Trump and the connection between democracy and tyranny

[Nosebleed]

2 hours ago, sanahtlig said:

I'm curious what privileged knowledge is gained from living in the US that cannot be gained through other means.

Not knowledge, per se, but culture, that's what you gain when you live in a country, and it's something an outsider can't simpy obtain, this perspective of an insider.

You can look at all the data and facts and have an opinion based on that, of course, but you will never truly understand the narratives of a country, or even a community, unless you have lived in it. You will always be an outsider and your perspective will always be skewed because of it.

[Dark_blade64]

The guns rule was pretty dumb to begin with, so easy to abuse that rule and get away with it. Much of Trump hate is not only fueled by what the corrupt media says but also about the random fucking stupid nonsense he has been stating he will do when he become president and people find so funny how stuff who could screw them over being taking lighty like it is nothing. Obama was a shitty president but the new candidates sounds like even more stupid brats who gives a shit about improving the country and more about pushing their hidden agenda. I hope someday we will see a candidate who takes his job seriously and do something worthy for once and not a damn parasite who stick with others and leech the hell out of them.

[Kurisu-Chan]

Are you trying to compete at america trope? because that's exactly why every person in the world hate and will hate america.

If only donald trump had any idea, or at least, you knew that donald trump was a close friend to the clintons family, maybe you would have a better opinion about the world.

 

Lol, Republicans leading well the country, if by that you mean waging war to the entire war, destroying the whole middle east by putting a jewish state surrounded by muslim countries, and losing tons and tons of money on useless war, then yes, they are really good.

 

And i might have fallen into the trap of a troll, but meh, i like fuwasalt.  

[Kurisu-Chan]

At least, speaking of foreign affairs, Obama made america more likable to the rest of the world, for once, americans were less hated.

 

But the next president...good luck Murica, that's coming from a gun-hating atheist who do crossfit and vape and is an engineer.  

[bigfatround0]

16 minutes ago, Dark_blade64 said:

The guns rule was pretty dumb to begin with, so easy to abuse that rule and get away with it. Much of Trump hate is not only fueled by what the corrupt media says but also about the random fucking stupid nonsense he has been stating he will do when he become president and people find so funny how stuff who could screw them over being taking lighty like it is nothing. Obama was a shitty president but the new candidates sounds like even more stupid brats who gives a shit about improving the country and more about pushing their hidden agenda. I hope someday we will see a candidate who takes his job seriously and do something worthy for once and not a damn parasite who stick with others and leech the hell out of them.

Trump is a great example of that. He's not bought and he actually cares about the US. If not his tagline wouldn't be what it is.

14 minutes ago, Kurisu-Chan said:

Are you trying to compete at america trope? because that's exactly why every person in the world hate and will hate america.

If only donald trump had any idea, or at least, you knew that donald trump was a close friend to the clintons family, maybe you would have a better opinion about the world.

 

Lol, Republicans leading well the country, if by that you mean waging war to the entire war, destroying the whole middle east by putting a jewish state surrounded by muslim countries, and losing tons and tons of money on useless war, then yes, they are really good.

 

And i might have fallen into the trap of a troll, but meh, i like fuwasalt.  

The world can hate America if it wants but they're forgetting that America pretty much makes the world go round. Without us then plenty of countries would be screwed and the world would have probably already been plunged into WW3.

Yes, republicans are great leaders. Reagan is a good recent example.

12 minutes ago, Kurisu-Chan said:

But the next president...good luck Murica, that's coming from a gun-hating atheist who do crossfit and vape and is an engineer.  

 

It's not too late to repent and believe in a higher being. I find it ridiculous that a person can be so arrogant as to believe we came from nothing.

[Kurisu-Chan]

I believe we came from something.

 

But not the christian/jewish/muslim god, maybe we were created by Amaterasu, maybe we were created by ishtar, who knows.

Oh gawd, this is some high tier material, believing that Trump is faithful, calling him a fascist.  he's just a clown, a big troll that trolled everyone, and for that, thumbs up Mister Trump.  

[Down]

bigfatround is obviously trolling, please don't answer to him and don't turn to nonsensical US-bashing. Considering how defensive people were already this thread is done otherwise.

[Kurisu-Chan]

But i like him, i really like him.

