CDZ Please explain to me something...

[Pogo]

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?

What we call our Duopoly has entrenched itself to such a degree that third (fourth, fifth) parties are technically possible but practically impossible. The two "parties" (read "party") collude with each other to keep it that way, truly the only activity where they really do act in a bipartisan way for a common goal, which is perpetuating themselves. I think of it as a grand puppet show where the puppeteer dresses half his puppets in red and the other in blue and we all play "let's pretend they're two different things".

One way they perpetuate that is the Electoral College, the indirect voting system where, as practiced, every electoral vote from a given state goes unanimously to the popular vote winner of that state, regardless whether the winner squeaked through with 50%-plus-one, or took 90%. This leaves us with the artificial construct of so-called "red states" and "blue states", which are dominated by one party, which in turn means there's no reason for a resident of either state to bother to vote -- the individual can vote with their state, vote against their state, vote for a third party or not vote at all, and all four actions produce the same result. This is a major reason our turnout is abysmally low -- for most people there's simply no point.

This also means all a Presidential candidate has to do is concentrate on those states that are competitive and could go either way, since the prize is winning ALL that state's votes. So, while the "red" and "blue" states are ignored by the candidates, the close so-called "swing" states get all the attention and all a winning candidate has to do is convince 50%-plus-one of those who do vote in that state, to vote for him or her. And this is exactly how Donald Rump won enough electoral votes while decisively losing the popular vote, and it's one of many times the flawed system produced this result.

The polarization of the Duopoly means that the impetus for voting in a state where one's votes actually matters (temporarily), settles on one of two choices: either voting for the candidate one believes in, or voting against the candidate one abhors in order to prevent the other one. And this becomes the mission of most people -- voting to block a candidate rather than voting to elect the other. And the Duopoly thus perpetuates itself, because in such a "swing" state a vote for Red might have an influence, a vote for Blue might have an influence, but a vote for a third party is definitely wasted. Moreover, since the Duopoly knows the final choice is always going to be a simple dichotomy, neither party has an incentive to present a candidate who excels, and the voters are presented with a final choice of two abysmal candidates. All either has to do is present a candidate with the message "at least I'm not as bad as that one", while simultaneously demonizing the other. Thus our vote is reduced to a blocking exercise.

This is all due to not just the Electoral College itself but the "winner take all" system that was adopted early in our history out of one state's own self-interest that was then adopted by the others in a cascade, and we've now been saddled with it for two hundred years.

Another way the Duopoly perpetuates itself is control of the dialogue. Until about three decades ago Presidential debates were organized and run by the nonpartisan League of Women Voters who independently set up the events and questions put to the candidates. The Duopoly, Republicans and Democrats in full cooperation, took that operation over by creating a puppet front called the "Commission on Presidential Debates", which acts as a negotiating table to ensure that such debates will present the illusion of critical discourse while sanitizing the content so that each party can veto issues it does not want discussed. And of course this "commission" also serves to make artificial Jim Crow rules to keep any incursion by any third party out of the way so that those issues are absolutely never discussed.

In short, it's all about collusion. The Duopoly perpetuates itself via practices in politics that, if practiced in business would amount to blatant monopoly practices and be promptly broken up under anti-trust laws. Unfortunately we have no outside government capable of breaking up a political monopoly since the same monopoly already runs the government.

In a word, the US political system is run by racketeers.

And finally to bring it full circle, there walk among us those, represented heavily on a board like this, who cannot or will not see that the red and blue puppets are all run by the same set of hands and really believe they are different entities. As we say, "there are none so blind as those who will not see".

 

[OldLady]

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

Go to Conversations and start a new Conversation, naming a couple of the mods (one on duty if one is signed in) and request they close the thread. As the generator of the thread, yes, you can request it be closed, but just embedding it in a post here won't work because there are not enough moderators here to read every thread, even in the CDZ which is Zone 1.

 

[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:

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.

