Forum Thread

Make Mr. Trump Unelectable

Reply to ThreadDisplaying 16 - 30 of 92 Prev 1 2 3 4 5 .. 7 Next
  • Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    Chet Ruminski Wrote:
    Dave, The way to handle Trump is take his claims to fame one by one. Acknowledge his accomplishments and the how we can take his starts and turn them into rockets to success. It is easy to show how his plans are sthmied by Republican principles whereas they are custom made for Democratic improvements. Exemplify his promise of insurance for everybody and show how the Democratic way can make it a world enby. I had expressed this idea during the campaign and shortly thereafter Saturday Night Live did a skit about it.

    Chet.

    You are missing the point of my original post. We should have an electoral system that will either not elect someone like Mr. Trump or make sure his rise to more responsibility is hindered.

    If the TDG is implemented, Mr. Trump would not rise very high for several reasons:

    1) He would not want to start at the ground floor of governance. I can't see him in meetings deciding which potholes get fixed first or which playground equipment gets repaired.

    2) His neighbors in Trump Tower would likely not vote for him for neighborhood representative.

    3) If they do, his style would not work well at the district level of the TDG. He would not earn the trust and respect of other neighborhood representatives. He would not rise any higher.

    There are all sorts of people already pointing out the flaws of Mr. Trump. If you are repeating them on Democratic Hub or in your local coffee shop, your time and efforts are mostly wasted. Mr. Trump's electoral success depends more on whether the D's elect a credible candidate as their presidential candidate than on anything you do or say.

    Put your efforts in something that could be a lot more constructive for humanity. The TDG is only a three-hour read.

  • Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        

    Sorry Dave, I was responding to the title "Make Mr Trump Unelectable".

    PS, I wasn't pointing out his flaws. I am on record saying it is wasted time to attack him. I was elucidating a method to obviate Trump.

  • Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        

    I see the system working in getting rid of trump. Trump is a cancer within our current system, and the anti-bodies are effectively fighting off the cancer. Containing it, limiting its scope of destruction. I remain confident he will not be president on day 730 (Jan 20th, 2019). Mostly likely he will declare complete victory, pardon 100s criminal (ie Bernie Madoff types) including his family and himself, and then resigns.

    I agree with Dave in the sense that the system is flawed by allowing such an inept person become president. Compounded by that fact he is morally\ethically corrupt and has strong criminal tendencies; when given the choice, 9 out 10 times he will chose bad over good. Nobody like trump should be elected to any local level office, let alone anything higher. Our system had a major failure to properly vet some who has now become the world's most dangerous threat.

  • Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    A majority of democrats (see blue wave) in the house and senate would assure us there won't even be a Trump running in 2020, if that happens, our system has worked.
  • Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    wwjd Wrote:

    I see the system working in getting rid of trump. Trump is a cancer within our current system, and the anti-bodies are effectively fighting off the cancer. Containing it, limiting its scope of destruction.

    There are lots of good signs that the "antibodies" of American democracy are well in place. The more-than-a-few peaceful protests, disguised as a social issue of some sort, are mostly anti-Trump rallies. CNN and MSNBC and certain newspapers with a obvious slant are playing their part as well. Court rulings remind him that there are laws. The Mueller inquiry, which I have my doubts of finding much substantial in election tampering, is also a force of containment. Mr. Trump is unlikely to admit that he is contained. In many ways, he is just as impotent as Obama in moving America in any direction.

    And so far, he seems to be staying mostly within the rules. No Nazi brownshirts yet.

    A lot will depend on the 50% of Americans who normally don't vote. Will they come out in November to cast an anti-T vote? If they do flip the House and/or Senate, expect more presidential impotency. If not, the 30% base may become more emboldened. No one seems to really know the mindset of this very large demographic.

    But an anti-Trump result in November or 2020 will not solve USA's problems. That 30% base is still very strong and influential. They will not go away if and when Mr. Trump becomes unelected.

    1% of Americans need to look beyond their constitution, which is has outlived its purpose and needs to be retired.

  • Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        

    Dave said,

    "1% of Americans need to look beyond their constitution, which is has outlived its purpose and needs to be retired."

