CDZ Please explain to me something...

[Pogo]

Is there a way to close the topic? I feel this is getting out of hand and of topic.

I am sorry, but i feel exhausted by this. Again we all can have different views on immigration, tariffs, health care, climate change, but normally you have facts that underline or undermine your point of view so you can make a decision. To me, extremists (like Trump (not necessarily the Repiblicans), AfD, etc.) make decisions on beliefs (or on their stomach if you want) and i do not think that this will lead to a better future. I would have loved to learn where we missed to turn into the right direction. I a, grateful that i got your opinions, but it is moving to fox news vs. Msnbc and we should leave it at that. Sorry

Well, you're getting a taste of what passes for dialogue in the States these days under the Rule of Partisan Tribalism. USMB like probably most message boards at least in this country is basically an echo chamber for the fringe right wack element to try to reinforce its own bubble while leaping into savage attack mode on anything outside that bubble in the quest for "Eliminationism" --- the theory that one's rhetorical opponents cannot be compromised with or reasoned with but rather must be literally exterminated. Witness how they have already launched into personal attacks here in the Clean Debate Zone. It's a bubble based entirely on emotion.

The good news is that such a fringe does not nearly represent the general population.

 

[baum]

I thought we all agree to stick with democracy. If that isnt the case, i apologize. When i speak about extremists, i mean groups and people that want to leave the given boundaries of the system, meaning either they want an autocratic system with communism like agenda (e.g. China) or the same with some nationalistic agenda (going beyond "love for country", e.g. North Korea) or want to create a state based on some god. Within the democratic system all opions are allowed (even socialism or nationalism) if they respect the boundaries (elections, laws, etc.). I do not critize the ideas of different people, i do critize that ideas are normally supported by facts and not beliefs.
As an example we could take climate change. There are facts. Then there are scientific simulations with some assumptions. And then there is belief. And at what point did we put belief before facts or arguments? Why is it more important what the president believes than what scientific advisors (it was different 20-30 years earlier, but now about 98 percent (or more) of the research supports the idea of climate change. Of course, it can still be wrong, but it is far more likely that it is true. And when you loose the argument, you implement a conspiracy? I dont know in what job you work in, but i would surely loose it, if whenever i cant back my suggestions up i introduce a conspiracy. I am more questioning the human nature of ourselves than politics.

 

[baum]

Is there a way to close the topic? I feel this is getting out of hand and of topic.

I am sorry, but i feel exhausted by this. Again we all can have different views on immigration, tariffs, health care, climate change, but normally you have facts that underline or undermine your point of view so you can make a decision. To me, extremists (like Trump (not necessarily the Repiblicans), AfD, etc.) make decisions on beliefs (or on their stomach if you want) and i do not think that this will lead to a better future. I would have loved to learn where we missed to turn into the right direction. I a, grateful that i got your opinions, but it is moving to fox news vs. Msnbc and we should leave it at that. Sorry

Well, you're getting a taste of what passes for dialogue in the States these days under the Rule of Partisan Tribalism. USMB like probably most message boards at least in this country is basically an echo chamber for the fringe right wack element to try to reinforce its own bubble while leaping into savage attack mode on anything outside that bubble in the quest for "Eliminationism" --- the theory that one's rhetorical opponents cannot be compromised with or reasoned with but rather must be literally exterminated. Witness how they have already launched into personal attacks here in the Clean Debate Zone. It's a bubble based entirely on emotion.

The good news is that such a fringe does not nearly represent the general population.

I wish i could be so optimistic. The idea about the US i get from clips from fox news, cnn, msnbc, etc. and i agree that the Trump voters are tyring to live in a bubble, but their worries are real. And i am not sure that there are answers to their worries outside of the bubble. And while you might be focused on the US, there are "bubbles" elsewhere. So i think that their opinion is representative and not neglectable.
Fun fact, in germany the areas with the least immigrants have the biggest fears from immigrants.