I can't imagine Wiki as "part of fake mediia", no. "Fake media" I think of as commercially-interested pseudo-journalistic parties whose goal is to create ad clicks to make more money for themselves, with whatever fake facts are involved being collateral damage. Wikipedia of course is not commercial.

Ironically the operation of Wiki is itself an exercise in democracy.by virtue of universal participation. Perhaps that's why authoritarians don't like it --- they can't control it.

 

[there4eyeM]

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?

Nothing in U.S. law limits parties in any way. There could be one/none, as at the very beginning of the nation, or there could be 20. At this time, there are technically about half a dozen, but the DemoReps have everything so tied up that only they have any voice.
Yes, people/voters are lazy.
It could have been prevented with education. It can be changed through motivation. In either case, more intelligence than is available appears to be necessary.
That is why some future form of meritocracy aided by so-called artificial intelligence may be a good thing.
It is very difficult to be optimistic, and too depressing to be pessimistic.

 

[Wry Catcher]

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.

A silent majority voted for Trump - Pence? That is the most ridiculous comment I've read in months.

Trump won by winning MI, WI and PA, with a total of 70,000 votes; they lost the popular vote by about 3 million votes.

The reader can be sure that most of those who voted for the Trump - Pence Ticket were far from silent, and I think it plausible that most of them yelled loudly and in unison, "Lock her up".

 

[Crepitus]

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.

You are apparently a victim of the process.

 

[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.

You are apparently a victim of the process.

Nope...didnt go to college so I avoided the indoctrination process.
And also managed to retire at 46.

 

[Muhammed]

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?

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

There is no Republican attack on education,(name calling edited)

 

[baum]

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.

Up to now i would have disagreed, because if you look at countries like Italy, where it was/is common to have more parties, several building the government, it was always problematic to find common ground on anything. So a lot of things werent done at all. So hopefully there is another solution than just more parties.

 

[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?

What we call our Duopoly has entrenched itself to such a degree that third (fourth, fifth) parties are technically possible but practically impossible. The two "parties" (read "party") collude with each other to keep it that way, truly the only activity where they really do act in a bipartisan way for a common goal, which is perpetuating themselves. I think of it as a grand puppet show where the puppeteer dresses half his puppets in red and the other in blue and we all play "let's pretend they're two different things".

One way they perpetuate that is the Electoral College, the indirect voting system where, as practiced, every electoral vote from a given state goes unanimously to the popular vote winner of that state, regardless whether the winner squeaked through with 50%-plus-one, or took 90%. This leaves us with the artificial construct of so-called "red states" and "blue states", which are dominated by one party, which in turn means there's no reason for a resident of either state to bother to vote -- the individual can vote with their state, vote against their state, vote for a third party or not vote at all, and all four actions produce the same result. This is a major reason our turnout is abysmally low -- for most people there's simply no point.

This also means all a Presidential candidate has to do is concentrate on those states that are competitive and could go either way, since the prize is winning ALL that state's votes. So, while the "red" and "blue" states are ignored by the candidates, the close so-called "swing" states get all the attention and all a winning candidate has to do is convince 50%-plus-one of those who do vote in that state, to vote for him or her. And this is exactly how Donald Rump won enough electoral votes while decisively losing the popular vote, and it's one of many times the flawed system produced this result.

The polarization of the Duopoly means that the impetus for voting in a state where one's votes actually matters (temporarily), settles on one of two choices: either voting for the candidate one believes in, or voting against the candidate one abhors in order to prevent the other one. And this becomes the mission of most people -- voting to block a candidate rather than voting to elect the other. And the Duopoly thus perpetuates itself, because in such a "swing" state a vote for Red might have an influence, a vote for Blue might have an influence, but a vote for a third party is definitely wasted. Moreover, since the Duopoly knows the final choice is always going to be a simple dichotomy, neither party has an incentive to present a candidate who excels, and the voters are presented with a final choice of two abysmal candidates. All either has to do is present a candidate with the message "at least I'm not as bad as that one", while simultaneously demonizing the other. Thus our vote is reduced to a blocking exercise.