    Simply doing away with the "Commodities Futures Modernization Act" and reregulating derivatives would bring a level of prosperity to the country. In 20 years nothing has been done in that direction. What do you think your chances are of retiring the constitution that has served the rich and powerful so well? All the moaning and groaning about one small part, the electoral college, won't get that changed. Look at all the diversification within this forum that identifies with one party. This is probably the most open minded type of group you could present to and you say nobody has visited your presentation. Things change only with cataclysmic inspiration.

  • Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        

    Dave, as regards to your Tiered government ideas. I am still working my way though the chapters. I like you have videos.

    TDG probably works well based on what you consider to be good and bad government and good\bad social policies. What I am curious about is how well it would work with ideas\values that others consider important, but you disagree?

    One example could be on the Roe Vs Wade. I have no idea where you stand on the issue, but I suspect tiered government would result in an outcome that supports your personal perspective, which suggests those who disagree would be forced to accept that the tried government laws that do not support their values.

    We could even use slavery as an issue; if TDG was put into place originally back in the 1700s. How would it have dealt with slavery so that TDG quickly and effectively made slavery illegal when a majority of the south's economic hard labor workforce was dependent to slavery. The slave states would not have given up slavery based on some moral argument or even moral pressure or guilt. Hell, upstanding religious leaders of the time had sex with their very young female slaves and had no moral issue with it (underage rape) because slaves were not perceived to be "human beings", slaves were no different than owning cattle or a pet. Maybe tiered government could only work moving forward, and would not work the further back in history we go. A bit like taking a radio, TV, cell phone back in time. Such devices would not work because the lack of infrastructure required to make them operate.

    What I can agree with is that all governments are destine to die and will be replaced with better more efficient forms of governments that protect human rights over economic rights of cooperations and power controlling religions. I say they all die because historically they all have died to be replaced by something that else, which historically has been a progression forward, not backwards. Occasionally, there have been tests of long term governing ideas (ie democracy vs dictatorships), where there is one step backwards before taking more steps forward.

  • Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    wwjd Wrote:

    I see the system working in getting rid of trump. Trump is a cancer within our current system, and the anti-bodies are effectively fighting off the cancer. Containing it, limiting its scope of destruction. I remain confident he will not be president on day 730 (Jan 20th, 2019). Mostly likely he will declare complete victory, pardon 100s criminal (ie Bernie Madoff types) including his family and himself, and then resigns.

    I agree with Dave in the sense that the system is flawed by allowing such an inept person become president. Compounded by that fact he is morally\ethically corrupt and has strong criminal tendencies; when given the choice, 9 out 10 times he will chose bad over good. Nobody like trump should be elected to any local level office, let alone anything higher. Our system had a major failure to properly vet some who has now become the world's most dangerous threat.

    Yes you are pointing exactly where the problem is; the "vetting system" is totally corrupted here. Look at the Kavanaugh hearing; it is totally "bullied" from the start. I expect vetting to be done as Mueller is doing now "afterwards" which should have been done "beforehand" before any nomination. As I've said so many times an government "system" which is totally corrupted by "money" can never be called Democratic.
  • Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    Chet Ruminski Wrote:

    Dave said,

    "1% of Americans need to look beyond their constitution, which is has outlived its purpose and needs to be retired."

    Simply doing away with the "Commodities Futures Modernization Act" and reregulating derivatives would bring a level of prosperity to the country. In 20 years nothing has been done in that direction. What do you think your chances are of retiring the constitution that has served the rich and powerful so well? All the moaning and groaning about one small part, the electoral college, won't get that changed. Look at all the diversification within this forum that identifies with one party. This is probably the most open minded type of group you could present to and you say nobody has visited your presentation. Things change only with cataclysmic inspiration.

    Chet: I formulated my ideas in 1992, after experiencing the internal dysfunction of a political party. I started putting my ideas on paper in 1997. First edition was self published in 2000. Second was a scholarly attempt in 2004, which didn't get published (the scholars were very critical). Then I got rid of the academic stuff to create the 3rd edition in 2009, web published. With the rise of Mr. Trump, I thought my ideas should get some traction finally. So I revamped the website in 2017, which also led to the 4th edition as an ebook.