 

[Pogo]

Is there a way to close the topic? I feel this is getting out of hand and of topic.

I am sorry, but i feel exhausted by this. Again we all can have different views on immigration, tariffs, health care, climate change, but normally you have facts that underline or undermine your point of view so you can make a decision. To me, extremists (like Trump (not necessarily the Repiblicans), AfD, etc.) make decisions on beliefs (or on their stomach if you want) and i do not think that this will lead to a better future. I would have loved to learn where we missed to turn into the right direction. I a, grateful that i got your opinions, but it is moving to fox news vs. Msnbc and we should leave it at that. Sorry

Well, you're getting a taste of what passes for dialogue in the States these days under the Rule of Partisan Tribalism. USMB like probably most message boards at least in this country is basically an echo chamber for the fringe right wack element to try to reinforce its own bubble while leaping into savage attack mode on anything outside that bubble in the quest for "Eliminationism" --- the theory that one's rhetorical opponents cannot be compromised with or reasoned with but rather must be literally exterminated. Witness how they have already launched into personal attacks here in the Clean Debate Zone. It's a bubble based entirely on emotion.

The good news is that such a fringe does not nearly represent the general population.

I wish i could be so optimistic. The idea about the US i get from clips from fox news, cnn, msnbc, etc. and i agree that the Trump voters are tyring to live in a bubble, but their worries are real. And i am not sure that there are answers to their worries outside of the bubble. And while you might be focused on the US, there are "bubbles" elsewhere. So i think that their opinion is representative and not neglectable.
Fun fact, in germany the areas with the least immigrants have the biggest fears from immigrants.

That does not surprise me in the least. As a general rule we find the worst bigots, racists, xenophobes etc are those who have never met any and have no experience. In the imagination lies the breeding ground for the power of suggestion.

 

[baum]

Is there a way to close the topic? I feel this is getting out of hand and of topic.

I am sorry, but i feel exhausted by this. Again we all can have different views on immigration, tariffs, health care, climate change, but normally you have facts that underline or undermine your point of view so you can make a decision. To me, extremists (like Trump (not necessarily the Repiblicans), AfD, etc.) make decisions on beliefs (or on their stomach if you want) and i do not think that this will lead to a better future. I would have loved to learn where we missed to turn into the right direction. I a, grateful that i got your opinions, but it is moving to fox news vs. Msnbc and we should leave it at that. Sorry

Well, you're getting a taste of what passes for dialogue in the States these days under the Rule of Partisan Tribalism. USMB like probably most message boards at least in this country is basically an echo chamber for the fringe right wack element to try to reinforce its own bubble while leaping into savage attack mode on anything outside that bubble in the quest for "Eliminationism" --- the theory that one's rhetorical opponents cannot be compromised with or reasoned with but rather must be literally exterminated. Witness how they have already launched into personal attacks here in the Clean Debate Zone. It's a bubble based entirely on emotion.

The good news is that such a fringe does not nearly represent the general population.

I wish i could be so optimistic. The idea about the US i get from clips from fox news, cnn, msnbc, etc. and i agree that the Trump voters are tyring to live in a bubble, but their worries are real. And i am not sure that there are answers to their worries outside of the bubble. And while you might be focused on the US, there are "bubbles" elsewhere. So i think that their opinion is representative and not neglectable.
Fun fact, in germany the areas with the least immigrants have the biggest fears from immigrants.

That does not surprise me in the least. As a general rule we find the worst bigots, racists, xenophobes etc are those who have never met any and have no experience. In the imagination lies the breeding ground for the power of suggestion.

Reminds me of a friend whos idea to prevent any wars was to have an obligatory year spent in a different country. At some time in school you get randomly a country to live in for a year. Sounds like an even better idea nowadays. Serves as peacekeeping and domestic peacekeeping as well.

 

[rightwinger]

The extremists don't elect people, they try to influence but in the end Average Joe and Josephine America is who elects.

You saw that in 2916...a silent majority decided the election.