You really thought i would think a fellow redditer is not trolling arround? plz.  

[OriginalRen]

4 hours ago, sanahtlig said:

I'm curious what privileged knowledge is gained from living in the US that cannot be gained through other means.

I just find it funny that every other country in the world seems to attack America for its problems. As a language major who has visited many countries all over the world, I don't think it's fair, let alone respectful, to comment on what others believe are corrupt systems. I've been to France 7 times in my life, and do you think I am more qualified to talk about its politics and the culture as a whole as say @Down is? Absolutely not. Do you think I understand Japan better than someone who has lived there their entire life? Probably not.

[Down]

12 minutes ago, OriginalRen said:

I just find it funny that every other country in the world seems to attack America for its problems. As a language major who has visited many countries all over the world, I don't think it's fair, let alone respectful, to comment on what others believe are corrupt systems. I've been to France 7 times in my life, and do you think I am more qualified to talk about its politics and the culture as a whole as say @Down is? Absolutely not. Do you think I understand Japan better than someone who has lived there their entire life? Probably not.

Whenever something important happens in the US, the rest of the world holds onto its breath because it could have consequences on them too. That's becoming less and less true but it very much still is. Example given: if Trump gets elected the rest of the world kinda has to care about it, because four years of US policy denying climate changes is going to bring the impending environmental crisis a good 10 or 20 years earlier. So of course we're gonna care and we're gonna know about it because 1) it will be discussed in our local media 2) information about it is readily available in a language everyone (more or less) can read. 

Of course we're not gonna have the same point of view as an insider, and we won't be able to grasp some cultural intricacies. It's harder to discuss gun policies in the US when aspects of the issue are so specific to US culture, for example. I'm ready to make mistakes and be corrected if I ever try to talk about that topic (it doesn't interest me that much though).

On the specific topic at hand, as already explained, western representative democracies have a lot in common, the US system and the french system were even founded by people who shared fairly similar ideas. Some of their flaws are gonna be broadly the same, others are going to be more specific to each country. The point is not even to bash one system or another here, I think both are shit. If I'm getting something terribly wrong in what I'm saying I'm ready to listen but I can't really do much if all I'm being told is "you're ignorant".

[Darklord Rooke]

12 minutes ago, Down said:

If I'm getting something terribly wrong in what I'm saying I'm ready to listen but I can't really do much if all I'm being told is "you're ignorant".

The whole 'you're ignorant' thing is just a way to attack an argument without actually attacking an argument. For the record, I think non-Australians who take an interest in Australian politics are far more qualified to talk about our Federal system then my ignorant, bogan neighbour named Bob who spends all day getting smashed off his face before collapsing on the ground scratching his ballsack. These are the type of people who shrug their shoulders and say 'I dunno' when you ask them who the head of State is. These are the people who shrug their shoulders and say 'I dunno' when you ask them how they managed to set their arse-cheeks on fire.

The idea that the common people of America will have a more fundamental understanding of the Federal electoral system in America, its pros, its flaws, and so on because they live there is very, VERY flawed. I know this for a fact because I've had to lecture quite a few Americans on why their country is a Republic. Yes, that's right, they had no clue what their country was and I, an Ozzie bloke, did. It's very simple, and yet somehow they remained clueless for a number of decades. Sure, they knew the culture of America at a local level very well, but they were pretty ignorant about America as a nation. Conversely, I acknowledge interested people in other countries (oh say, like the UN ahahaha) could be quite well informed about Australia's immigration policy (AKA could be quite miffed about Australia's immigration policy,) and could talk in detail about it if they wish, and yet I doubt they'd know much about the local council mergers affecting NSW, and which previously affected Vic and QLD. In those instances, people on the ground would probably have more knowledge. To keep ramming home the point, I can rattle off the problems China's facing with their aging population in a fairly detailed manner without having to 'live there,' and in a way the majority of their poor farmers would never be able to (despite living there) because those poor farmers have more pressing concerns on their mind (like survival.)

