American Election Discussion

Yeoldhammer

Probably because he intends to do away with the Paris agreement and remove LGBT rights and so on. Essentially taking America back a few decades, and potentially scrapping a deal that ensures the death of the planet with America and China two of the biggest polluters in the world.

claretandbluesky

It is hard to not see democracy as the problem but I feel because there is no better alternative to hand we are reticent to condemn it, it is a bit like communism for me, a great idea completely at odds with human nature. Humans will always lie, and others will always believe them.

It's a power game and it's been worked out.....

There are at all times people that are unhappy with how it is, just promise anything and sell them a narrative that explains away their woes. Trump voters are no more likely to benefit from him as president than leave voters will from leaving the EU, but buses and walls served a purpose and now the politician has the power they crave. The NHS will never get the money, the wall will never be built, but what does that matter, it was just a means to circumnavigate democracy.

Yeoldhammer

He won the election, nothing wrong with the system he was elected by, if people do not vote that's their problem. You don't get to complain if you don't vote, even if you turn up and write something obscene on the ballot paper because you don't like anyone its a vote of a sort. If there isn't a candidate that represents your views find someone who can don't expect for someone to suddenly appear to be that person.

Hell go the Australian way, mandatory voting or pay a fine to opt out. At least then you will get a true representation even if 40% of the people tell the rest of the country to kindly 'Bog Off' instead of voting for whoever represents whatever established party.

If Trump messes up or doesn't live up to it he will be voted out that's democracy. either that or end up like Egypt where you Usurp the people voted in via coup.

TheMadcapLaughs

Aslef, I agree their anger is directed at Donald Trump, and probably with some justification. But, to me, a system that allows a man like Donald Trump to rise to the very top is a flawed system, and I think that is what needs looking at. As I say, what happens next time? I personally don`t think anyone should be allowed that much power, I think we can all agree that that is a dangerous premise. But unfortunately we do allow this, we are contracted into a system that by right of law allows one man power over another. I personally can never get beyond this point. I am not saying that by terms of mutual agreement one man should not instruct another in the best course of action. If someone tied a bomb to me I would hope that someone would know, and instruct accordingly, which wire to cut rather than have me cut away willy nilly. It`s the precept we live under that makes it perfectly right and just that we, you or I, should submit ourselves to the will of another by law. This premise is considered the cornerstone of our society, if Theresa May declared war on Russia tomorrow, and conscripted all men under the age of fifty to fight on her behalf, we have the choice to go or the choice to refuse. The problem starts when we refuse, we would be breaking the rule of law and may be imprisoned or shot. As I say, I can never get past the basic principle that it is considered right, natural and proper for one person to submit to another.
As an aside, when the revolutionists were running Paris during 1871, the Anarchist position can be summed up pretty well in the following conversation. Apparently things were going well, very well. A keen revolutionary remarked to a fellow revolutionary that the day was won and that they would never ever relinquish power and things would be different from previous revolutions and attempts at emancipation. The other revolutionist said: "But have you not heard, we have lost this very day"...................."How so".......... said the eager young chap glancing around nervously ....................The fellow revolutionary, but an Anarchist by nature replied.........."the new revolutionary government was announced this morning".

TheMadcapLaughs

;lol I have just re-read that, I`m 52. ;phew You go Theresa, show that Putin bloke what for. ;devil

TheMadcapLaughs

claretandbluesky said:

It is hard to not see democracy as the problem but I feel because there is no better alternative to hand we are reticent to condemn it, it is a bit like communism for me, a great idea completely at odds with human nature. Humans will always lie, and others will always believe them.

It's a power game and it's been worked out.....

There are at all times people that are unhappy with how it is, just promise anything and sell them a narrative that explains away their woes. Trump voters are no more likely to benefit from him as president than leave voters will from leaving the EU, but buses and walls served a purpose and now the politician has the power they crave. The NHS will never get the money, the wall will never be built, but what does that matter, it was just a means to circumnavigate democracy.

C&B, it`s not democracy that`s the problem, but the versions we practice. Like everything else we have over complicated things. Start democracy from the bottom up, locally, and I don`t know, maybe leave it there. No-one gets too powerful then and decisions are made to suit the local populace.

"communism........completely at odds with human nature"

There are volumes upon volumes that discuss human nature and whether by nature we are cruel or kind (to put it simply). If you really want to consider this as a question, because the whole of humanity depends on the answer, a really good starting point is here:

https://www.marxists.org/subject/science/essays/kropotkin.htm

;ok

MrsGrey

No - your war example doesn't hold up.