Let’s be honest here

It was a silent minority

 

[toobfreak]

Is there a way to close the topic? I feel this is getting out of hand and of topic.

I am sorry, but i feel exhausted by this. Again we all can have different views on immigration, tariffs, health care, climate change, but normally you have facts that underline or undermine your point of view so you can make a decision. To me, extremists (like Trump (not necessarily the Repiblicans), AfD, etc.) make decisions on beliefs (or on their stomach if you want) and i do not think that this will lead to a better future. I would have loved to learn where we missed to turn into the right direction. I a, grateful that i got your opinions, but it is moving to fox news vs. Msnbc and we should leave it at that. Sorry

Bomb, you open a topic from the position that all your views are given FACT and that anyone who tells you different has to prove themselves, not you. You lay a dozen lines of BS on us that we are supposed to just lay down and take, then when people counter your arguments, rather than give justification to support them as you expect of everyone else, you turn tail, want to close the thread and run.

You came here arguing for democracy, but it seems that when confronted with it in its most basic form, you simply don't like it except when it works in your favor!

 

[toobfreak]

In most democracies we see a rise of extremists on the left and right (more obvious in most countries is the right wing).

And there he goes with a TOTAL FAIL on his very first thread, not realizing that by their very nature, "democracies" are MOB RULE, and so intrinsically lean toward the Left. So naturally, the Leftist extremism is seen as the NORM by the majority Leftist extremists and moderate rather than the extremism it is, so when anyone tries to pull the system into BALANCE by leaning any other way (centrist, etc), it is automatically labelled as being "extremist" right wing, and naturally "stands out."

Well spoken as a leftist socialist technocrat asking to explain something to him he really doesn't want to understand . . . .

And there goes a typical Trump response. Stating things without providing facts. If democracies are mob rule... Why do they lean towards the "left". I dont know what you consider left or right, but lets say its democrats and republicans... It has been more republican presidents than democrats, in germany the CDU has been longer in charge than the SPD (center-left).
What is the balance? And where do i claim that only one side is right? What i do not understand is why you consider someone who "grab em by the pussy", mocks war veterans and acts from his emotion instead of logic the best choice for your agenda? Considering a hypotecial person, that has the same agenda (repeal obama care, tariffs, etc.) that would have nominated his cabinet and sticked with them to press this agenda constantly vs someone who gets totally distracted by a book, some investigation, etc.. Why are you so fond of him?

LOOK BAWM, I haven't time to teach you the world while standing on one leg. If you come here, at least try to PRETEND you know your ass from a horseshoe. Don't try your subterfuge of 40 questions, half of which are unanswerable short of a page, the other half unprovable because we all know you'll simply deny, deny, deny. How do you even have a freeking CLUE what a "typical Trump response" is being from Europe or Germany and just having joined here? Are you trying to claim I'm Trump? That you know the first thing about Donald? You obviously don't understand the basics of "democracy," you think Trump grabs people by the pussy when he never said that he did that, only that contestants let others do it to them willingly, what any of that has to do with anything anyway I don't know, but I'd rather my Prez be an alpha male who likes beautiful women than a limp dick choom smoking bony-eared ass like Obama, as being a red-blooded male, if any sexy beautiful models offer to let me grab them by the pussy, I'd be a fool not to take them up on that, Trump never mocked a war veteran, he only expressed his own personal view that McCain did NOT qualify in his mind as a war HERO (and he doesn't and wasn't), and you haven't a clue what Trump acts upon unless you can tell me you know Trump personally and have done a complete psychological profile on him! Further, I have no agenda other than to see my country survive, do better and prosper for its people, I appreciate the fact that we finally have a nationalist and proud American leading our way putting our country first again rather than another sickening globalist, and not let us wither into a limp flaccid penis as Germany has become behind the impotent ministrations of that useless POS Merkel.

Did I answer your question?

Yes, you perfectly answered my question about the educational system in the states. Thank you.