This is all due to not just the Electoral College itself but the "winner take all" system that was adopted early in our history out of one state's own self-interest that was then adopted by the others in a cascade, and we've now been saddled with it for two hundred years.

Another way the Duopoly perpetuates itself is control of the dialogue. Until about three decades ago Presidential debates were organized and run by the nonpartisan League of Women Voters who independently set up the events and questions put to the candidates. The Duopoly, Republicans and Democrats in full cooperation, took that operation over by creating a puppet front called the "Commission on Presidential Debates", which acts as a negotiating table to ensure that such debates will present the illusion of critical discourse while sanitizing the content so that each party can veto issues it does not want discussed. And of course this "commission" also serves to make artificial Jim Crow rules to keep any incursion by any third party out of the way so that those issues are absolutely never discussed.

In short, it's all about collusion. The Duopoly perpetuates itself via practices in politics that, if practiced in business would amount to blatant monopoly practices and be promptly broken up under anti-trust laws. Unfortunately we have no outside government capable of breaking up a political monopoly since the same monopoly already runs the government.

In a word, the US political system is run by racketeers.

And finally to bring it full circle, there walk among us those, represented heavily on a board like this, who cannot or will not see that the red and blue puppets are all run by the same set of hands and really believe they are different entities. As we say, "there are none so blind as those who will not see".

Thanks a lot for the detailed answer. While most were known to me, i wasnt aware that the presidental debates werent run by journalists.

While i agree, that the system could be better, i find it not easy to find a solution. You could argue that a basis democratic system would be better, but i have my doubts about that. A couple of years back in germany emerged a new party "the pirates" - which had the basic concept to set up a voting system for most political questions. They got to around 10 percent for a while (which is great for a start-up party) and now they are basically gone, because they never found consensus and life isnt simple (you cant want to be in nato but have no army at all).
And while i agree, that politicans of any party are almost always a puppet of someone else, i must admit that Trump doesnt seem to be so. He is probably a puppet of his own interests and i doubt that most of his interests has anything to do with "making america great again", but he isnt played (at least not obviously). I think in general lobbys are the enemy of the people, but in the current case that doesnt seem to be the problem.

As to the recent elections, i agree that democrats would have won (not that i have to agree on a fact) with a more basis democracy like system, but i dont see that as a problem per se. Normally, overall the advantages and disadvantages should level out. Maybe not so well with just a few swing states, but given the changes in the presidency it doesnt seem like a total desaster.

Why cant we get "professional" politicans and pay them whatever necessary (like 1 million a year). Shouldnt make that them more independent and give successful people in business, science, whatever a good alternative? I personally would love politicans who try to find the best solution for as many people as possible and then put it into a law. Its just a unrealistic thought i think.

 

[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

Go to Conversations and start a new Conversation, naming a couple of the mods (one on duty if one is signed in) and request they close the thread. As the generator of the thread, yes, you can request it be closed, but just embedding it in a post here won't work because there are not enough moderators here to read every thread, even in the CDZ which is Zone 1.

Thanks for the tip

 

[Muhammed]

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?

When you refer to "we" that necessarily includes you. Explain to the forum why you are such an uneducated extremist.

 

[Leo123]

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?

The extremists were in charge for 8 years under Obama that is why we elected Trump who is NOT an extremist. As usual leftist have it ass backwards. Extremist Democrats tried to overthrow the election and are still trying a coup. If that isn't extremism I don't know what is. Wake up!!!

 

[Pogo]

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?

What we call our Duopoly has entrenched itself to such a degree that third (fourth, fifth) parties are technically possible but practically impossible. The two "parties" (read "party") collude with each other to keep it that way, truly the only activity where they really do act in a bipartisan way for a common goal, which is perpetuating themselves. I think of it as a grand puppet show where the puppeteer dresses half his puppets in red and the other in blue and we all play "let's pretend they're two different things".

