# Democracy Always Right?



## tygrus (Mar 13, 2012)

I dont understand the hypocritical nature of politicians views on democracy. We have been told for hundreds of years it is a superior system system and the people are always right. After election you always hear the winner and loser say the people have spoken.

So if that true, then a country decided to elect a trump, or worse a taliban or ISIS or sharia law or whatever, what should be done about that? What if its the other side of the coin and the people elect a super socialist like Liz May? Is it a schism that needs to be forceably corrected by its own electorate?


----------



## peterk (May 16, 2010)

At the highest sense, democracy is always right because the people are always free to choose how much power they let others hold over them. How much they want to be ruled goes through phases.

Generally, people realize that not everyone can have their way, and it's for the best interest of everyone to let the smartest and best make the laws and rule the countries. This, of course, always leads to tyranny and oppression. Hence the function of democracy is to snap back hard against tyranny, pressing the reset button as it were, and allow for a new more humble government to rule successfully for another century or two, before the next reset is needed.

Trump's success is a reaction against the increasing tyranny of the Federal government, firmly controlled by the globalist socialists, and the increasing oppression of the white middle class workers. The only question is whether things are bad enough for someone like him to succeed yet? Or will he be squashed, defeated and America will have to wait another few decades for their chance to snap back against ever increasing tyranny?

Personally, I don't think it's time yet, and things will have to get worse before the reset is pressed. I hope I'm wrong though.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

The Democrats have a better system of electing the best nominee in the US.

They have "super delegates" which can intervene with their votes and change an outcome.

The Republicans are stuck with Donald Trump and no legal way to intervene.

As far as changing voter outcomes in elections, there would be no mandate for anyone to change the results.


----------



## OptsyEagle (Nov 29, 2009)

I think Winston Churchill was quoted to say something like " democracy is the worst form of government except when compared to all the rest".

It is far from perfect. If I recall the Spanish Civil War of 1936 to 1939 was the result of a little more then the majority of the people electing a socialist and perhaps even what would be called a communist government and the minority of the people deciding to change that result by use of force...and they did. It might have even worked out well except for Franco.

Anyway, the point I am making is that it is nice to hear what the people have to say, but that doesn't always make the person feel warm and fuzzy about it...but what's the alternative ..._Franco, or even a civil war._


----------



## peterk (May 16, 2010)

OptsyEagle said:


> the people deciding to change that result by use of force...and they did.


This of course is the key. People who think that times of violent and deadly upheaval are not a healthy part of a democracy are fooling themselves, and are on the wrong side of history.

Hence the governmental push to disarm all citizens of this earth, and extend the period of control currently enjoyed by the political elite for as long as possible.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

We have been heading towards a progressively more police state, and people have awoken to realize they don't like what is has become.

Social media.........youtube, cell phone videos etc..........are now confirming what has been alleged for a long time.

A person showing up in court battered and bruised.........because they "resisted" say the police, was always accepted by the Judge. Now a video shows up with the police beating the guy.

The internet has changed everything. People can talk to each other by the millions and organize a protest in a matter of minutes. 

People don't want big changes. All they want is what they were supposed to have in the first place.

I think people want to take the control back from authority figures they no longer trust.


----------



## peterk (May 16, 2010)

^ Good summary Sags.

Indeed the internet has changed everything, and governments have hugely lost control over the flow of information that they desire. Hence the massive push by governments to directly regulate the internet through laws, and indirectly regulate the internet (through facebook, google, and MSM) to censor, silence, and bury the free speech that has flourished so much in the past decade thanks to the internet.


----------



## OhGreatGuru (May 24, 2009)

sags said:


> ...
> 
> The internet has changed everything. People can talk to each other by the millions and organize a protest in a matter of minutes.
> ...


It may equally be argued that the internet has given every nutbar a free public platform; and made it easier for vicious gossips to start lynch mobs.


----------



## gibor365 (Apr 1, 2011)

> So if that true, then a country decided to elect a trump, or worse a taliban or ISIS or sharia law or whatever, what should be done about that?


Actually Hitler was elected during democratic elections!


----------



## olivaw (Nov 21, 2010)

Hitler's victory in the plebiscite when he consolidated the presidency with the chancellorship does show us that an evil individual can win a popular vote. 

The US founding fathers didn't really trust direct democracy. Instead they chose an Electoral College system. 


> As Alexander Hamilton writes in "The Federalist Papers," the Constitution is designed to ensure "that the office of President will never fall to the lot of any man who is not in an eminent degree endowed with the requisite qualifications." The point of the Electoral College is to preserve "the sense of the people," while at the same time ensuring that a president is chosen "by men most capable of analyzing the qualities adapted to the station, and acting under circumstances favorable to deliberation, and to a judicious combination of all the reasons and inducements which were proper to govern their choice." http://www.factcheck.org/2008/02/the-reason-for-the-electoral-college/


. The electoral college would probably not prevent someone like Donald Trump from winning the presidency. He's not really a tyrant. He's more of a Bloviating Ignoramus.


