Why I think Donald Trump running for president is a good thing

[geo]

Kontra Kommando said:

Parties themselves were never really accounted for when the founding fathers were creating our electoral process. They were introduced into U.S. politics in the 1800s, particularly in the election between Andrew Jackson and John Q. Adams. Washington himself warned against the divisiveness of what he referred to as "Factions". He was right; now because of the evolution of Democrats vs. Republicans, 50% of the nation is at odds with the other 50%. That's why I actually hate politics, because its basically another form of religious fundamentalism. Parties divide the country based on political ideology. When administrating a government, its a terrible idea of being committed to one school of thought; leaders need to be pragmatic, and adaptive. Only a fucking moron would allow his convictions to rule over reality. That's why politicians have a hard time keeping their promises; sometimes a conservative needs to raise taxes, and a liberal needs to cut funding.

Originally, the presidency was intended for individuals to vie for; not political groups. Moreover, the executive branch wasn't supposed to be such a powerful institution; Jackson changed that. Much of the U.S. political system was altered, from elections, to the range of powers of the president, when Andrew Jackson came on to the scene.

While I understand our forefathers felt that individuals should vie, the parties are there as a sort of vouch system. These national entities consisting of other politicians say this person is good enough to be president. They say this person among us politicians that people know and love is the best.

Like if you went into the phone book *ha* and wanted a plumber. Well they're all just there. Who do you chose? There's no sort of coalition telling you this plumber is the best among all of us. No one sticks out from the crowd.

You might be the best person for the job, but how will anyone else know that without your party of like minded people saying you are the best. All hail Mario the Plumba. A man that I've never seen plumb so much as I've seen go down a pipe and fuck shit up.

[Jaxxoon R]

Well, there's the intro to 3D World where he beats the shit out of a broken warp pipe until it starts working again.

[geo]

Jaxxoon R said:

Well, there's the intro to 3D World where he beats the shit out of a broken warp pipe until it starts working again.

I am not familiar with it. I'm curious to see though.

[Kontra Kommando]

That's the same method I used for my old TV set. Those were the good old days, when violence solved everything; even tech issues.

[geo]

Kontra Kommando said:

That's the same method I used for my old TV set. Those were the good old days, when violence solved everything; even tech issues.

Yeah I had an old giant stereo that worked the same way. Sound would cut out, someone would whack it on the side and boom it works.

Violence fixes everything, even a country.

[Kontra Kommando]

geo said:

Violence fixes everything, even a country.

Hey, it worked in 1865. As a matter of fact, people are still trying to do it in other places.

[Joke post disclaimer: Thus, please spare me the lecture guys.]

[geo]

I was fearing a lecture from my joke too.

[Bucket]

Poe's Law. You jest, but there are sadly people out there who really feel that way.

Kontra Kommando said:

I think the examples we gave you are sufficient for the areas of similarities we've mentioned. No doubt they have differences, but those similarities are pretty significant. Its not that he didn't get rid of all the shitty things bush did; he empowered some of them.

Enough to say they have similarities. Not enough to say Obama is a "third Bush". That is intellectual laziness.

[Kontra Kommando]

Bucket said:

Poe's Law. You jest, but there are sadly people out there who really feel that way.
Enough to say they have similarities. Not enough to say Obama is a "third Bush". That is intellectual laziness.

I agree that third bush is a hyperbole, but yes, there are some major similarities. When people voted for Obama in 2008, I doubt they would suspect him of being a champion of spying on citizens. That's a major reason why a lot of people hated Bush; scarifying our civil liberties in the name of counter-terrorism.

[myk]

What people who say they are the same aren't considering is that in politics you can only do so much. Given the financial, industrial and military infrastructure of the US, expecting Bush and Obama to be very different expects too much of what democracy and the executive are in the US. Granted, the Democrats pretty much threw away their proper governing strength by not being able to pull through with their own initiatives even when they started with both houses and the presidency, but that talks more about complexities, contradictions and ineptitudes than ideology or policy. Also, much of what the Bush administration did (the war, the PATRIOT act, restructuring, allowing financial bubbles) was heavily conditioning future policies, and some of what the Democrats did that you'd expect from Republicans was in trade-offs when they lost power in the senate and then congress.