One way they perpetuate that is the Electoral College, the indirect voting system where, as practiced, every electoral vote from a given state goes unanimously to the popular vote winner of that state, regardless whether the winner squeaked through with 50%-plus-one, or took 90%. This leaves us with the artificial construct of so-called "red states" and "blue states", which are dominated by one party, which in turn means there's no reason for a resident of either state to bother to vote -- the individual can vote with their state, vote against their state, vote for a third party or not vote at all, and all four actions produce the same result. This is a major reason our turnout is abysmally low -- for most people there's simply no point.

This also means all a Presidential candidate has to do is concentrate on those states that are competitive and could go either way, since the prize is winning ALL that state's votes. So, while the "red" and "blue" states are ignored by the candidates, the close so-called "swing" states get all the attention and all a winning candidate has to do is convince 50%-plus-one of those who do vote in that state, to vote for him or her. And this is exactly how Donald Rump won enough electoral votes while decisively losing the popular vote, and it's one of many times the flawed system produced this result.

The polarization of the Duopoly means that the impetus for voting in a state where one's votes actually matters (temporarily), settles on one of two choices: either voting for the candidate one believes in, or voting against the candidate one abhors in order to prevent the other one. And this becomes the mission of most people -- voting to block a candidate rather than voting to elect the other. And the Duopoly thus perpetuates itself, because in such a "swing" state a vote for Red might have an influence, a vote for Blue might have an influence, but a vote for a third party is definitely wasted. Moreover, since the Duopoly knows the final choice is always going to be a simple dichotomy, neither party has an incentive to present a candidate who excels, and the voters are presented with a final choice of two abysmal candidates. All either has to do is present a candidate with the message "at least I'm not as bad as that one", while simultaneously demonizing the other. Thus our vote is reduced to a blocking exercise.

This is all due to not just the Electoral College itself but the "winner take all" system that was adopted early in our history out of one state's own self-interest that was then adopted by the others in a cascade, and we've now been saddled with it for two hundred years.

Another way the Duopoly perpetuates itself is control of the dialogue. Until about three decades ago Presidential debates were organized and run by the nonpartisan League of Women Voters who independently set up the events and questions put to the candidates. The Duopoly, Republicans and Democrats in full cooperation, took that operation over by creating a puppet front called the "Commission on Presidential Debates", which acts as a negotiating table to ensure that such debates will present the illusion of critical discourse while sanitizing the content so that each party can veto issues it does not want discussed. And of course this "commission" also serves to make artificial Jim Crow rules to keep any incursion by any third party out of the way so that those issues are absolutely never discussed.

In short, it's all about collusion. The Duopoly perpetuates itself via practices in politics that, if practiced in business would amount to blatant monopoly practices and be promptly broken up under anti-trust laws. Unfortunately we have no outside government capable of breaking up a political monopoly since the same monopoly already runs the government.

In a word, the US political system is run by racketeers.

And finally to bring it full circle, there walk among us those, represented heavily on a board like this, who cannot or will not see that the red and blue puppets are all run by the same set of hands and really believe they are different entities. As we say, "there are none so blind as those who will not see".

Thanks a lot for the detailed answer. While most were known to me, i wasnt aware that the presidental debates werent run by journalists.

While i agree, that the system could be better, i find it not easy to find a solution. You could argue that a basis democratic system would be better, but i have my doubts about that. A couple of years back in germany emerged a new party "the pirates" - which had the basic concept to set up a voting system for most political questions. They got to around 10 percent for a while (which is great for a start-up party) and now they are basically gone, because they never found consensus and life isnt simple (you cant want to be in nato but have no army at all).
And while i agree, that politicans of any party are almost always a puppet of someone else, i must admit that Trump doesnt seem to be so. He is probably a puppet of his own interests and i doubt that most of his interests has anything to do with "making america great again", but he isnt played (at least not obviously). I think in general lobbys are the enemy of the people, but in the current case that doesnt seem to be the problem.

