senators and representatives have no idea what compromise is, which leaves them as ineffective and incompetent leaders IMO

 

[Kulindahr]

I think a big part of the problem were too many damn candidates in the Republican primary, thus everybody else who was preaching pretty much the same message got drowned out by Trump. If you look at the primary results, Cruze, Rubio, and Kasiach did get more votes combined than Trump. Lack of party leadership led to this cluster-fuck of a primary and the rise of Trump. There should've been one guy running against Trump, instead of fracturing the establishment candidate's votes to 3 different guys. That being said, the Republicans not having their shit together has handed this election to Hillary. I'd imagine Ted Cruz might have actually won in the general election.



There is something to be said about the "smoke filled room" approach to the primaries. The person they select has to be well liked and respected in his own party, which means no crazies like Trump make it through. Their candidate also has a good history of working with other politicians to get things done, knows how to compromise, knows how to run the government. A lot of these Tea Party Republican senators and representatives have no idea what compromise is, which leaves them as ineffective and incompetent leaders IMO

The party leadership has no control over the primaries. Thanks to America's worship of democracy, any fool who can come up with the filing fee and declare he's a Republican can run in the primary, because the parties aren't in charge of their own business any more, the government is.

That's why we get those Tea Party loons who don't know how to compromise.

The cure is to go proportional representation for House elections or let the parties control their primaries again, or both. As it wouldn't take a constitutional amendment to do those, all that's needed is a big state willing to take the plunge -- I suggest California (of course the Big Two established parties would fight such reform tooth and nail so they can continue their de facto ownership of the government).

 

[NotHardUp1]

Lack of party leadership led to this cluster-fuck of a primary and the rise of Trump.

True.

I'd imagine Ted Cruz might have actually won in the general election.

That is a non-sequitur. At once, the party lacks leadership. On the next thought, a senator who go NO other senator's endorsement certainly suggests that Cruz lacked the endorsement of any GOP leadership. His performance at the convention again proved his own inability to be the standard bearer for the party.

There is something to be said about the "smoke filled room" approach to the primaries.

Kingmakers seem to be at odds with democratic process, but the truth is, they weed out the unworthies better and THEN the electorate gets to exercise choice downstream.