Total BS evasion cop out. You think your education system is better than ours? I'm sitting here waiting for the documentation to support that claim, Bum! Let me know right away why people come here to pay $200,000 for an education in "The States" when they can get one for practically nothing where you are?!

 

[toobfreak]

In most democracies we see a rise of extremists on the left and right (more obvious in most countries is the right wing).

And there he goes with a TOTAL FAIL on his very first thread, not realizing that by their very nature, "democracies" are MOB RULE, and so intrinsically lean toward the Left. So naturally, the Leftist extremism is seen as the NORM by the majority Leftist extremists and moderate rather than the extremism it is, so when anyone tries to pull the system into BALANCE by leaning any other way (centrist, etc), it is automatically labelled as being "extremist" right wing, and naturally "stands out."

Well spoken as a leftist socialist technocrat asking to explain something to him he really doesn't want to understand . . . .

You're suggesting here that "left" means democracy whereas "right" means autocracy?

No. As has been detailed on numerous occasions, "Left" and "Right" are something of misnomers--- when talking political systems, it is really better to think in terms of size of government control (red area).

Neither monarchy, democracy nor anarchy are stable forms of government in the long term, and eventually, settle down into one or the other--- either an oligarchy ruled by a few (what the Left and Europe tends towards), or a Republic ruled by laws, which was the foundation of this country which the Right and conservatives tend towards and are trying hard to steer us back towards. Now that I'm sure you've been shown this and told this at least three times now, please don't pretend to be ignorant of it any longer.

 

[Pogo]

In most democracies we see a rise of extremists on the left and right (more obvious in most countries is the right wing).

And there he goes with a TOTAL FAIL on his very first thread, not realizing that by their very nature, "democracies" are MOB RULE, and so intrinsically lean toward the Left. So naturally, the Leftist extremism is seen as the NORM by the majority Leftist extremists and moderate rather than the extremism it is, so when anyone tries to pull the system into BALANCE by leaning any other way (centrist, etc), it is automatically labelled as being "extremist" right wing, and naturally "stands out."

Well spoken as a leftist socialist technocrat asking to explain something to him he really doesn't want to understand . . . .

You're suggesting here that "left" means democracy whereas "right" means autocracy?

No. As has been detailed on numerous occasions, "Left" and "Right" are something of misnomers--- when talking political systems, it is really better to think in terms of size of government control (red area).

View attachment 216871

Neither monarchy, democracy nor anarchy are stable forms of government in the long term, and eventually, settle down into one or the other--- either an oligarchy ruled by a few (what the Left and Europe tends towards), or a Republic ruled by laws, which was the foundation of this country which the Right and conservatives tend towards and are trying hard to steer us back towards. Now that I'm sure you've been shown this and told this at least three times now, please don't pretend to be ignorant of it any longer.

You're actually going to sit on this board and suggest like old Buttsoiler did before he got laughed off the board, that the difference between "left" and "right" is HOW BIG THE GOVERNMENT IS??



I'm betting this concept is going to be entirely new to you too...

​

Actually I kinda like this one for its realism:

 

[toobfreak]

In most democracies we see a rise of extremists on the left and right (more obvious in most countries is the right wing).

And there he goes with a TOTAL FAIL on his very first thread, not realizing that by their very nature, "democracies" are MOB RULE, and so intrinsically lean toward the Left. So naturally, the Leftist extremism is seen as the NORM by the majority Leftist extremists and moderate rather than the extremism it is, so when anyone tries to pull the system into BALANCE by leaning any other way (centrist, etc), it is automatically labelled as being "extremist" right wing, and naturally "stands out."

Well spoken as a leftist socialist technocrat asking to explain something to him he really doesn't want to understand . . . .

You're suggesting here that "left" means democracy whereas "right" means autocracy?

No. As has been detailed on numerous occasions, "Left" and "Right" are something of misnomers--- when talking political systems, it is really better to think in terms of size of government control (red area).

