US Presidential Candidates

The E wrote:
[SNIP]

Which reminds me.

pokermind wrote:

Poker, is that picture continuously updated to reflect Trump's habit of doing 180s on issues?

I rather doubt it.

Here is an interesting thought on "Political Correctness" thought policing, "Beware of Kafkatrapping":

http://www.thedailybell.com/editorials/wendy-mcelroy-beware-of-kafkatrapping/

Enjoy, Poker

The E wrote:

it is about retaining as much of our representative republic as we can. Electing Hillary allows oligarchy entrench deeply enough that it may never be pushed out again.

I think electing an actual oligarch to prevent the US from becoming an oligarchy (never mind that that particular train has left the station quite some time ago already) is the kind of weirdness completely unexplainable to outsiders that seems to crop up in every large nation.

You are willfully missing the entire point. Trump is an oligarch, but his faction is neigh impotent and minute even if he has a significant number of voters. Hillary is an oligarch but her faction is neigh legally untouchable and very potent in their use of power.

I would prefer electing neither candidate. I don't have that option. I choose the candidate with the least ability to further entrench oligarchy. The candidate who hasn't proven that they are above the law so long as their faction remains in office. I chose to keep Hillary out of office.

Peter et al, you're all missing the point here. America is already an oligarchy, and has been such for a long, long time. The fact of the matter is that, unless you're wealthy or manage to collect obscene amounts of money from wealthy donors (which kind of obligates you to promote those donors' interests), you'll find it very difficult to get elected to Congress or the Presidency. I'm insufficiently informed about the costs of running for state-level office, but the cost of running for federal office is simply astronomical. So even if the actual candidates do not themselves belong to the upper class elite, their donors do.

I almost want to argue that this is the intended nature of your constitutional system (after all, the Senate was originally designed to represent the 'better sorts' of American society), combined with the sheer magnitude of your population/electorate.

Any political system that doesn't implement strict campaign finance regulation will be vulnerable to oligarchization. Add an electorate that is too big to practice direct democracy and that process becomes virtually inevitable.

Where do you live, Nico? Your post suggests not in the US. Your posts also suggest that we in the US should suck it up and get used to corrupt oligarchs. We do after all already suffer under oligarchy.

So our attempts to beat back oligarchy is foolish. Better to elect Clinton and make our oligarchs beyond the law because Trump is an ass. It is my opinion that it is better to deal with an ass-President still subject to the law than a corrupt one that stands above it.

If you are a foreigner you might prefer a leader of that better sort you speak of. We foolish Americans tend not to agree.

Btw, you have no clue why we have senators, do you?

Nico wrote:Peter et al, you're all missing the point here. America is already an oligarchy, and has been such for a long, long time. The fact of the matter is that, unless you're wealthy or manage to collect obscene amounts of money from wealthy donors (which kind of obligates you to promote those donors' interests), you'll find it very difficult to get elected to Congress or the Presidency. I'm insufficiently informed about the costs of running for state-level office, but the cost of running for federal office is simply astronomical. So even if the actual candidates do not themselves belong to the upper class elite, their donors do.

I almost want to argue that this is the intended nature of your constitutional system (after all, the Senate was originally designed to represent the 'better sorts' of American society), combined with the sheer magnitude of your population/electorate.

Any political system that doesn't implement strict campaign finance regulation will be vulnerable to oligarchization. Add an electorate that is too big to practice direct democracy and that process becomes virtually inevitable.

PeterZ wrote:So our attempts to beat back oligarchy is foolish. Better to elect Clinton and make our oligarchs beyond the law because Trump is an ass. It is my opinion that it is better to deal with an ass-President still subject to the law than a corrupt one that stands above it.

If your goal is to restore the american republic, then your first step should not involve electing someone as president who is very much an embodiment of the problems it has. Trump is an oligarch. He is not going to turn the US back into the democracy its founders envisioned.

Your optimism regarding Trump being "subject to the law" is admirable, but misplaced. Look at Italy's Silvio Berlusconi as an example, someone who truly was deserving of being called corrupt and self-serving.

I'm South African.

As for the Senate, it was designed to offer equal representation to the States, and therefor protection for their interests.