So it depends on who you're talking about in each country and it depends on how local the matter is. Many people living in a country are just unaware and ignorant of what's going on around them, and they're ignorant by choice, sometimes they have other priorities or it just doesn't interest them. Someone who takes an interest in Australian politics and news undoubtedly knows more about what's going on at a 'nationwide level' than many inhabitants who spend all day on their 'Facebook' taking photos of food or cats or whatever people take photos of these days. Sure, Neighbour Bob may know what's going on at a local level (I'll give him the benefit of the doubt here,) but I doubt he knows what's happening at a regional, or State level ... unless it directly impacts his wallet, or his safety, and few things do. But talking about America's system of Government, well anybody who's interested can easily analyse THAT. Just like Frenchies can easily analyse Australia's system of Government. 

[arakura]

Don't have much to say. Money speaks. In a bad way. A lot of trump support comes because he seems less willing to sell his dick for a successful campaign. Not a fan of trump, but the lobbying system in the US is pretty bad. 

But dw guys, we need more corn.

 

Would someone mind explaining to me why the election system is so confusing? Are superdelegates (this sounds like a joke) really necessary in this day and age? 

[Valmore]

1 hour ago, arakura said:

Would someone mind explaining to me why the election system is so confusing? Are superdelegates (this sounds like a joke) really necessary in this day and age? 

Confusing? I don't think it's that confusing. For the Republicans it's really straightforward - each state has three and they're required by convention rules to vote for the popular winner in the primary of their state. For the Democrats? It's more of a party control system - there's a slew of Democrat superdelegates and they can pledge themselves to whomever the hell they want. However, as they consist of Democratic governors and Congressmen, party leaders, elected members of the DNC, etc. you're probably going to vote for who the party has determined ahead of time anyway.

[arakura]

So... why doesn't the person who gets the most votes (read: votes from people like you or I) always win? More pertinently, why do we have a system that allows such a thing to happen? Wouldn't that be the most simple way, considering that we have the tools now. Also, it's not immediately understandable. The republican and democrat systems are different? Doesn't that strike you as odd? I don't think it's very hard to argue that the system is confusing for people who don't follow it closely. I want to know why, because it could be.

Well, I think the party system is a pile of crap, and it's run by old politicians who have personal reasons to keep it the way it is, for the most part. But seriously what the fuck? Superdelegates?

Why do we have a system where the winner of the popular vote can lose the election? That doesn't confuse anyone? That's straightforward? My ass it is. When I took civics in high school they failed to inform me of just how much of a shitfest the election system is.

[Flutterz]

Just now, arakura said:

So... why doesn't the person who gets the most votes (read: votes from people like you or I) always win? More pertinently, why do we have a system that allows such a thing to happen? Wouldn't that be the most simple way, considering that we have the tools now. Also, it's not immediately understandable. The republican and democrat systems are different? Doesn't that strike you as odd? I don't think it's very hard to argue that the system is confusing for people who don't follow it closely. I want to know why, because it could be.

Well, I think the party system is a pile of crap, and it's run by old politicians who have personal reasons to keep it the way it is, for the most part. But seriously what the fuck? Superdelegates?

Why do we have a system where the winner of the popular vote can lose the election? That doesn't confuse anyone? That's straightforward? My ass it is. When I took civics in high school they failed to inform me of just how much of a shitfest the election system is.

Gotta make sure the people don't have too much democracy, otherwise they might elect someone the other politicians don't like :­o

[sanahtlig]

5 hours ago, Flutterz said:

Gotta make sure the people don't have too much democracy, otherwise they might elect someone the other politicians don't like :­o

Bingo.  The whole idea behind superdelegates is to ensure the party gets the candidate the party wants.  Trump wouldn't have won the Democratic Party nomination because the odds would have been stacked against him--exactly as intended.

[Valmore]

11 hours ago, arakura said:

So... why doesn't the person who gets the most votes (read: votes from people like you or I) always win? More pertinently, why do we have a system that allows such a thing to happen? Wouldn't that be the most simple way, considering that we have the tools now. Also, it's not immediately understandable. The republican and democrat systems are different? Doesn't that strike you as odd? I don't think it's very hard to argue that the system is confusing for people who don't follow it closely. I want to know why, because it could be.

Well, I think the party system is a pile of crap, and it's run by old politicians who have personal reasons to keep it the way it is, for the most part. But seriously what the fuck? Superdelegates?