View attachment 216871

Neither monarchy, democracy nor anarchy are stable forms of government in the long term, and eventually, settle down into one or the other--- either an oligarchy ruled by a few (what the Left and Europe tends towards), or a Republic ruled by laws, which was the foundation of this country which the Right and conservatives tend towards and are trying hard to steer us back towards. Now that I'm sure you've been shown this and told this at least three times now, please don't pretend to be ignorant of it any longer.

You're actually going to sit on this board and suggest like old Buttsoiler did before he got laughed off the board, that the difference between "left" and "right" is HOW BIG THE GOVERNMENT IS??

I'm betting this concept is going to be entirely new to you too...

I know it's really a LOT to ask someone to open their mind to THINK AND LEARN when someone like you believes they already know everything, but just in that ten-million to one chance you are not 100% brainwashed . . . .

(watch to 10:30, beyond that is a bunch of crap I don't know why they even stuck in there)

 

[Wyatt earp]

I am having trouble understanding where we (as the people and voters) made a mistake. While i have my own conclusion about that, I would like to hear some opinions first.

In most democracies we see a rise of extremists on the left and right (more obvious in most countries is the right wing). On the same time we have had a peaceful period of time for several decades, the living standards rise since ww2 and yet, everybody seems to be unhappy. Why is that the case?
And a more specific question is, how can 30-40 percent of US citizens blindly stand behind this president? I do not blame them specifically as I am starting to believe this can happen anywhere else as well (i am from germany). Lets say that all of his political ideas (tariffs, walls, health care, taxes, etc.) would make sense to you, does it bias his rethoric? Apart from white male supremecists i dont think there is a group that he didnt attack. Do you really believe he is the only one who could improve your country? Why wouldnt a "normal" politican be able to do it without all the lies?

My simple ideas i currently have are education and lobbyism. But given the fact that the leading political party changed over the last decades quite often in all those democracies, why did we end up being so uneducated, that a lot of us are going extreme as the only solution? Why is belief more important than facts? When did we stopped checking what people say? Did this start with social media? Is social media the modern radio, that empowered Hitler? And why do we allow lobbys to write laws for the elected government to pass? Why can't they formulate their own ideas and write them into a law? I agree, that involved parties should be heard and their opinions taken into account into an decision, but to what extent?

Where will this development lead to? Back to markantilism? Back to nationalism and wars? To some new and better future? if that is the case, how is that accomplished?

Uhm because the left lowered the bar so low starting with a pubic hair on a can of coke with Anita hill?


We wouldn't of had Trump if you would of nominated Hillary instead of a failed social experment with Obama


.

 

[Pogo]

I am having trouble understanding where we (as the people and voters) made a mistake. While i have my own conclusion about that, I would like to hear some opinions first.

In most democracies we see a rise of extremists on the left and right (more obvious in most countries is the right wing). On the same time we have had a peaceful period of time for several decades, the living standards rise since ww2 and yet, everybody seems to be unhappy. Why is that the case?
And a more specific question is, how can 30-40 percent of US citizens blindly stand behind this president? I do not blame them specifically as I am starting to believe this can happen anywhere else as well (i am from germany). Lets say that all of his political ideas (tariffs, walls, health care, taxes, etc.) would make sense to you, does it bias his rethoric? Apart from white male supremecists i dont think there is a group that he didnt attack. Do you really believe he is the only one who could improve your country? Why wouldnt a "normal" politican be able to do it without all the lies?

My simple ideas i currently have are education and lobbyism. But given the fact that the leading political party changed over the last decades quite often in all those democracies, why did we end up being so uneducated, that a lot of us are going extreme as the only solution? Why is belief more important than facts? When did we stopped checking what people say? Did this start with social media? Is social media the modern radio, that empowered Hitler? And why do we allow lobbys to write laws for the elected government to pass? Why can't they formulate their own ideas and write them into a law? I agree, that involved parties should be heard and their opinions taken into account into an decision, but to what extent?