    It is frustrating in that I have some medicine for an ailment, yet the world is not interested. But I shall keep plugging on, time and energy permitting.

    I believe the progressive mindset will be more accepting of the TDG, but this political culture is to resistant to change. We shall see.

  • Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    wwjd Wrote:

    Dave, as regards to your Tiered government ideas. I am still working my way though the chapters. I like you have videos.

    TDG probably works well based on what you consider to be good and bad government and good\bad social policies. What I am curious about is how well it would work with ideas\values that others consider important, but you disagree?

    One example could be on the Roe Vs Wade. I have no idea where you stand on the issue, but I suspect tiered government would result in an outcome that supports your personal perspective, which suggests those who disagree would be forced to accept that the tried government laws that do not support their values.

    We could even use slavery as an issue; if TDG was put into place originally back in the 1700s. How would it have dealt with slavery so that TDG quickly and effectively made slavery illegal when a majority of the south's economic hard labor workforce was dependent to slavery. The slave states would not have given up slavery based on some moral argument or even moral pressure or guilt. Hell, upstanding religious leaders of the time had sex with their very young female slaves and had no moral issue with it (underage rape) because slaves were not perceived to be "human beings", slaves were no different than owning cattle or a pet. Maybe tiered government could only work moving forward, and would not work the further back in history we go. A bit like taking a radio, TV, cell phone back in time. Such devices would not work because the lack of infrastructure required to make them operate.

    What I can agree with is that all governments are destine to die and will be replaced with better more efficient forms of governments that protect human rights over economic rights of cooperations and power controlling religions. I say they all die because historically they all have died to be replaced by something that else, which historically has been a progression forward, not backwards. Occasionally, there have been tests of long term governing ideas (ie democracy vs dictatorships), where there is one step backwards before taking more steps forward.

    wwjd

    Thanks for taking a serious look at the TDG. I'm glad you like the videos. In my mind, they are OK, but I would like to do them over again. I have a plan to rework the website if there is more interest.

    You have asked a great question: How does a citizen handle a TDG decision that the citizen does not like?

    On one level, the citizen will handle such a decision in the same way as decision of western democracy: Just put up with it.

    On a higher level, the TDG citizen should also realize that the TDG has found some capable people and put them into a consultative decision-making process. The citizen will realized that these people analyzed the issue from different perspectives, consulted with experts, had access to a lot of data and information, and looked at history. While the citizen may still disagree with the decision, the citizen should recognize that the decision-making body had a lot more tools to come to that decision. The citizen should just let the decision carry through its natural course to find out whether it was right or wrong.

    Decisions from western democracies may be altruistically motivated and derived from the process described above. But the decision may also have vested interests influencing it. The average citizen often believes that these vested interests play a more important role in formulating public decision, so the whole process is discredited--even when altruism is the prime motivator. With the TDG, the vested interest component of a decision mostly disappears. Therefore TDG decisions will be more respected--even if there is some citizenry disagreement.

    Abortion is a good example. I would say that future TDG decision makers--if they were so inclined to be anti-abortionists--would realize that banning abortions will not stop abortions. The ban will just drive the medical procedure underground, and probably cause a lot of different societal problems. I do believe that TDG representatives will be both realistic and flexible in finding solutions to various social issues. And I think that keeping their sex drive under control will encourage the general citizenry to be a little more mindful of their desires as well. Any ways, that is far into the future, and I don't want to speculate too much.

    In 2014, I had an interesting discussion with a fellow from Atlanta. He wanted to put some humanistic principles in the early TDG constitutions. At first, I was rather hesitant as too many of these principles could be a cause of division, and hinder the start of teh TDG. Then I thought: We could put in some basic principles that many could agree with. So I recommend that early TDG builders find some words to lead to eliminating racism and gender inequality. Many people can still get behind these principles--and putting these principles in place will keep a real toxic attitude away from the TDG.

    If the early builders want to put in more humanistic principles into their early TDG constitutions, they have the freedom to do so. It will be a good social experiment to conduct, and time will tell whether my suspicions of having too many principles is a hindrance or not. With this knowledge, other early TDGs will learn.