----------



## indexxx (Oct 31, 2011)

gibor said:


> Actually Hitler was elected during democratic elections!


Yes, another fanatical right-wing nut bag with bad hair. I can just see the signs at the Trump Wall border crossings: "You are now entering the American Sector"...


----------



## The_Tosser (Oct 20, 2015)

"The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter."

"If voting made any difference they wouldn't let us do it."

"<Presidents> are selected, not elected."

"I do not know if the people of the <United States> would vote for superior men if they ran for office, but there can be no doubt that such men do not run"

"They don't give a **** about you"

__________

Churchill

Twain (not Shania)

Roosevelt

Tocqueville

Carlin


----------



## dogcom (May 23, 2009)

Tosser, this is why they vote for the lesser of two evils in the US, this is their democracy.


----------



## peterk (May 16, 2010)

sags said:


> The Democrats have a better system of electing the best nominee in the US.
> 
> *They have "super delegates"* which can intervene with their votes and change an outcome.
> 
> ...


This is a bad thing Sags. It goes against the spirit of democracy. Anyone can see as clear as day that if the American people were able to vote for their candidate uninfluenced by lies from the media and super delegate meddling, it would be a Sanders Vs. Trump election and nobody in second place would ever even come close to getting the nomination.



OhGreatGuru said:


> It may equally be argued that the internet has given every nutbar a free public platform; and made it easier for vicious gossips to start lynch mobs.


Absolutely. But that is the price to be paid for freedom of speech, which unfortunately the liberal lynch mobs are now advocating the restriction of... Not from their own devisings, but because they've been lead precisely there by the media and politicians. Never fear though, truth and reason will eventually prevail. I have faith.



The_Tosser said:


> "The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter."
> 
> "If voting made any difference they wouldn't let us do it."
> 
> ...


Fortunately Tosser, this is all false. It is fake "deep insight" that is fed to intellectuals to give us something to talk about, and convincing us that we now have a deeper understanding of "how the world work". But its goal in the end is to appease the high IQ and upper-middle-class producers/creators (the drivers of civilization), convince us that we are privileged to "understand", convince us that there's "nothing we can do about it", and ultimately, to prevent us from taking up arms.

You have to dig deeper.

The real truth of the matter is that the government and voting is entirely in the control of the populace, it does make a difference, and there are a great many "superior men" out there that can and should and WANT to run for office.

Look what is happening right now in the US. The people can and always have had the power to take over and force the government to do what they want. They give a huuuge **** about us, they fear us, and they know that given the right circumstances their entire system of control and their very lives can all be brought to an end in a matter of a few hours.
Convincing the upper-middle-class, the leaders, builders, and intellectuals, that they and their people have no control over the outcome of government is the desperate last-ditch effort from the current political class to extend their terms of power for a few more decades...


----------



## olivaw (Nov 21, 2010)

peterk said:


> This is a bad thing Sags. It goes against the spirit of democracy. Anyone can see as clear as day that if the American people were able to vote for their candidate uninfluenced by lies from the media and super delegate meddling, it would be a Sanders Vs. Trump election and nobody in second place would ever even come close to getting the nomination.


I agree with much of what you said above but this part is factually incorrect. Clinton is handily beating Sanders among elected delegates.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

Strategic voting became possible with the internet, and the last Federal election in Canada it made an impact in tight local races.

In my riding, NDP voters switched to vote Liberal to defeat the PC incumbent, who would otherwise have crept through the middle to victory.

Of course, it requires voters who are not adamant about their support of one particular party and the "defeat Harper" feeling was strong.......but it bodes well for future elections.

The fallout in the US will be interesting to watch unfold. Will middle of the road Republicans vote for Trump or prefer to hand the election to the Democrats ?

Will Romney, McCain and others influence a change in attitude of the voters, or are they the very people that Trump supporters are voting against ?

We may be watching the birth of a 3rd political party in the US consisting of people who are conservative in finance and more socially progressive on other agenda items.

It appears the current "two wings" of the Republican party can no longer co-exist under the same banner.

This election reminds me when Barry Goldwater ran for the Republicans. I was a high school student in the US at the time and I remember the feeling of fear was palpable.

A lot of people believed Goldwater would plunge the US into nuclear war with the USSR. It was discussed in our classrooms as part of the American politics studies.

Lots of twists and turns and a whole year full of entertainment.