Where will this development lead to? Back to markantilism? Back to nationalism and wars? To some new and better future? if that is the case, how is that accomplished?

Uhm because the left lowered the bar so low starting with a pubic hair on a can of coke with Anita hill?


We wouldn't of had Trump if you would of nominated Hillary instead of a failed social experment with Obama

You actually think Germans nominated Hillary?

Read much?

Note to foreigners: "would of" is a corruption of "would have". More ignorance.

 

[baum]

In most democracies we see a rise of extremists on the left and right (more obvious in most countries is the right wing).

And there he goes with a TOTAL FAIL on his very first thread, not realizing that by their very nature, "democracies" are MOB RULE, and so intrinsically lean toward the Left. So naturally, the Leftist extremism is seen as the NORM by the majority Leftist extremists and moderate rather than the extremism it is, so when anyone tries to pull the system into BALANCE by leaning any other way (centrist, etc), it is automatically labelled as being "extremist" right wing, and naturally "stands out."

Well spoken as a leftist socialist technocrat asking to explain something to him he really doesn't want to understand . . . .

You're suggesting here that "left" means democracy whereas "right" means autocracy?

No. As has been detailed on numerous occasions, "Left" and "Right" are something of misnomers--- when talking political systems, it is really better to think in terms of size of government control (red area).

View attachment 216871

Neither monarchy, democracy nor anarchy are stable forms of government in the long term, and eventually, settle down into one or the other--- either an oligarchy ruled by a few (what the Left and Europe tends towards), or a Republic ruled by laws, which was the foundation of this country which the Right and conservatives tend towards and are trying hard to steer us back towards. Now that I'm sure you've been shown this and told this at least three times now, please don't pretend to be ignorant of it any longer.

You're actually going to sit on this board and suggest like old Buttsoiler did before he got laughed off the board, that the difference between "left" and "right" is HOW BIG THE GOVERNMENT IS??



I'm betting this concept is going to be entirely new to you too...

​

Actually I kinda like this one for its realism:

Thanks for that. Spared me the time to look something like that up. I would also suggest to read up on democracy on wikipedia, but i assume that wikipedia is part of the fake media, so it is lost time.

 

[baum]

In most democracies we see a rise of extremists on the left and right (more obvious in most countries is the right wing).

And there he goes with a TOTAL FAIL on his very first thread, not realizing that by their very nature, "democracies" are MOB RULE, and so intrinsically lean toward the Left. So naturally, the Leftist extremism is seen as the NORM by the majority Leftist extremists and moderate rather than the extremism it is, so when anyone tries to pull the system into BALANCE by leaning any other way (centrist, etc), it is automatically labelled as being "extremist" right wing, and naturally "stands out."

Well spoken as a leftist socialist technocrat asking to explain something to him he really doesn't want to understand . . . .

And there goes a typical Trump response. Stating things without providing facts. If democracies are mob rule... Why do they lean towards the "left". I dont know what you consider left or right, but lets say its democrats and republicans... It has been more republican presidents than democrats, in germany the CDU has been longer in charge than the SPD (center-left).
What is the balance? And where do i claim that only one side is right? What i do not understand is why you consider someone who "grab em by the pussy", mocks war veterans and acts from his emotion instead of logic the best choice for your agenda? Considering a hypotecial person, that has the same agenda (repeal obama care, tariffs, etc.) that would have nominated his cabinet and sticked with them to press this agenda constantly vs someone who gets totally distracted by a book, some investigation, etc.. Why are you so fond of him?