Curiously, different people who say they are the same are often completely at odds with each other on most key policies, which makes their "agreement" about this pretty irrelevant. If not, both presidents are "degenerate libreals" and "conservative nazis" at the same time.

[Kontra Kommando]

myk said:

What people who say they are the same aren't considering is that in politics you can only do so much. Given the financial, industrial and military infrastructure of the US, expecting Bush and Obama to be very different expects too much of what democracy and the executive are in the US. Granted, the Democrats pretty much threw away their proper governing strength by not being able to pull through with their own initiatives even when they started with both houses and the presidency, but that talks more about complexities, contradictions and ineptitudes than ideology or policy. Also, much of what the Bush administration did (the war, the PATRIOT act, restructuring, allowing financial bubbles) was heavily conditioning future policies, and some of what the Democrats did that you'd expect from Republicans was in trade-offs when they lost power in the senate and then congress.

But also, Democrats have a harder time organizing support within their own constituency. Only 44% of Democrats identify as liberal, while 70% of Republicans identify as conservative. Further 19% of Democrats consider themselves conservative, while only 5% of Republicans consider themselves liberal. Those Democrat senators and congressmen are compelled to serve the interests of their districts first, before the broader national democratic voting constituency. Thus the super-majority the dems had was only superficial, when they won big in 2008. The GOP benefits from more ideological homogeneity within their constituency than the democrats.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/180452/liberals-record-trail-conservatives.aspx

Conservatives out number liberals 38% to 24% in the USA. This is why the house republicans were able to easily inhibit much of what Obama wanted. Because a big portion of those democrat congressmen had to serve conservatives and moderates within their own voting districts; or lose their job within 2 years. The media loves to paint a simplistic binary situation of Democrat vs Republican; but its more nuanced than that.

[fraggle]

Kontra Kommando said:

Parties themselves were never really accounted for when the founding fathers were creating our electoral process.

Perhaps a nice idea but unrealistically idealistic in practice.

Politicians are always going to combine their political influences in order to have more impact together then alone. That's never going to change. You could ban political parties for example but those alliances would just become secretive and informal.

I'd rather see a political system that recognizes that such alliances are how politics really works (and always will work) and apportions them influence fairly according to the support they have from the public. At least that way it's transparent and you're representing the will of the people in terms of their support for different positions.

At the very least I'd hope it's obvious that having many smaller alliances is better at representing real political viewpoints than two monolithic voting blocs that stand for nothing really. But the current voting system guarantees the latter outcome.

[SavageCorona]

Trump's new campaign poster

[hardcore_gamer]

If I may ask, why do you people think that personal attacks are such a great way for getting your point across? You accuse Trump of being an asshole who is rude to people, but look at what you are doing...

[SavageCorona]

I just thought it was a funny picture. I still think he's an asshole who should fuck off though.

[Quast]

hardcore_gamer said:

If I may ask, why do you people think that personal attacks are such a great way for getting your point across? You accuse Trump of being an asshole who is rude to people, but look at what you are doing...

Look, it's one thing to say you might agree with his political platform, but are you fucking seriously coming to the defense of the hurt feelings of a narcissist of the highest order?

Donald trump is a fucking joke. He has been a clown his entire adult life and everybody knows it. At least those of us in the united states anyway are well versed in the pointless drama of his stupid escapades for decades now.

[Enjay]

The Onion:

http://www.theonion.com/blogpost/admit-it-you-people-want-see-how-far-goes-dont-you-50895

[myk]

Kontra Kommando said:

But also, Democrats have a harder time organizing support within their own constituency. Only 44% of Democrats identify as liberal, while 70% of Republicans identify as conservative. Further 19% of Democrats consider themselves conservative, while only 5% of Republicans consider themselves liberal. Those Democrat senators and congressmen are compelled to serve the interests of their districts first, before the broader national democratic voting constituency. Thus the super-majority the dems had was only superficial, when they won big in 2008. The GOP benefits from more ideological homogeneity within their constituency than the democrats.