1. She can't act alone, her power is subject to limitations (as has recently been shown).

2. Even if our representatives (ie parliament) were to take us into war, and introduce conscription, you wouldn't be imprisoned or shot, because we have (thankfully) taken steps to provide otherwise.

Similarly, your contention that we 'submit to another's will by law' I don't agree with.

We willingly (by virtue of the nature of our society) agree that there needs to be laws to protect us all. It's the social contract. So we submit to the collective will, in the form of the laws we have empowered people to enact on our behalf. The power ultimately remains with us - we can take it back from those representatives and give it someone else. Basically, sack them and give the job to someone else.

imo the job still needs to be done.

My issue with the anarchist philosophy (or should I say philosophies, because it seems there are many) is that it is wholly, thoroughly impractical.

There is no way in a modern, global world, that any society could function without some kind of group of representatives who would carry out various executive functions on its behalf. You can call it a government, or a council, or a management team, or whatever you like.

Edit: just read your most recent post. You talk about 'local' but what does that even mean? How do you avoid having one set of laws and sanction (whatever you want to call them - local standards, agreed customs, norms) in one town and a completely different set elsewhere? Do you go up to county level? Same problem. People work far from where they live ... people have to travel internationally .. you need national and international agreements, currencies etc. And these things can't be managed at a local level. What are you going to do about taxation? Heath services? The London to Glasgow rail services...

OutcastLondoner

Clinton was a deeply flawed candidate who many people disliked for various reasons; her hawkish stance on foreign policy, the way she's switched stances on key issues when it suited her, her role in mass incarceration etc.

She would have meant the continuation of an existing system, though probably worse than Obama who was very centrist. Trump will push that system to its extremes and make it very dangerous for a lot of people.

Yes, liberal journalists didn't understand. They still don't. A lot of the complaints they make will be stupid because most of them are entitled; they don't understand why things are not going their way. But the demographics of the US mean millions of people are in danger. Not just because of Trump's policies. Whether he follows up on them is neither here nor there; he opened the door on a culture of bullying and intimidation. He showed it is acceptable to behave like that, it even leads to success. So it's not just about him trying to get headlines, the culture he created doesn't die with forgotten policies.

And I don't believe he will moderate. The history of populist politics shows that, if you win this way then you have to stick with it. When things get tough you need those policies and speeches. When he's struggling, when the mid-terms come, he will be doing speeches every day in the way the strong men leaders of other governments in the world do.

I don't believe Trump exploited or tricked people. He's just shown us that everything people said was over; racism, sexism etc. is still alive. Of course, Clinton was a bad choice for many but to ignore everything Trump said during the campaign is immoral. This isn't the same as Brexit, where we voted on an idea, a policy, rather than personalities. There was more room for people to have different motivations there. If people who voted for him weren't racist themselves, they certainly showed they don't mind racism. And let's not tone that word down, because people want to bring up race in round-about ways then get offended when they're called racist.

MrsGrey

Well said.

Vorselaarhammer

NEoldiron

MrsGrey, Outcast ;clap ;clap

TheMadcapLaughs

So how has the system you have just described allowed Donald Trump to become the most powerful person in the World. There has got to be some sort of problem there hasn`t there?? And Mrs G, I`m not anti organisation, I`m not anti common sense. And I am a deep believer in the "collective will", even one of the arch proponents of individualism recognises that we are stronger banded together under what he described as the union of the egoists. All society is, is a group of individuals agreeing to work together for what may be termed the common good. And there are different ways of organising it, from strict authoritarian, to free market capitalism, to a mixed economy etc etc. I`m just looking at exploring better ways. And in your system you say we can just take it back, I agree with most of what you say Mrs G, I really do, but try taking it back from Trump, tomorrow. And maybe my war example was at the extreme, but not beyond the realms of possibility (imo). All I`m saying is that the social contract as it stands now is not voluntary, it requires the rule of one over another, and I disagree with that as a natural concept. Probably on about anything else I would agree with you on. And I believe we could make a better fist of it than most politicians.
My other real bone of contention, not with you Mrs G, but with the system, is we are not really taught to question, only to accept. I don`t know if I was dropped on my head as a baby, but I have always questioned. I believe that children should be taught to question the accepted norms, to be shown alternate theories, even extreme theories, as I think it would ultimately lead to a better future.
But then again I may be wrong.

TheMadcapLaughs

Outcast ;ok

So Hillary was deeply flawed and Trump is a sexist, racist pig, but out of a population of 320 million that is the best they had to offer. But there is still nothing wrong with the system.