However, the writings of the Founding Fathers clearly state - and the original indirect manner in which Senators were elected by the State legislatures supports that supposition - that the Senate was intended to represent the interests of the monied class.

I said nothing about supporting oligarchical government. What I did was stating an observation about the nature of democratic rule: the larger the electorate, the more money is needed by candidates to reach out to that electorate, and the more politics become limited to the upper class elites of society.

I even offered a simple solution to the problem: strict limits on campaign contributions.

Clearly you suffer from the worst kind of American parochialism - the kind that thinks foreigners are all ignorant boors when it comes to all things American.

However, I assure you that, given America's vital role as leader of the Free World, many foreigners tend to take an intense interest in America's domestic affairs. After all, what happens in the US is likely to impact the rest of the world.

Nico wrote:
I said nothing about supporting oligarchical government. What I did was stating an observation about the nature of democratic rule: the larger the electorate, the more money is needed by candidates to reach out to that electorate, and the more politics become limited to the upper class elites of society.

I even offered a simple solution to the problem: strict limits on campaign contributions.

It takes so much money to run a national campaign, the limits would have to be too high for 3rd party candidates to compete. How about a truly American solution: Require all candidates to wear sponsorship logos, like NASCAR drivers.

What optimism? You continually ignore Hillary's proven ability to not simply evade the law, but ignore it with impunity. Trump has yet to prove he has the connections to manage that.

Sorry but you and most foreigners appear to want Hillary because your interests served best by her. Fair enough. The trouble is your preference places an unpalatable burden on US citizens. Pardon me for wanting your interests truly screwed in that regard.

The E wrote:

PeterZ wrote:So our attempts to beat back oligarchy is foolish. Better to elect Clinton and make our oligarchs beyond the law because Trump is an ass. It is my opinion that it is better to deal with an ass-President still subject to the law than a corrupt one that stands above it.

If your goal is to restore the american republic, then your first step should not involve electing someone as president who is very much an embodiment of the problems it has. Trump is an oligarch. He is not going to turn the US back into the democracy its founders envisioned.

Your optimism regarding Trump being "subject to the law" is admirable, but misplaced. Look at Italy's Silvio Berlusconi as an example, someone who truly was deserving of being called corrupt and self-serving.

Nico,

You are from South Africa. My parochialism may accurately name you a Boer or boor as is your preference. You are right that the fundamental elitism's of the founders wanted to establish barriers to a true democracy. I believe the Republic they established balanced individual rights with democracy's populism to avoid a tyrrany of the majority.

That brings up an excellent parallel to these current times. Andrew Jackson used populism to establish the Democrat party and defeat John Quincy Adams in 1828, the last vestige of our founding elite. JQA won in 1824 even though Jackson won both the popular vote and a plurality of the electoral vote. This was possible because the elites in Congress decides between the top 3 candidates if none have a majority. This was the founding elite's last gasp. The Democrats served as the populist balance to the monied Whigs until the civil war when THEIR elites used States rights to entrench slavery.

The Republican party separated out of the Whig party to fight slavery in 1854. Lincoln won in the presidency in 1860 with a large popular support in the northern States.

In both cases of powerful populist movements leading to Jackson and Lincoln, the elites got complacent. They used their "secure" power to abuse their authority, to emphasize that they WERE America's elites. That balance I spoke of earlier reminded the elites each time that our Constitution provides for individual liberties that can offset the power and wealth of self aggrandizing elites.

It is time to remind our self aggrandizing elites in this current incarnation what their antecedents learned. Wealth and power can only achieve so much. When populist movements get started, come along or get out of the way. Trying to stop it will get you trampled.

dscott8 wrote:It takes so much money to run a national campaign, the limits would have to be too high for 3rd party candidates to compete. How about a truly American solution: Require all candidates to wear sponsorship logos, like NASCAR drivers.

I agree. Don't restrict liberty, but use an expansion of transparency to better inform the electorate of who is supporting whom.

As for 3rd Party candidates, that's where the press is trying to play gate keeper. They ignore 3rd parties and use the silliest reasons why. Include any candidate that has his or her name on all the State's ballots for President in any debate. It doesn't matter what the degree of support, cover any candidate that has successfully made it on all the ballots.

The SOBs in the press have gotten as full of themselves as the current elites.