----------



## gibor365 (Apr 1, 2011)

Any day I;d prefer Trump over Trudeau


----------



## olivaw (Nov 21, 2010)

True Sags, strategic voting was a definite factor in the last Canadian election because it is relatively easy for a Liberal to support an NDP candidate or a New Democrat to support a Liberal candidate. Do you really think that American moderate Republicans and right leaning Independents can be enticed to support a candidate like Ted Cruz or Marco Rubio in the GOP primaries to stop Trump? The problem is that Trump, despite his bizarre utterances, is charming. Cruz lacks charisma and Rubio changes his persona too often. 

Interestingly, the latest CNN'/ORC poll had Clinton beating Trump but struggling with either Rubio or Cruz. Maybe I'm wrong about them. 

What I would really love to see is a Biden/Trump debate. Two charismatic individuals with relatively limited verbal filters. They should do it for charity. I'd pay-per-view to see it.


----------



## dogcom (May 23, 2009)

Trump may not or probably not the right guy but the establishment is pulling out all the stops to put him down. I think because he is not bought and paid for by Wall street and the bankers like Hillary and everyone else. In Canada we would attack his policies instead of digging up all the dirt possible and attack him personally. This is where Canada is far better then the US is we punish those who attack the person unless the evidence was 100 percent true.

I read on another site that of course was not the mainstream media and they said that the GOP billionaires would trot out Mitt Romney and spend a lot of money attacking Trump. Sure enough it turned out to be true, which tells you that the elite want the control and will stop at nothing to keep it. These people may not mouth off like Trump but they are just as dangerous if not more so. Make no mistake Hillary will not be better then Trump and could be far worse since she is already bought off.


----------



## bass player (Jan 27, 2016)

sags said:


> The Democrats have a better system of electing the best nominee in the US.
> 
> They have "super delegates" which can intervene with their votes and change an outcome.


The Democrat "super delegates" exist for one reason only...to ensure that power remains in the hands of a few liberal "elites". The last thing a Democrat in power wants is for regular people be allowed to have a say.


----------



## lonewolf (Jun 12, 2012)

Not enough independent thinkers out there. The education bubble is a result of the masses not wanting to do their own thinking. Most want to follow & a few want to lead


----------



## tygrus (Mar 13, 2012)

Why is clinton more qualified than trump? She has no qualifications other than her husband was president. The party bought her a senate seat and then obama had to pay her back making her secretary of state. I dont see one single thing she accomplished on her own.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

I would say extensive experience and a steady hand on the wheel..............are Clinton's most favorable attributes.


----------



## bass player (Jan 27, 2016)

sags said:


> I would say extensive experience and a steady hand on the wheel..............are Clinton's most favorable attributes.


How is it possible to ignore all the years of lies and corruption?


----------



## OhGreatGuru (May 24, 2009)

gibor said:


> Any day I;d prefer Trump over Trudeau


The mind boggles!


----------



## OhGreatGuru (May 24, 2009)

tygrus said:


> Why is clinton more qualified than trump? She has no qualifications other than her husband was president. The party bought her a senate seat and then obama had to pay her back making her secretary of state. I dont see one single thing she accomplished on her own.


Then you haven't paid any attention to her CV or her public life since her husband's presidency. Bill could be charming, and is a h..l of a good public speaker, but it was generally thought that she was the brains in the family .


----------



## dogcom (May 23, 2009)

She is extremely qualified to carry out the orders of the elites and she has been in and seen how government has been run. This doesn't mean she will help anyone or make the country better, it just means she knows what to do. If you want change and a country that isn't run by wall street, the war machine or big business then she isn't a very good candidate.


----------



## Joe Black (Aug 3, 2015)

tygrus said:


> Why is clinton more qualified than trump? She has no qualifications other than her husband was president. The party bought her a senate seat and then obama had to pay her back making her secretary of state. I dont see one single thing she accomplished on her own.


From what I've read, the Clintons were always a team - she did as much for him as he did for her. I also got the impression she is the more pragmatic and decisive of the two.


----------



## Articuno (Jun 24, 2012)

tygrus said:


> I dont understand the hypocritical nature of politicians views on democracy. We have been told for hundreds of years it is a superior system system and the people are always right. After election you always hear the winner and loser say the people have spoken.
> 
> So if that true, then a country decided to elect a trump, or worse a taliban or ISIS or sharia law or whatever, what should be done about that? What if its the other side of the coin and the people elect a super socialist like Liz May? Is it a schism that needs to be forceably corrected by its own electorate?


Democracy is a retarded system of government. Qaddafi gave a nice critique of Western democracy in the first chapter of his Green Book. As have many others.

The United States isn't even a democracy, it's an oligarchy. Their government is largely controlled by a group of elites, globalists, and Zionists. It costs billions of dollars to become president. It's rare that you see anyone from outside who is able to challenge them, as Donald Trump is in this election. That's why he's being painted as evil and a Nazi and so on -- because the elites hate him and are trying to shut him down.