As to the recent elections, i agree that democrats would have won (not that i have to agree on a fact) with a more basis democracy like system, but i dont see that as a problem per se. Normally, overall the advantages and disadvantages should level out. Maybe not so well with just a few swing states, but given the changes in the presidency it doesnt seem like a total desaster.

Why cant we get "professional" politicans and pay them whatever necessary (like 1 million a year). Shouldnt make that them more independent and give successful people in business, science, whatever a good alternative? I personally would love politicans who try to find the best solution for as many people as possible and then put it into a law. Its just a unrealistic thought i think.

The basic problem may be that we don't elect executives, that is, those who would be good at managing. Instead we elect celebrities we would want to have a beer with, which has zero to do with the job. It's part of the consumer culture where everything is advertised for sale, certainly including personal mythologies.

In a perfect world with a competent executive most of us wouldn't even know what that executive looks like.

 

[Leo123]

The basic problem may be that we don't elect executives, that is, those who would be good at managing. Instead we elect celebrities we would want to have a beer with, which has zero to do with the job. It's part of the consumer culture where everything is advertised for sale, certainly including personal mythologies.

In a perfect world with a competent executive most of us wouldn't even know what that executive looks like.

The basic problem is that TDSers are guided by hate for Trump and will try to come up with any excuse to validate their unfounded hatred.

 

[Crepitus]

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.

You are apparently a victim of the process.

Nope...didnt go to college so I avoided the indoctrination process.
And also managed to retire at 46.

Of course you were. Because we know every republican is a wealthy job creating real estate mogul sniper with multiple homes, a trophy wife, and a huge gun collection.

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

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.

You are apparently a victim of the process.

Nope...didnt go to college so I avoided the indoctrination process.
And also managed to retire at 46.

Of course you were. Because we know every republican is a wealthy job creating real estate mogul sniper with multiple homes, a trophy wife, and a huge gun collection.

Ya got most of it right.

 

[Crepitus]

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?

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

There is no Republican attack on education,(name calling edited)

Of course there is.

The Republican Tax Bill’s Attack on Higher Education - The Atlantic

It's an ongoing thing. Uneducated people are easier to lead by the nose and less likely to question what they are told. That is the republican goal. They want sheep. Are you ready to be shorn?

 

[dblack]

The Republican Tax Bill’s Attack on Higher Education - The Atlantic

It's an ongoing thing. Uneducated people are easier to lead by the nose and less likely to question what they are told. That is the republican goal. They want sheep. Are you ready to be shorn?

I've always been suspicious of the notion that "education" is the way to deal with social problems. Aren't we really talking about control of education? ie "everything would be great if we could just teach everyone to think like me."

 

[Andylusion]

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?

What we call our Duopoly has entrenched itself to such a degree that third (fourth, fifth) parties are technically possible but practically impossible. The two "parties" (read "party") collude with each other to keep it that way, truly the only activity where they really do act in a bipartisan way for a common goal, which is perpetuating themselves. I think of it as a grand puppet show where the puppeteer dresses half his puppets in red and the other in blue and we all play "let's pretend they're two different things".

One way they perpetuate that is the Electoral College, the indirect voting system where, as practiced, every electoral vote from a given state goes unanimously to the popular vote winner of that state, regardless whether the winner squeaked through with 50%-plus-one, or took 90%. This leaves us with the artificial construct of so-called "red states" and "blue states", which are dominated by one party, which in turn means there's no reason for a resident of either state to bother to vote -- the individual can vote with their state, vote against their state, vote for a third party or not vote at all, and all four actions produce the same result. This is a major reason our turnout is abysmally low -- for most people there's simply no point.