LOOK BAWM, I haven't time to teach you the world while standing on one leg. If you come here, at least try to PRETEND you know your ass from a horseshoe. Don't try your subterfuge of 40 questions, half of which are unanswerable short of a page, the other half unprovable because we all know you'll simply deny, deny, deny. How do you even have a freeking CLUE what a "typical Trump response" is being from Europe or Germany and just having joined here? Are you trying to claim I'm Trump? That you know the first thing about Donald? You obviously don't understand the basics of "democracy," you think Trump grabs people by the pussy when he never said that he did that, only that contestants let others do it to them willingly, what any of that has to do with anything anyway I don't know, but I'd rather my Prez be an alpha male who likes beautiful women than a limp dick choom smoking bony-eared ass like Obama, as being a red-blooded male, if any sexy beautiful models offer to let me grab them by the pussy, I'd be a fool not to take them up on that, Trump never mocked a war veteran, he only expressed his own personal view that McCain did NOT qualify in his mind as a war HERO (and he doesn't and wasn't), and you haven't a clue what Trump acts upon unless you can tell me you know Trump personally and have done a complete psychological profile on him! Further, I have no agenda other than to see my country survive, do better and prosper for its people, I appreciate the fact that we finally have a nationalist and proud American leading our way putting our country first again rather than another sickening globalist, and not let us wither into a limp flaccid penis as Germany has become behind the impotent ministrations of that useless POS Merkel.

Did I answer your question?

Yes, you perfectly answered my question about the educational system in the states. Thank you.

Total BS evasion cop out. You think your education system is better than ours? I'm sitting here waiting for the documentation to support that claim, Bum! Let me know right away why people come here to pay $200,000 for an education in "The States" when they can get one for practically nothing where you are?!

Well, you are proof, that your system isnt perfect. Ours isnt as well. I didnt say our education system is better, how could that be, if we dont pay that money?
The reality is, that students from the US are more often studying abroad now, which they never did before.
Do you really think people pay thousands for a Versace clothing because it is "better"? Yes, price can be an indicator for quality, but not the only one. Also, what if society pays for that education? I know that socialism crap, right? Because if you cant afford that 200000 you surely must be dumb...

Can you do more than brag and make false claims?

 

[there4eyeM]

The "mistake" was allowing the two parties to take over so thoroughly. They offer no alternatives and prevent any others being presented.

 

[baum]

The "mistake" was allowing the two parties to take over so thoroughly. They offer no alternatives and prevent any others being presented.

I guess thats right. We have a few more parties, but only recently more than 2 are noteworthy. And still it feels that the alternatives arent there. I know, that sometimes independents start a campaign in the US, but is there anything that prevents other parties? What i mean, considering that your argument is true, why did we allow it to happen. Its no different than here, or the UK, or france. Have we been too lazy? Are our lifes too good, that we didnt want change before? And now, since we waited for change too long, we want to make up for it, but drastically? How could that be prevented, thats what interests me. And before i get the shitstorm, that i want to prevent change... thats not what i meant. How can we integrate other ideas into a given political system before the feeling for something drastic appears?
I was hoping that a democracy already did try that. Selecting representatives that are representing different opinions and then finding compromises. Are parties the problem, centralizing ideas?

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

The extremists don't elect people, they try to influence but in the end Average Joe and Josephine America is who elects.

You saw that in 2916...a silent majority decided the election.

Maybe they decided the election, but it was far too close anyways. Him being president is one thing, but even if he would just have gotten 45 percent it would have been questionable still. And i still dont get it, when i was still in high school he was bankrupt with one of his companies and yet if you listen to Fox News people see him as the better Warren Buffet. How is this possible?

Trump has a shitload of companies and you want to complain about one bankruptcy?

A list of everything Donald Trump runs that has his name on it

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

I blame the republican attack on education. An uneducated populace is easier to control.

Are they? Hmmm... not sure I see the math there. I'd guess it's more likely to the other way, depending on who's doing the educating.

Not so. The have deliberately removed any teaching of critical thinking making many of the lower intelligence folks easily lead and influenced.

Yep...all these progressive professors are really dumbing down the populace.

 

[dblack]

The "mistake" was allowing the two parties to take over so thoroughly. They offer no alternatives and prevent any others being presented.

And that's baked into our voting system. We need to change that before things will improve.