    As for the TDG somehow endorsing slavery, I can't see it. If a TDG locality is being built with this mindset motivating it, I don't think it will be capable of joining with other local TDGs, let alone commanding enough respect and trust from the general citizenry to eventually assume authority and responsibility of governance.

    And we should be mindful that we are in a state of evolution in so many things. My heritage is the peasant classes of Eastern Europe. If you had told my great-grandparents that they could have a say in governance--and throw out inept or corrupt leaders--they would have deemed that as impossible. But their children did come to Canada and experienced that part of western democracy; my maternal grandfather just loved voting! In a like manner, the building of the TDG will provide a new experience for our progeny. They will look back and wonder why we were so silly. But the truth will be that we had to learn some new ways to give them a better world.

  • Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    Dave Volek Wrote:
    Chet Ruminski Wrote:

    Dave said,

    "1% of Americans need to look beyond their constitution, which is has outlived its purpose and needs to be retired."

    Simply doing away with the "Commodities Futures Modernization Act" and reregulating derivatives would bring a level of prosperity to the country. In 20 years nothing has been done in that direction. What do you think your chances are of retiring the constitution that has served the rich and powerful so well? All the moaning and groaning about one small part, the electoral college, won't get that changed. Look at all the diversification within this forum that identifies with one party. This is probably the most open minded type of group you could present to and you say nobody has visited your presentation. Things change only with cataclysmic inspiration.

    Chet: I formulated my ideas in 1992, after experiencing the internal dysfunction of a political party. I started putting my ideas on paper in 1997. First edition was self published in 2000. Second was a scholarly attempt in 2004, which didn't get published (the scholars were very critical). Then I got rid of the academic stuff to create the 3rd edition in 2009, web published. With the rise of Mr. Trump, I thought my ideas should get some traction finally. So I revamped the website in 2017, which also led to the 4th edition as an ebook.

    It is frustrating in that I have some medicine for an ailment, yet the world is not interested. But I shall keep plugging on, time and energy permitting.

    I believe the progressive mindset will be more accepting of the TDG, but this political culture is to resistant to change. We shall see.

    Dave you are probably a thousand times better of a person than Trump. So logic and objectivity don't count. I have been crusading for financial reform since Bill Clinton. I was a local commissioner in the UMWA for years handling grievances for workers. One case that caused a strike was about a worker that was fired because he refused to move a port-a-potty in a tunnel that was advancing. The final meeting was with the mine superintendent, mine foreman, shift foreman, company lawyer all on the company side, labor arbitrator and for the union the worker and me. That was in 1978 and animosity was high between the company and union. It was mean fighting all the time. The worker said it would make him sick if he had to move the portapotty. The company maintained he refused an order and there was no evidence he would get sick. My argument was they were not doctors and could not determine the outcome of order. The arbitrator ruled in my favor and the worker was allowed to go back to work. The worker thanked the company for giving him his job back and said "I don't know why the union had to make such a big deal about this". The point I am making is that we don't know anything for real. Everything is just a compilation of averages. There is no clue to outcomes when reduced to individual situations. I started out saying you are probably a thousand times better than Trump. But Trump is charismatic and if you had that type of charisma you would be a world renowned philosopher. The world is hard to understand.
  • Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    Dutch Wrote:
    Yes you are pointing exactly where the problem is; the "vetting system" is totally corrupted here. Look at the Kavanaugh hearing; it is totally "bullied" from the start. I expect vetting to be done as Mueller is doing now "afterwards" which should have been done "beforehand" before any nomination. As I've said so many times an government "system" which is totally corrupted by "money" can never be called Democratic.

    The political party I worked for tried to vet candidates. But that never really worked out, the committees assigned to inspect the candidates really had no power to say "yea" or "nay". In the end, the party had its fair share of capable candidates and incapable candidates and mediocre candidates.

    The TDG will be a continual system of vetting. A representative will not rise to higher levels of governance if character and capacity are not proven at the lower levels.