You learned that "democracy is the best" in school because they want you to feel self-righteous and to jump into wars and sacrifice yourself to fight against any enemy nation who threatens them, under the guise of "spreading democracy".



peterk said:


> Trump's success is a reaction against the increasing tyranny of the Federal government, firmly controlled by the globalist socialists, and the increasing oppression of the white middle class workers. The only question is whether things are bad enough for someone like him to succeed yet? Or will he be squashed, defeated and America will have to wait another few decades for their chance to snap back against ever increasing tyranny?
> 
> Personally, I don't think it's time yet, and things will have to get worse before the reset is pressed. I hope I'm wrong though.


It may be the last chance for a non-violent solution.



sags said:


> The Democrats have a better system of electing the best nominee in the US.
> 
> They have "super delegates" which can intervene with their votes and change an outcome.
> 
> ...


"Better" as in a less democratic, more controlled by the elites. Yes.



OptsyEagle said:


> I think Winston Churchill was quoted to say something like " democracy is the worst form of government except when compared to all the rest".


Winston Churchill the warmonger... who cares what he has to say.



indexxx said:


> Yes, another fanatical right-wing nut bag with bad hair. I can just see the signs at the Trump Wall border crossings: "You are now entering the American Sector"...


Trump is probably about as bad as Hitler was, and Trump is not a bad guy. Hitler made Germany great again. Unfortunately for him, the elites and globalists really didn't like that. To squash nationalism and prevent any other uprisings against their power, the globalists erected Hitler as the ultimate boogie man to scare all children and derail all internet conversations for a century to follow.


----------



## bass player (Jan 27, 2016)

Articuno said:


> You learned that "democracy is the best" in school because they want you to feel self-righteous and to jump into wars and sacrifice yourself to fight against any enemy nation who threatens them, under the guise of "spreading democracy".


Hilarious!!

By the way...what system do you think is better than democracy?


----------



## dogcom (May 23, 2009)

Bass player you are right in terms of the best chance for change is in a democratic system, even if it is controlled by the elites and corrupted. In a dictator system you only have the use of force to remove them or you need an outside power to provide the force, recourses or threat of force to get them out.

Of course in nut bag countries like the middle east a dictator or strong handed system seems to be the only system, since the population can't control themselves in a peaceful manner. In these countries it could take many years for the population to learn how to control their religion and violent ways to get to a point where some sort of democracy would work.


----------



## indexxx (Oct 31, 2011)

Articuno said:


> Democracy is a retarded system of government. Qaddafi gave a nice critique of Western democracy in the first chapter of his Green Book. As have many others.
> 
> The United States isn't even a democracy, it's an oligarchy. Their government is largely controlled by a group of elites, globalists, and Zionists. It costs billions of dollars to become president. It's rare that you see anyone from outside who is able to challenge them, as Donald Trump is in this election. That's why he's being painted as evil and a Nazi and so on -- because the elites hate him and are trying to shut him down.
> 
> ...


Good god, I weep for humanity... there is just SO much wrong here I honestly don't know where to begin.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

The founding fathers of the US were far from "ordinary" folks, and "democracy" has always been controlled by the elites since inception.

A_fter consulting several scholars and other sources, we found that -- with some exceptions -- central figures in the nation’s founding generally came from privileged backgrounds, attended college at a time when very few people did and, by 1776, were prominent and wealthy.

"They weren't ordinary," said Brown University emeritus history professor Gordon Wood, author of "Creation of the American Republic," "Revolutionary Characters: What Made the Founders Different" and other books. "They were the elite of the day, involved in highest levels of the society."_

_Some people consider the founding fathers to be a much larger group -- for example, the 55 delegates who attended the Constitutional Convention, from which the U.S. Constitution emerged. That group also was not a common lot, according to the National Archives, which said almost all of them were "well-educated men of means who were dominant in their communities and states, and many were also prominent in national affairs."

"Ultimately," said Terry Bouton, a history professor at the University of Maryland, Baltimore County, "whether you are talking about a main group of six or 60 founding fathers, they were all far from ordinary in terms of income, wealth, education, and social standing."_

http://www.politifact.com/wisconsin/article/2015/jul/02/founding-fathers-ordinary-folk/

Of the 55 delegates to the Constitution Convention, 49% of them owned slaves, including the most well known founding fathers.

Democracy gives each individual a vote, but the reality is that the choices are limited to the representatives of the elite class.

As noted by William F. Buckley Jr...........

_“We are made to ask what it is that political democracy gives us. The system is utilitarian. But is it a fit object of faith and hope?” _

Obama ran a campaign on faith and hope, and I think most people would say he never reached those ideals.