I really am not being obtuse, I really am not being argumentative for the sake of it, but for the love of God, I cannot understand why we put such faith in these people. I don`t know what the answer is, I really don`t, but someone, somewhere must have a better plan. ;weep

thornburyiron

They weren't the only two on the ballot paper. If people didn't like either of them they should have voted for one of the others. That would have been a better protest than not voting. It would have shown that they were interested and attached but not them.

TheMadcapLaughs

Mrs G, the train companies started as local private companies and managed to meet and agree on standards as they expanded via co-operation and mutually beneficial agreements. People "do" out of necessity. And as I have just said, there is no perfect plan, but I`m hoping there is a better plan. Do you think Microsoft would have grown to be a large, complicated, international, organized, business because of governments, despite governments, or it doesn`t matter either way. All great inventions, leaps forward, advances in medicine, technology etc etc etc happen in spite of governments. Not because of governments. The human species is intelligent, adaptable, creative, imaginative etc etc etc and all this in spite of governments. You may think this an un Anarchistic concept, but the spirit of the individual, the entrepreneurial spirit of creativity is key to how the human spirit thrives and grows. All these theories are expounded by extreme left and right libertarians, it is the concept of humanity (good or evil) and the reward system that it engenders that is generally the crux of the matter. I see governments as nothing but coercive, restrictive forces, unnatural hurdles if you like to what in theory could be achieved. The layers of bureaucracy created by governments are both wasteful and, in my view, virtually pointless. Well who will look after the poor? In my version of Anarchism that is a moot point as stuff is divvied up pretty equally. In the real World? Again, people, where governments fail, kind hearted people step in. And to be quite honest, the nation state has killed more poor people than it has ever saved. No perfect blue prints, no panaceas, but if you are looking for answers Mrs G, look in the mirror. Not at Hillary or Donald.

AdMeus_CaputFilius

On the plus side, the pound is on the up against the Dollar and Euro......

;hmm ........ now who'd have thought???

The layers of bureaucracy created by governments are both wasteful and, in my view, virtually pointless.

Agree with this in part, some are necessary but others are not - and that goes for all level's both national and local.

TheMadcapLaughs

I know the concept of no government is really hard to grasp and causes a brain freeze in most people. I will try and explain the logic.

When we are born, we are all born equal, in so much as if not fed, watered and clothed we will die. As we grow we develop strengths and weaknesses, we show different propensities, whether that is physical strength, an aptitude for art, science, building, cooking etc etc. No-one would argue with these early assumptions. We are all individual, and as individuals we could choose to live an independent life and gather berries and eat rabbits and some of us would die, and some of us would live. But generally speaking we choose not to live like that, why? We choose to band together, this would generally increase our chance of survival and offer us more personal choices. Stronger together as some would say. Again, there is not many that would argue with this assertion. And yes Mrs G, we would start to organise. From this point on though things go horribly wrong, this is where the two main strands of thought diverge. If you are looking at it from our modern political perspective, those on the right would look at our different aptitudes and conclude that the stronger and brighter would take more of the product from this newly formed society and would be well within their rights to do so. In fact if you look at society this is what tends to happen, the strong dominate the weak (both physically and intellectually) and as a by product become richer. Now some would argue that this is the natural state of affairs, tough, live with it. Whether this is the natural state of affairs, or is imposed and man made is a whole different issue, and one not to be considered now, what is important is that it exists. Those on the left of the argument would tend to claim that this is wrong, we should strive for equality, the very fact that you are stronger and cleverer should not lead to the conclusion that you take more product from society than others. If you look at this argument from a historical perspective then there is justification for this belief because wherever and whenever there is gross inequality and tyranny man has fought against it.
Now if you are of the first persuasion, and there are many, then no further thought processes need to be engaged. Inequality exists, there are rich people and poor people, there always has been, always will. If you are of the second persuasion, and again there are many, then you look to redress these inequalities. But how do you do it. There have been people trying to figure this out for centuries, and if you look around the World, you would say that we would have generally failed. You could even say that this inequality is getting worse. The attempts to redress this inequality are numerous and varied. People have tried to impose equality from above in the form of state communism, people have looked to democratic republics and universal suffrage to address the issue, governments have brought in piecemeal legislation over the centuries in attempts to right the wrongs. But again, inequality still exists.
If you are of the second persuasion and strive for greater fairness, then these attempts are nothing but frustrating failures. But as has been stressed previously the human spirit is strong, equality is deemed important enough by some to keep fighting for.
The one common theme throughout recent history is that these attempts at equality have always "come from above", they are attempts at the imposition of equality. Even a government of and by the proletariat is an imposition, the goals are the same, but the very fact that these goals are imposed has, in effect, replaced one tyranny with another. The inevitable failure of state imposed equality was predicted by both the left and the right, why? because it chose to ignore one important aspect, the individual, remember, we are all individuals who CHOOSE to participate in society because ultimately society should be about widening INDIVIDUAL choices.
If you are of the second persuasion and agree that equality should be the overriding goal of our choice to participate in society, then if all attempts at equality have and are doomed to fail you start to ask yourself why? Some have come to the conclusion that there is a common theme running through these failures, and that is rigid, centralised government. They have taken their arguments further and said that rigid, centralised governments not only restrict our ability to achieve and pursue equality and freedom, but are the very, final, obstruction in ever achieving equality and freedom. The buck has to stop somewhere, always, and that is generally at the top. West ham keep losing and Bilic gets the boot. Well in a democracy, if the government is failing we can replace it with another. You can, but the very nature of the institution, whether that is authoritarian or democratic is seen as THE final hurdle in ever achieving equality and freedom. In fact if you were really cynical it can be argued that governments sole purpose in life is not to protect us from ourselves, but to protect the institutions that we really need protecting from in the first place, I.E. big business, globalization, tyrants, exploiters, etc etc etc
Anarchy means nothing more or nothing less than "without government". It doesn`t mean death, destruction, disorder. It`s very starting points are the exact opposite. It assumes that if all IMPOSED restriction was removed, we wouldn`t all run around murdering, raping and pillaging. Remember these are things that happen here and now despite government and the rule of law. What it demands, in the pursuit of peace, freedom and equality (common themes for all left leaning individuals) is a total re-set. A new start. It is a logical argument, not some crackpot illogical scheme. Its common thoughts and conclusions are just as logical as any other attempt at equality and freedom.