    And this kind of brings us back to the original post: Mr. Trump would not rise in the TDG. If one does not like Mr. Trump, one should consider the TDG as a means to prevent this from happening again. But if we keep the current system in place, we should not be surprised it does happen again. The next populist leader could come from the political left.

  • Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    Chet Ruminski Wrote:
    Dave you are probably a thousand times better of a person than Trump. So logic and objectivity don't count. I have been crusading for financial reform since Bill Clinton. I was a local commissioner in the UMWA for years handling grievances for workers. One case that caused a strike was about a worker that was fired because he refused to move a port-a-potty in a tunnel that was advancing. The final meeting was with the mine superintendent, mine foreman, shift foreman, company lawyer all on the company side, labor arbitrator and for the union the worker and me. That was in 1978 and animosity was high between the company and union. It was mean fighting all the time. The worker said it would make him sick if he had to move the portapotty. The company maintained he refused an order and there was no evidence he would get sick. My argument was they were not doctors and could not determine the outcome of order. The arbitrator ruled in my favor and the worker was allowed to go back to work. The worker thanked the company for giving him his job back and said "I don't know why the union had to make such a big deal about this". The point I am making is that we don't know anything for real. Everything is just a compilation of averages. There is no clue to outcomes when reduced to individual situations. I started out saying you are probably a thousand times better than Trump. But Trump is charismatic and if you had that type of charisma you would be a world renowned philosopher. The world is hard to understand.

    Chet: Thank you for the nice comments. And I'm helping a few workers with their workers' compensation case for workplace injuries. I would like to do more of this, but family life is too busy.

    I originally got involved in politics because I envisioned myself as an elected official someday. But after about a year, I figured out I really didn't want the lifestyle of a politician AND I probably was not that electable (go to my videos and see mediocre public speaking skills). But I stayed in the back rooms hoping my presence would somehow make the world a better place.

    I have a zero chance of ever being elected to public office in western democracy. I am just not willing to sacrifice the time and energy for an election campaign. With the TDG in place and if my neighbors like me, I could be our neighborhood representative. I think I am fair in meetings, and maybe that fairness will make me rise higher in the TDG. In other words, the TDG is going to find a different kind of person to be elected. Classic introverts actually have a chance to participate!

  • Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    Dave Volek Wrote:

    I have a zero chance of ever being elected to public office in western democracy. I am just not willing to sacrifice the time and energy for an election campaign. With the TDG in place and if my neighbors like me, I could be our neighborhood representative. I think I am fair in meetings, and maybe that fairness will make me rise higher in the TDG. In other words, the TDG is going to find a different kind of person to be elected. Classic introverts actually have a chance to participate!

    One flaw of our system is that politicians don't have to be the smartest and most caring person in the room, they just have to be a fast thinker and skilled communicator, which is an important skills to have in politics and nearly all professions. Hell, I have personally seen extremes. Extremely smart people with extremely poor communication skills, and people with very bad judgement with extremely good communication skills. I shall save those personal stories for another time.

    Ideally people that rise to the top are very smart and have outstanding communication skills. Our system sometimes allows elite few self-serving people to rise very high, and generally its their own flaws that cause their down fall. Ideally those personality flaws should be vetted out long before they rise up through the ranks, but all too often they are using their skills to take advantage of people and take advantage of a imperfect system so they are not held accountable for actions.

  • Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    wwjd Wrote:
    Ideally people that rise to the top are very smart and have outstanding communication skills. Our system sometimes allows elite few self-serving people to rise very high, and generally its their own flaws that cause their down fall. Ideally those personality flaws should be vetted out long before they rise up through the ranks, but all too often they are using their skills to take advantage of people and take advantage of a imperfect system so they are not held accountable for actions.

    I would have to agree. But I would say that both parties failed in vetting the 2016 presidential process. And this begs another paradox. If two incompetents are in the same battle, each stands a 50% chance of winning. There is no way these two contenders are going to open the battle to a more competent contender, which will reduce the odds of their electoral success. So there is a natural yet subtle incentive for the two parties to work together to limit entry into the contest.

    The TDG will find many more people to take an active role in governance. Very few of these "new" people will ever consider a career the rough-and-tumble world of party politics.