This election year it is a different slogan, "Make America great again"...........and in a few years it will be back to faith and hope.

Utilitarian......seems an apt description of what democracy truly represents.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

Political revolution will only be born from the most dire of economic circumstances.

If and when that happens, I am reminded that after they figured out how to operate the guillotine, the French people didn't spend a lot of time contemplating the balance of good and bad deeds in individuals of the elite.

They just lined them up and chopped off their heads............such was the level of anger.

Is America heading for another revolution ? The wealth and income gaps continue to widen at an accelerated pace. Unless this phenomena stops and reverses course..........revolution is inevitable at some point.

In Europe, many political leaders already recognize wealth and income inequity as the greatest dangers to their societies. America will come to recognize it as well.

In Canada we have adopted a more socialist democracy.Wealth disparity exists, but our governments are more inclined to redistributing the wealth through government programs.

Our form of Parliamentary government also doesn't require a majority government to pass omnibus bills containing billions in unrelated spending, to simply get one program through the process.

During the Democratic debate it was often referred to by Clinton and Sanders............that to get one thing accomplished they had to agree to a plethora of other things.

The piling on of "pork barrel politics" has nearly bankrupted the US.

I believe our form of government is fundamentally superior to the US system for that and other reasons.


----------



## Articuno (Jun 24, 2012)

indexxx said:


> Good god, I weep for humanity... there is just SO much wrong here I honestly don't know where to begin.


"Someone doesn't agree with me! I'll go cry 'for humanity' because I don't know how to refute them."

Maybe you should make a youtube video: www DOT youtube DOT com/watch?v=CoAmll3ViQA


----------



## bass player (Jan 27, 2016)

Gary Kasparov on socialism, which many clueless liberals think is a wonderful concept, despite a proven 100% failure rate:

"I'm enjoying the irony of American Sanders supporters lecturing me, a former Soviet citizen, on the glories of Socialism and what it really means! Socialism sounds great in speech soundbites and on Facebook, but please keep it there. In practice, it corrodes not only the economy but the human spirit itself, and the ambition and achievement that made modern capitalism possible and brought billions of people out of poverty. Talking about Socialism is a huge luxury, a luxury that was paid for by the successes of capitalism. Income inequality is a huge problem, absolutely. But the idea that the solution is more government, more regulation, more debt, and less risk is dangerously absurd."


----------



## Eclectic12 (Oct 20, 2010)

sags said:


> Strategic voting became possible with the internet, and the last Federal election in Canada it made an impact in tight local races.
> In my riding, NDP voters switched to vote Liberal to defeat the PC incumbent, who would otherwise have crept through the middle to victory.
> Of course, it requires voters who are not adamant about their support of one particular party and the "defeat Harper" feeling was strong.......but it bodes well for future elections...


So the voting out of Peterson in Ontario and in of Rae *was not* a strategic vote?
I am pretty sure most voters weren't paying attention or had a lot of access to the internet in 1990.


Then too, given the number of people now complaining about the current Liberal gov't where everyone I talk to says they voted PC ... what internet sources are enabling the effectiveness of this vote compared to other years?


Cheers


----------



## Eclectic12 (Oct 20, 2010)

dogcom said:


> ... If you want change and a country that isn't run by wall street, the war machine or big business then she isn't a very good candidate.


For all but the war machine, is Trump going to be any better as "wall street" and "big business" seems to be what he likes.



Time will tell.


Cheers


----------



## Eclectic12 (Oct 20, 2010)

sags said:


> The founding fathers of the US were far from "ordinary" folks, and "democracy" has always been controlled by the elites since inception ...


True ... but then again, having the home grown elites in power, getting votes from the local people versus elite across the pond with even less connection to the locals dictating what is to happen is closer to "ordinary folks", n'est pas?


Cheers


----------



## dogcom (May 23, 2009)

Eclectic12 said:


> For all but the war machine, is Trump going to be any better as "wall street" and "big business" seems to be what he likes.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

Eclectic12 said:


> So the voting out of Peterson in Ontario and in of Rae *was not* a strategic vote?
> I am pretty sure most voters weren't paying attention or had a lot of access to the internet in 1990.
> 
> 
> ...


There were websites that were crowdfunded riding by riding to take polls to determine the best candidate to defeat the Conservatives. In our riding the "decision desk" advised voting for the Liberal candidate.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

bass player said:


> Gary Kasparov on socialism, which many clueless liberals think is a wonderful concept, despite a proven 100% failure rate:
> 
> "I'm enjoying the irony of American Sanders supporters lecturing me, a former Soviet citizen, on the glories of Socialism and what it really means! Socialism sounds great in speech soundbites and on Facebook, but please keep it there. In practice, it corrodes not only the economy but the human spirit itself, and the ambition and achievement that made modern capitalism possible and brought billions of people out of poverty. Talking about Socialism is a huge luxury, a luxury that was paid for by the successes of capitalism. Income inequality is a huge problem, absolutely. But the idea that the solution is more government, more regulation, more debt, and less risk is dangerously absurd."