;lol This was as twice as long as this. I spent an hour typing it up and went to post and was told it was 615 characters too long. ;lol

I don`t think, because of the pressures of work, that I have ever produced a logical argument. So I thought I`d provide one. ;lol

;wahoo ;weep ;lol

TheMadcapLaughs

I know most will not be interested, but there is a part two, there is a logical conclusion to all this and it would mean the end of people like Mr Trump, which is a good thing I think. I find politics, or anti politics fascinating, and the length of threads about this and brexit would suggest we are all looking for answers. Who made up the rule that I was bloomping 615 characters too long, bloomping rules. ;weep ;lol

thornburyiron

If equality was actually possible and was achieved it would be like one giant committee and anyone who has ever sat on committees would know that nothing would ever happen. Most of the time it's difficult to get two people to agree let alone everyone.
Communism as an ideology never worked. In theory some thought it brilliant but not everybody in a communist state is equal.
The USSR had its own revolution as it wasn't working. Many many years ago my kids school welcomed a party of school kids from Russia on a cultural exchange. They seemed happy enough and were paired up with a child from school to take them around. We made a routine visit to a supermarket to get done stuff for tea and the girl with my daughter broke down and cried because she'd never seen that amount of goods in a shop in her life before and said they had to queue for most things especially bread. I bet the party leaders didn't.

TheMadcapLaughs

Thorn ;ok Couldn`t agree more. State Communism is nothing but Fascism with a red flag. The imposition of any order or ideology is doomed to fail by the very fact that it is imposed. I think the Communistic aims of equality are right, but there are equally strong arguments against. Please don`t look at Russia and China though as examples of communism, because they are as far from the original ideals of communism as you could probably get. And yes, given the choice I would much rather live in England than Communist Russia or China.

MIAHammer

TheMadcapLaughs said:

This is what bugs me, these people would have been as quiet as church mice had Hillary won. What REALLY would have been SO different except the "honesty" of the rhetoric. Under people like Hillary, the gap between rich and poor has grown.

Katy Perry: THE REVOLUTION IS COMING

don`t make me laugh.......................

Do you really think life under Trump is going to be any better for those at the bottom? The gap between poor and middle class will grow even bigger.

Trump will not be able to deliver on many of his promises. He's already started back tracking. Unfortunately many of those who voted for him will be the ones who will suffer under a GOP Senate.

He promised change. He said no more lobbyists in government. Yet, he has lobbyists with powerful clients in his transitional team.

MIAHammer

ASLEFshrugged said:

Madcap - when Bush beat Gore people weren't out on the streets despite the voting irregularities in Florida. If Cruz, Rubio or any other Republican had won I doubt if there would have been protests, equally had Sanders or anyone else been the Democratic candidate there would be.