Why do we have a system where the winner of the popular vote can lose the election? That doesn't confuse anyone? That's straightforward? My ass it is. When I took civics in high school they failed to inform me of just how much of a shitfest the election system is.

This dates back to the Colonial period. The representatives from the smaller states were fearful that the larger states would end up controlling the Federal Government simply because they had more land area, and thus could eventually have more population. This really didn't take into account the idea that megalopolis-like cities with urban sprawl and densely-populated suburbs would spring up in different places. It was more based on, "New Jersey is locked in where it's at and can't expand, but Virginia can expand it's charter further west."

To keep the smaller states on board, various parts of the Federal Government had compromises built in to them, including the Senate being even representation and the Electoral College system. Many people still like the idea of the Electoral College system for whatever reason. I'm for getting rid of it - the biggest joke of the 2000 election was the idea of "Every Vote Counts" - no they don't. If you vote for the losing candidate in your state, your vote doesn't count, as it doesn't help in your state or on a national level. It allows for cherry-picked campaigning for so-called "swing states" while ignoring states you know you've got no shot in - why go to California when you know it's going to pick the other guy? Spend your campaign money in Virginia where you might be able to swing the vote your way.

Of course, I'm also for getting rid of the current primary system and mandating all 50 states and DC have their primaries on the same day. Pick a date in May, that should give all interested parties enough time to drag their asses around the country, campaigning and then everyone hits the polls at the same time.

The problem here is you expected your civics class to inform you. You needed political science/American government courses. That's where you find all the juicy bullshit that goes into our government system.

5 hours ago, sanahtlig said:

Bingo.  The whole idea behind superdelegates is to ensure the party gets the candidate the party wants.  Trump wouldn't have won the Democratic Party nomination because the odds would have been stacked against him--exactly as intended.

For the Democrats anyway. The Republicans are wishing right now they had adopted the Democrats' system of superdelegates, because maybe they could have used them to stop Trump. Then again, which vanilla or bonkers GOP club member would you get your supers behind? Jeb? Rubio? Carson? Zodiac Killer?

Not that Hillary has needed her supers so far. She's still winning in the popular votes over Sanders anyway.

[arakura]

Yea. We have the technology. It's not simple. It's outdated. 

I do like living here, but the political system has a bunch of obvious flaws which drag it down. Which was part of my original point anyway. A lot of people support trump because he seems less likely to sell himself to lobbyists and so on. I feel like there must be a way to do elections so that "probably not making secret deals for money" isn't some kind of wondrous feature. 

Also, val, my point isn't that I can't find out or don't know but that it's not simple. This crates a barrier to entry that lowers voter turnout. People shouldn't have to go to college or even be fussed in general to understand how elections work. They should be taught it in school and it should be more simple than it is.

[Valmore]

9 minutes ago, arakura said:

Also, val, my point isn't that I can't find out or don't know but that it's not simple. This crates a barrier to entry that lowers voter turnout. People shouldn't have to go to college or even be fussed in general to understand how elections work. They should be taught it in school and it should be more simple than it is.

Supposedly they do teach this stuff in school, and not just college. It starts simple and then you add the details on as you get into higher grade levels. By the time you hit high school, if you've been paying attention, you *should* have a pretty good idea of the system. The thing is, people don't pay nearly enough attention, which kind of makes for funny memes of college-aged kids shell-shocked that Bernie "Not Really A Democrat" Sanders didn't beat Hillary "Established Party Member" Clinton. Slogans are easy - getting support from a party you eschewed for years isn't.

[Down]

4 hours ago, arakura said:

A lot of people support trump because he seems less likely to sell himself to lobbyists and so on. I feel like there must be a way to do elections so that "probably not making secret deals for money" isn't some kind of wondrous feature. 

Well the argument doesn't hold anyway. You could find the exact same argument in three centuries old texts by members of the aristocracy/high bourgeoisie who would justify census suffrage or the idea that only wealthy people should be able to be elected. That obviously never stopped the political class to defend their own interests and those of the people they're close to.