The founding fathers of the US were firmly against inter-generational wealth. In fact, they said that inherited wealth had no place in a democracy and should be sold and distributed to everyone over the age of 21.

They said inequality was the biggest danger to democracy. Interesting that today those who claim to adhere to the Constitution choose only the history that suits them.

Kasparov should research American history and government a little more.


----------



## dogcom (May 23, 2009)

Articuno the race cards are being played to distract us from what could be a failing of the current financial and democratic system. Turmoil through refugees and so on are being suddenly brought front and centre for a reason and we will sone find out why. The white against everyone is the easiest road to pursue to bring on the turmoil.


----------



## Eclectic12 (Oct 20, 2010)

dogcom said:


> ... What we do know is by electing him it will really poke a finger in the eyes of the elites unless they can persuade him in some way.


A poke for the political elite ... I am not sure I'd call Trump "regular folks".

I am not sure what the "they can persuade him" is about ... are they persuading him to drop out?
Or do you mean that should he be elected, the persuasion is to get their pet projects/legislation passed?




dogcom said:


> ... You turn on Canadian news and you may get the odd hate story but that is it. We seemed to have grown up from the days of extreme racism and moved on but they never seem to get anywhere ...


From what my father described in the thirties, it was similar then. 
Though I wonder if it is more about having a smaller minority population as well as more of a willingness to support the greater good.


Cheers


----------



## Eclectic12 (Oct 20, 2010)

sags said:


> There were websites that were crowdfunded riding by riding to take polls to determine the best candidate to defeat the Conservatives. In our riding the "decision desk" advised voting for the Liberal candidate.


Question is ... how do we know that these were effective?

Like the Ontario election, the last election where the PCs won a majority - everyone talking to me was against the PCs yet a majority was won. One would think that the PCs would need someone to vote for them to get the majority.






sags said:


> ... Kasparov should research American history and government a little more.


So what is your thinking here ... the current US gov't is matching up to your view of what the historical US gov't was?

The quote seems more aimed at describing his experience under a system that he believes some would like the US gov't to be more like.


Cheers


----------



## bass player (Jan 27, 2016)

sags said:


> The founding fathers of the US were firmly against inter-generational wealth. In fact, they said that inherited wealth had no place in a democracy and should be sold and distributed to everyone over the age of 21.
> 
> They said inequality was the biggest danger to democracy. Interesting that today those who claim to adhere to the Constitution choose only the history that suits them.
> 
> Kasparov should research American history and government a little more.


Kasparov grew up under socialism and was intelligent enough to become a grandmaster chess player. I'll take his opinion on how bad it is over that of the self-entitled whiners of today who have grown up with real freedom and have never suffered under real socialism.

As to inherited wealth not having any place in democracy, please use some common sense. Those against inherited wealth are just lazy and/or greedy people who would rather take from others than earn their own wealth.

Why is the left solution to every problem "we'll just take more money from the rich"? Has the left EVER proposed a solution that involves hard work instead of taking?


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

The USSR was a communist dictatorship, which is a lot different than a socialist democracy.

If you don't believe that money controls US politics, consider that it requires an estimated $1 Billion dollars to run a successful campaign for President. 

Donald Trump professes to be self funding, but with cash and equivalents he only has $300 million on hand and would have to sell or mortgage much of his property to run for President if the Republican wealthy don't support his candidacy.

Michael Bloomberg revealed why he didn't run for President, and said the barriers to entry and the costs to do so bar any "ordinary" person from seeking the Presidency.

Both Democrats and Republican candidates require a lot of financial support from wealthy benefactors, and they don't donate all that money without expecting something in return.

Much of that wealth is inherited family wealth and is a limiting control on a true democracy. Americans get to choose from one of the two establishment chosen candidates.

The American founders didn't remove the shackles of English aristocracy to live under another one in America, but after 200 years that is what they ended up with.

Donald Trump challenges the establishment control, because they don't know exactly where he stands on issues. He flip flops and has no "team" from which they can glean any information.

It is odd that Donald Trump started out in life with inherited wealth. He inherited his father's $200 million dollar company, but he doesn't fit into the establishment plans.

Simply put.............they don't know if they can control him.


----------



## dogcom (May 23, 2009)

The US is not a democracy as you point out sags. They are controlled by the very wealthy and are really given the choices that the wealthy provide them. The people really have to get together like labour unions did in the past and put up their own candidates. This is unlikely to happen as they keep putting up issues like black, hispanic, white, homosexuals, abortion and so on to keep people away from the real issues.