It's not the democratic process or the political system that has got people angry, they are angry at Donald Trump

Exactly. They are protesting because their new president has shown himself to be a racist, mysoginistic, xenophobic, bigot. Unfortunately the protests are pointless.

If he had lost, I have no doubt that Trump would have personally incited protests claiming the election was rigged and bringing up emails and Benghazi as a catalyst.

To think there wouldn't have been protests if the result had been different is just naive.

TheMadcapLaughs

MIAHammer said:

TheMadcapLaughs said:

This is what bugs me, these people would have been as quiet as church mice had Hillary won. What REALLY would have been SO different except the "honesty" of the rhetoric. Under people like Hillary, the gap between rich and poor has grown.

Katy Perry: THE REVOLUTION IS COMING

don`t make me laugh.......................

Do you really think life under Trump is going to be any better for those at the bottom? The gap between poor and middle class will grow even bigger.

Trump will not be able to deliver on many of his promises. He's already started back tracking. Unfortunately many of those who voted for him will be the ones who will suffer under a GOP Senate.

He promised change. He said no more lobbyists in government. Yet, he has lobbyists with powerful clients in his transitional team.

No I don`t, it will probably get worse. Like it would have got worse under Hillary. The only thing that looks potentially promising for the USA is his promise to re-build the infrastructure. Apart from that I expect his tenure to produce the same old same old.

chicagohammer

Madcap, not sure what you do for a living, but there must a career out there for someone with your talent for writing.

Just saying

;ok

Swissiron

Trump is definitely backtracking but I think his rhetoric will stay the same because it has to. I have always thought that he may slowly turn the US system into something a bit more like the French one, where the President has the luxury of being more or less of a figurehead and more or less of a practical leader as the political circumstances permit. Trump will recognise more truths over the next few months and this puts him in danger of alienating his own rooted supporters. I think he will choose rhetoric and privilege over practical leadership and doing the job so that he can blame his entourage when, as they expect, he does not imprison Hillary but simply asks that the law take its course, not build a wall but maybe hire more guards, not do lots of other things he promised. He can make the criticial appointments to the judiciary and Supreme Court, that's easy as it has a long fuse, but he will not be able or want to make the really radical changes because his pleasure in having won will become something he wants to keep. The awful potential internal impact of Trumpism eg on racism sexism etc he will blame on others and claim that his hands are tied. I believe that in the end he will either resign because he's "not allowed" to do what he wants - according to him, or get assassinated by a disgrunted follower when they realise that he's just another lotus eater. I don't fear Trump, I fear the backlash when his rooted supporters realise that he's been lying to them as well as to everyone else. I give this realisation among his supprters around a year. Then it will be very dangerous to go to America.

simonc

I honestly would like to know the reasoning behind misogynistic & xenophobic ?Trumps wife is from another country, & to say he hates women? If anything he has demonstrated that he likes them too much, sexist maybe but misogynistic i don't get it.
I am hopeful that he knocks down the wall that Obama built between the Democrats & Republicans. Mitch McConnell is already trying to push back against term limits and infrastructure development, on these and many more issues i am hopeful that Trump will reach across the isle & get all the votes he needs to pass.
I think many will be pleasantly surprised, if not he will be voted out in 4 years, that is what happens in a democracy.

MrsGrey

simon, you only have to look at his comments, and then analyse what assumptions and attitudes underpin those remarks.

His being married to a woman, or having a dad who was an immigrant, in no way precludes him being xenophobic or misogynistic.

That logic would have you believe someone who says 'I'm not racist but ... ' then makes a racist comment, isn't racist.

It is perfectly possible for someone to be misogynistic yet have a much loved mum, or a dear daughter.

Or to work quite comfortably with someone of anther race, but nevertheless hold prejudiced views about that race as a whole.


From my own experience, the rationalisation seems to work along the lines of the 'individual' is somehow different from 'all the others'.

MrsGrey

There is, I suppose, an alternative explanation.

That he is none of these things, but is happy to say and promote these ideas (despite not believing in them himself) to appeal to the racists (including the KKK), xenophobes and misogynists out there, to get them to vote for him.

Because that's so much better.

simonc

Sorry MrsG but i still don't get it, xenophobic maybe but i don't think so, he is a nationalist but that doesn't automatically make him a xenophobe. As for misogynistic no i simply don't draw the same conclusions as you may.

Personalities aside i really believe Trump will bridge the aisle with Schumer & make some real progress for once, only time will tell, but as president elect he has earned the opportunity to prove his detractors wrong.

simonc

"but is happy to say and promote these ideas" Where and when? I think you will find there are other interpretations to his statements.