The image of a politican corrupted directly through a paycheck is crude and naive. I'm not saying it doesn't exist but things are both more subtle and more systemic, especially in western democracies. When Hillary Clinton gets huge paychecks from Goldman Sachs it's only a surface-level event that showcases the deep connections there are between the political class and the financial elite (big corporations and banks). Money is only one aspect of the issue, there are other things like social capital (networking, prestige) at stake, but also politician habits. Career politicians have all received a certain education and have spent their whole lives talking with certain kinds of people and in a certain kind of environment so it's unsurprising that in the end, they go in the way that pleases financial markets, corporations, etc... and they probably find it perfectly natural.

Someone like Trump is beyond that; he's not just connected with the financial elite, he IS the financial elite. Thinking he won't be influenced by lobbies is ridiculous.

[Kelebek1]

8 hours ago, arakura said:

I feel like there must be a way to do elections so that "probably not making secret deals for money" isn't some kind of wondrous feature. 

There is, the Greeks had it, because it's true democracy: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sortition

To them, what we have isn't democracy at all. The idea of a professional politician with vested interested is directly counter to the idea of democracy.

 

" It is accepted as democratic when public offices are allocated by lot; and as oligarchic when they are filled by election. "

[arakura]

3 hours ago, Down said:

Well the argument doesn't hold anyway. You could find the exact same argument in three centuries old texts by members of the aristocracy/high bourgeoisie who would justify census suffrage or the idea that only wealthy people should be able to be elected. That obviously never stopped the political class to defend their own interests and those of the people they're close to.

The image of a politican corrupted directly through a paycheck is crude and naive. I'm not saying it doesn't exist but things are both more subtle and more systemic, especially in western democracies. When Hillary Clinton gets huge paychecks from Goldman Sachs it's only a surface-level event that showcases the deep connections there are between the political class and the financial elite (big corporations and banks). Money is only one aspect of the issue, there are other things like social capital (networking, prestige) at stake, but also politician habits. Career politicians have all received a certain education and have spent their whole lives talking with certain kinds of people and in a certain kind of environment so it's unsurprising that in the end, they go in the way that pleases financial markets, corporations, etc... and they probably find it perfectly natural.

Someone like Trump is beyond that; he's not just connected with the financial elite, he IS the financial elite. Thinking he won't be influenced by lobbies is ridiculous.

Well, I think most trump supporters are ridiculous...

Because the same problem existed three centuries ago we can't/shouldn't fix it? What?  That's naive and ridiculous.  I must have misunderstood what you were saying.

Anyway. Politicians used to be much worse, so there's reason to believe they can be better. even if there are other issues, money is one of them. You have to start somewhere. I don't think we'll ever fully separate money from political power, but we can definitely do it to some degree. 

And my claim that a lot of people support him because of his money isn't wrong. 

 

Also Val, I went to I good school, was a good student, did well in civics, and am not a fool. Yet I didn't walk out really understanding the election system very well. That's because it's old, messy, confusing, and obsolete. The schools are not the problem.

[rainsismyfav]

Each state primaries also have different rules with regards to who can vote (registered or open primaries), and how the delegate system works in the state convention.

 

Caucuses or Primaries

Open or Closed

Winner-take-alls

Delegate allocation based on districts

 

 

[sanahtlig]

The US governing system is technically speaking a republic, not a democracy.  It was never intended to be a true democracy, nor fully responsive to the whims of the majority.  The very idea of constitutional limits on government is anti-democratic because it limits the will of the majority.  Citizens were intended to influence the overall direction of government, but the system itself was crafted to be fairly rigid and resistant to change.

[Valmore]

5 hours ago, sanahtlig said:

The US governing system is technically speaking a republic, not a democracy.  It was never intended to be a true democracy, nor fully responsive to the whims of the majority.  The very idea of constitutional limits on government is anti-democratic because it limits the will of the majority.  Citizens were intended to influence the overall direction of government, but the system itself was crafted to be fairly rigid and resistant to change.

Exactly. You know how hard it is to change the Constitution, or more specifically, The Bill of Rights? We started with 10 and we've only barely doubled it over 200-plus years, and two of those cancel each other out (Prohibition and ending Prohibition - 18th and 21st).  It takes 38 states to pass a new amendment. It's hard enough getting 3 people to agree on pizza toppings, 38 states needing a majority to pass new amendments? The last one to get in was the 27th back in 1992, and it took 202 years to get it ratified.