----------



## olivaw (Nov 21, 2010)

Hillary Clinton remains the odds on favourite to win the presidency. Still, Trump's right wing schtick is drawing the ire of leaders throughout the world. His right-wing populists message threatens world peace and economic development. 
*
Another Hitler? How world leaders see Donald Trump*

(http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/...-trump-world-leaders-republican-gop/81312520/)


----------



## Articuno (Jun 24, 2012)

olivaw said:


> Hillary Clinton remains the odds on favourite to win the presidency.
> 
> (http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/...-trump-world-leaders-republican-gop/81312520/)


Odds = people betting. Not necessarily accurate.

This professor has an election model and claims that Trump would easily beat Hillary with a high degree of certainty:
http://canadaam.ctvnews.ca/trump-will-win-u-s-presidency-prof-predicts-1.2800414

The biggest challenge for Trump is getting the nomination and getting a 1 on 1 run against Hillary.



olivaw said:


> Still, Trump's right wing schtick is drawing the ire of leaders throughout the world. His right-wing populists message threatens world peace and economic development.
> *
> Another Hitler? How world leaders see Donald Trump*


So, a lot of corrupt elites and globalists and generally evil people who are looting our countries don't like Trump. And for lack of any rational argument as to why Trump is bad or wrong or we shouldn't support him, they simply invoke Godwin's law.

Stuff like this is, frankly, his best endorsement. If all the evil people hate him and are trying to stop him, chances are he's good and he really means the things he's saying. Worth taking a chance on; he can't be much worse than what we already have.


----------



## dogcom (May 23, 2009)

This is true Articuno most of the world leaders are either puppets or dictators. Most of the world leaders serve the same master as Hillary does so their job is to denounce Trump. You also have to ask yourself why are these leaders so vocal where as before they would say they don't want to get involved in swaying the democratic process. I believe it is because the candidates are already controlled by the elite so any choice is still a good one for them. 

Of course any change will be met with stiff resistance from the elite and there will be pain to go down that road. It is kind of like letting the banks go in 2008, it would have been be very painful but would have reset the system.


----------



## olivaw (Nov 21, 2010)

Articuno said:


> Odds = people betting. Not necessarily accurate.
> 
> This professor has an election model and claims that Trump would easily beat Hillary with a high degree of certainty:
> http://canadaam.ctvnews.ca/trump-wil...icts-1.2800414


Early days but betting odds and financial markets are surprisingly accurate predictors. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/gen...-who-will-win-the-election-ask-a-gambler.html. (Also see https://predictionmarkets.ca/about.php). A lot of Trump's supporters have hung their hats on Prof. Norpoth's prediction but his model is too simple. He just picks the candidate who is most popular in the primaries. Anyway, I only mentioned it because sometimes people talk as if Trump presidency is inevitable. It's not. 



Articuno said:


> ]So, a lot of corrupt elites and globalists and generally evil people who are looting our countries don't like Trump. And for lack of any rational argument as to why Trump is bad or wrong or we shouldn't support him, they simply invoke Godwin's law.


There are many rational arguments why Trump would be a terrible leader. He said that he would order the American military to kill the families of America's enemies. Ignoring the immorality of that, he didn't even know that it was illegal. He's unprepared to be "Commander in Chief".


----------



## Articuno (Jun 24, 2012)

olivaw said:


> There are many rational arguments why Trump would be a terrible leader. He said that he would order the American military to kill the families of America's enemies. Ignoring the immorality of that, he didn't even know that it was illegal. He's unprepared to be "Commander in Chief".


I see no logical connection between ordering the military to kill families of enemies and leadership ability.

By the way, Trump said the families of terrorists (ie. ISIS), not of America's enemies. Specifically because ISIS does much worse things already. And he didn't say he would order the military to break the law, he said it's common sense (which it is) and that the law should be changed to allow for it. Also, note that there's some degree of flexibility with the law and the American military and government has a track record of breaking them. If there's nobody stronger than you to stop you, you can get away with anything you want....

It may be "immoral" to fight back against your enemies, but it's "stupid" not to. Unless you have a death wish.


----------



## dogcom (May 23, 2009)

The real difference is Trump says everything out loud where as Hillary and others prefer to do their killing orders of men, women and children quietly. They also claim to know nothing about it.