This also means all a Presidential candidate has to do is concentrate on those states that are competitive and could go either way, since the prize is winning ALL that state's votes. So, while the "red" and "blue" states are ignored by the candidates, the close so-called "swing" states get all the attention and all a winning candidate has to do is convince 50%-plus-one of those who do vote in that state, to vote for him or her. And this is exactly how Donald Rump won enough electoral votes while decisively losing the popular vote, and it's one of many times the flawed system produced this result.

The polarization of the Duopoly means that the impetus for voting in a state where one's votes actually matters (temporarily), settles on one of two choices: either voting for the candidate one believes in, or voting against the candidate one abhors in order to prevent the other one. And this becomes the mission of most people -- voting to block a candidate rather than voting to elect the other. And the Duopoly thus perpetuates itself, because in such a "swing" state a vote for Red might have an influence, a vote for Blue might have an influence, but a vote for a third party is definitely wasted. Moreover, since the Duopoly knows the final choice is always going to be a simple dichotomy, neither party has an incentive to present a candidate who excels, and the voters are presented with a final choice of two abysmal candidates. All either has to do is present a candidate with the message "at least I'm not as bad as that one", while simultaneously demonizing the other. Thus our vote is reduced to a blocking exercise.

This is all due to not just the Electoral College itself but the "winner take all" system that was adopted early in our history out of one state's own self-interest that was then adopted by the others in a cascade, and we've now been saddled with it for two hundred years.

Another way the Duopoly perpetuates itself is control of the dialogue. Until about three decades ago Presidential debates were organized and run by the nonpartisan League of Women Voters who independently set up the events and questions put to the candidates. The Duopoly, Republicans and Democrats in full cooperation, took that operation over by creating a puppet front called the "Commission on Presidential Debates", which acts as a negotiating table to ensure that such debates will present the illusion of critical discourse while sanitizing the content so that each party can veto issues it does not want discussed. And of course this "commission" also serves to make artificial Jim Crow rules to keep any incursion by any third party out of the way so that those issues are absolutely never discussed.

In short, it's all about collusion. The Duopoly perpetuates itself via practices in politics that, if practiced in business would amount to blatant monopoly practices and be promptly broken up under anti-trust laws. Unfortunately we have no outside government capable of breaking up a political monopoly since the same monopoly already runs the government.

In a word, the US political system is run by racketeers.

And finally to bring it full circle, there walk among us those, represented heavily on a board like this, who cannot or will not see that the red and blue puppets are all run by the same set of hands and really believe they are different entities. As we say, "there are none so blind as those who will not see".

All political systems are run by racketeers.

You go look around the world, at all the political systems across this planet, they are all run by an elite few.

Here's my problem with your rant. It's not that you are somehow 'wrong'.... it's that you are implying this could be changed.

How could it be changed? Yes, maybe you could enforce a third party, or fourth, or fifth party, in the laws, and maybe dedictate seats in Congress to them.

Do you really think anything is going to change? Because I promise you, it won't. How do I know this? Because I read.

I've read about the system in England for example, and what do they say about their government? There are two main parties, and the third party is really just for show, and has little influence. I've read about the political parties in Greece, and how it's all the same people, they just change parties every other year, and the public goes ooooo look at the new political party! It'll be totally different than all the other political parties!

But it's the exact same groups of people, moving around, vying for power.

And if you want to know why this is.... I'll tell you the answer....

It's not the political system. It's not a problem of the election system. It's not a problem of the laws, or political parties, or anything else.

The bottom line is, it's a problem of the public. It's problem of the people. People here lie all the time. People here want to hear lies.

Obama was going to fix the economy. Obama was going to end racism. Obama was going to be the savior.

Why did Obama say all that crap? Because that's what people want to hear. They want lies. They want to be told "Yes we can", when government can't fix jack. They want to be told "Believe" and he can end racism.

You want to change the people we elect into office? You need to change yourself, and the people around you.

When the American public values truth over lies, and moral values over relativism, you'll end up with better people in office. Neither Hillary, nor Trump, would have ever been even nominated if the American public had core values.