That would be more balanced and linked more clearly to population interests if public media and public-backed cooperative media were strengthened. Agreeing with fraggle, it also shows how damaging bipartisanship is to democracy. Some of the tendencies within each party would have chances to grow (but in some cases decrease) through more independent political action if representativity were enhanced.

In line with all this, Donald Trump would likely fit in a separate minority party more transparently representing high-class demographics, perhaps with some (white-only?) populist elements.

[Doomkid]

Yeah, Dolan Trump is a great candidate.

Pfft...

Pffpfft...

..BAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA Oh my fucking god what a joke! That dude is a racist as fuck "business above the people" lunatic! FUCKING ROFL

[Cupboard]

Nice Enjay, but I also liked this earlier one:
http://www.theonion.com/article/trump-tells-iowa-dairy-farmers-he-has-cows-500-tim-50792

(for those who don't know, Iowa has the earliest caucus in the political primary season. New Hampshire is also very early. So the media goes haywire when reporting about Iowa)

[dg93]

LOL Ramzpaul makes some good points about Trump's lack of giving a fuck about other people's precious feelings.

[Kontra Kommando]

http://www.cnn.com/2015/07/26/politics/cnn-poll-presidential-race/

52% of Republicans are behind Trump. I am a lot more confident now that he will take the GOP primaries.

The other day, someone on TV (i forget who) had said Trump could be like an American version of Silvio Berlusconi. Both are straight-talking, billionaires.

[Cupboard]

Dude.

He's not going to be the Republican nominee. He has zero inroads in Washington D.C. (no connections) and he can't go more than a few days without making a fool of himself on national television. That is not the kind of person the American public want to hear about. People need to be able to "respect" the president, even if they think he is secretly plotting to destroy the USA. Nobody respects Trump except for his entertainment value. Italian politics is a whole different animal from the US version. For one thing, Berlusconi was an established politician who had a history of passing laws even if his personal life was despicable. Trump has made absolutely zero contribution to the public sphere (American society and government).

Have you people not been paying attention? That last primary season, the Republican primary process disregarded 10+ excitingly bold and/or ignorant candidates in favor of Mitt Romney, probably the most boring, least inspiring, least likable person from the entire field. Donald Trump is not a "safe bet". Mitt Romney was (he was rich as hell, had enormous amounts of political connections, and he was a two-term governor in a liberal Democratic-voting state). And the Republicans are looking for someone who can easily deliver the election, not a firebrand or ideologue.

[Bucket]

Kontra Kommando said:

The other day, someone on TV (i forget who) had said Trump could be like an American version of Silvio Berlusconi. Both are straight-talking, billionaires.

What is their definition of "straight-talking"? I'm genuinely curious.
What makes a jingoistic, antagonistic attention whore "straight-talking"?

[Enjay]

Berlusconi straight talking? Which comedian said that? Berlusconi is a text book example of a corrupt politician.

[Phobus]

No, no, he meant "straight"-talking. Like a red blooded male obsessed with sex, women and being a man.

[Kontra Kommando]

Straight-talk meaning politically-incorrect; that's what I assume was implied by the commentator.

Phobus said:

No, no, he meant "straight"-talking. Like a red blooded male obsessed with sex, women and being a man.

Well, that's not a bad thing.

[Enjay]

Yeah, but if you are trying to pick someone as an example of a "straight talker" there has to be a better option than Berlusconi given that much of his "straight talking" was in fact utterly deceitful: flat out lies to cover up his intimidation, bribery, abuse of office, tax fraud, sexual misconduct etc etc or just straight out defamation of opponents.

[FireFish]

SavageCorona said:

Trump's new campaign poster
http://i.imgur.com/dJkM3Xo.jpg

I really do not get the parody, satire, cartoon, or joke...
Its just an attack against the physical appearance of his lip positions... And a totally standard physical shape, especially for older men.

[Jaxxoon R]

I dunno bout you, but I've never seen an old man that looks anything like that.

geo said:

I am not familiar with it. I'm curious to see though.

K