----------



## olivaw (Nov 21, 2010)

Articuno said:


> I see no logical connection between ordering the military to kill families of enemies and leadership ability.
> 
> By the way, Trump said the families of terrorists (ie. ISIS), not of America's enemies. Specifically because ISIS does much worse things already. And he didn't say he would order the military to break the law, he said it's common sense (which it is) and that the law should be changed to allow for it. Also, note that there's some degree of flexibility with the law and the American military and government has a track record of breaking them. If there's nobody stronger than you to stop you, you can get away with anything you want....
> 
> It may be "immoral" to fight back against your enemies, but it's "stupid" not to. Unless you have a death wish.


You may have missed part of the story. He said in the debate that, as president, the troops would follow his lead, even if it meant disobeying the law. It wasn't until days later that he was convinced that the president lacked the power to order soldiers to commit war crimes. Then he said that he would change the law so that America could compete with ISIS on torture and attacking family members; a position which has drawn the ire of military leadership. 

Links: 
Donald Trump reiterates desire to murder terrorists' families
Joint Chiefs Chairman Rejects Trump's Claims That 'Torture Works'
Trump flip-flops on torture, killing terrorists’ families



dogcom said:


> The real difference is Trump says everything out loud where as Hillary and others prefer to do their killing orders of men, women and children quietly. They also claim to know nothing about it.


Even military insiders are alarmed by Trump. I think it's fair to say that Trump is a long way beyond anywhere that the other candidates would go. 

Trump Wants to 'Compete' With ISIS on Torture, Waterboarding


----------



## Articuno (Jun 24, 2012)

That's his style... he exaggerates and embellishes things to get attention. He's done it the entire campaign and in business before that and wrote about it in The Art of the Deal. In a few weeks everyone will agree with him that it's stupid to tie one of our hands behind our back and get in the boxing ring with ISIS using two hands. I doubt he or the American public care one way or the other whether we use torture against ISIS, but we shouldn't hold back from doing it if it would help just because it's illegal.

As for the people "alarmed" by Trump, they're a joke. These people have been involved in illegal activities. None of them cared when the U.S. broke laws in all the invasions and tampering in foreign countries, or when they conducted mass surveillance of Americans. They just suddenly started caring about the law when Trump says it, right...?


----------



## olivaw (Nov 21, 2010)

Torture and war crimes have been debated at great length in the US. The prevailing sentiment is that they are both immoral and ineffective. Trump isn't going to change any minds, His supporters may simply be more likely to believe that torture and war crimes are useful. 

The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs is hardly a joke.


----------



## Eclectic12 (Oct 20, 2010)

Articuno said:


> ... In a few weeks everyone will agree with him that it's stupid to tie one of our hands behind our back and get in the boxing ring with ISIS using two hands. I doubt he or the American public care one way or the other whether we use torture against ISIS, but we shouldn't hold back from doing it if it would help just because it's illegal.


Then why does the American public get upset when other countries torture or mutilate US soldiers?
It's all fair in love and war, eh?

For that matter, why get upset when US police beat confessions out of suspects? 
Illegality doesn't matter where the ends justifies the means.


Cheers


----------



## bgc_fan (Apr 5, 2009)

I'm just going to throw in my 2 cents here. While I doubt Trump would win the presidency, it is not so far fetched as that.

It is easy to dismiss his supporters as racist, xenophobic ********; however, that does not explain the whole story. People have touched on the fact that there is a feeling of disenfranchisement amongst the voting public which is probably making up a lot of the protest vote (Sanders and Trump). The middle and lower working class have been looking at the bailouts for banks, movement of jobs off-shore, and a feeling that they are being left behind by the 1%. The thing is, the established candidates are favoured by the party establishment and represent the elite that contributed to this mess that the voters are feeling. Trump, being somewhat self-financed, appears to be the candidate of choice for those who thing money has been too much of an influence in politics. So the question would then become, if Sanders is removed from the equation, would those Democratic voters who support him for those reasons, decide to swing their support for Trump?

Now, I would say even with this swing in voters, Trump would have an uphill battle considering his expressed views on minorities and the fact that the Republican party is a bit of a toxic mess at this point. But stranger things have happened.


----------



## dogcom (May 23, 2009)

It must be terrible for Americans who have been told for many years about democracy, free trade, free markets, being the good guy and so on only to find out that they have been duped. They have no real democracy only big money, free trade has gutted their manufacturing, the fed is manipulating all the markets and they are not the good guy freeing the world. To boot they have massive debt from all of this that will be almost impossible to pay off without massive pain.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

Now that the free trade chickens have come home to roost, the politicians are trying to distance themselves from the free trade agreements.

Trump...........terrible deals, bad deals............need to renegotiate the deals.

Sanders.........hollowing out of the middle class...........need to end the deals.

Clinton..........I used to support the deals but now I don't.

Cruz.............I will implement a tax on imported goods.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

I would love to see Trump as President, just to see what he does...........provided he isn't allowed anywhere near the "football".........(nuclear launch codes)


----------

