The Donald.

[C8RKH]

1 hour ago, johnpwalsh said:

Lying twat did everything to get it built and now local government are finding out how many broken promises he made on that one.

So John - exactly how does this make him any different to any other two bit property developer who will do anything to secure the deal?

Or what about the property developer who goes bankrupt but get's to keep the Porsches, BMW X6's etc and the houses and the kids in private school as all the assets were in the wife's name and the creditors he had lose everything and their families cannot even afford a 10 year old wreck to take the kids to the local comprehensive school?

Also, how many times has some James Hunt of a planning official in local government turned out to be a back hander receiving tw@t of a person?

Corrupt. Selfish. Arrogant. Tw@ts. Most of them are. So maybe he is just perfect for politics too.

 

[Jacques]

I've been following this campaign for some time, and seen the direct debates, reading articles, speakin to others about it etc. but while I agree that the two candidates presently trying to sway over the majority of voters to themselves are equally bad in their own right, I would like to ask the US participants on this forum, howcome you ended up with two so bad candidates? It's like no matter who I ask (Americans), they all tell the same story: equally bad candidates, and like choosing between ... nothing really. Then the European tv channels tells the same story. Then the US tv channels tells the same story. then the newspaper say the same. Then the interviewed US Citizens say the same. On and on again.

I mean: what happened in the US that made it possible for these two people to get to power and end up as candidates?

Is it a mentality thing in the US?

Or is it purely Money?

Or maybe something else?

Let's be clear about this: it's probably not the scottish who will have the vast majority of power in this day and age, despite trying to be independant. Or the Danes for that matter But if the US is the one, apart from russia and china playing a role too, then I don't understand why the Americans don't take it more seriously. Or what?

Seriously, not very many people in the US can be lying flat down for the tv Circus, the adverts etc. that they promote. So what happened?

One of the things I don't understand is, why would the Americans even want one of these two people to represent them? I don't see the relevance between those two candidates and the American people. Could someone from the US please exlain wht on Earth have happened and what led up to todays situation?

Kind regards,

Jacques.

[Iconic Ride]

I think the so called "email scandal" effect has already been pretty much "baked in" to the selection process for most voters. This new development might conceivably "move the needle" a bit, but likely not enough to change the end result. It's going to be a tighter race, but Hillary is still the odds on favourite in most polls.

Still, a part of me almost wishes that Trump is thrust into the office. It will provide endless entertainment to watch him be forced to acknowledge the actual existence of a reality based world, not a "reality show" world.  And it would be exceedingly pleasing to observe his involuntary education about the limits of Presidential power.

And if Hillary does prevail, the Trump supporters will be treated to the spectacle of her further pillorying, particularly if there is any prosecutorial  substance to the most recent emails. 

[Iconic Ride]

6 minutes ago, Jacques said:

I would like to ask the US participants on this forum, howcome you ended up with two so bad candidates?

Excellent question, Jacques. And one that has the vast majority of the country scratching their heads about it. The best answer I can come up with is the near total intransigence that has permeated the public milieu. Critical thinking has all but evaporated it seems. "My way or the highway" is the mantra of the day. The concept of compromise (or even empathy for "the other side") has become a relic of the past. 

This country has never been so divided, so opinionated, and so combative about another's belief system. We still go about our day to day lives in some semblance of "normality" on the surface, but beneath it all there simmers an at times intense distrust of the motives of anyone in a position to influence events or outcomes.

No one of honor or true integrity seems to want to expose themselves to the public's unrelenting castigation and excoriation of one's position on any topic of merit. It's as if everyone has morphed into walking talking internet "trolls" intent on keeping things stirred up as much as humanly possible, consequences be damned. And thus we end up with candidates with lesser mores, driven not so much by a desire for the greater good, as by a deep need for personal power.

We will survive this election. The results will not be pretty, but we will all continue to live within the same political boundary (save those who actually do carry out their "threat" to leave the country if their candidate does not make the grade). We have no choice but to "keep on keeping on," making do with the cards we will have dealt ourselves. One Presidential election will not bring this country down. The brilliant "checks and balances" system established by our founders will ensure sufficient continuity to plod on into the future intact. Governments ebb and flow...history has shown this to be the case...but our democratic experiment has weathered greater storms than this. And one day, I have to hope, this chapter in our ongoing saga of attempting, however imperfectly, the ensurance of the entitlement to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" will be but a footnote.

[comem47]

The scary thing is reality TV seems to be entrenched in the US populace these days. A perfect example being a show about repossessing airplanes.When the repo men barely escaped being shot as they fled nobody out there in viewer land seems to grasp on to the fact that a camera crew must be filming all this (what about them?). Duh !!!

Same thing for shows with people supposedly alone in the wilderness.

They take Trump for his face value apprentice show background .(this must be real, right?)  

So sad this is the intelligence we have in this country these days.  TV reality.

One time while I was near the edge of the Grand Canyon somebody standing nearby came over and told me it was less than a few hundred years old.

(uh hum, time to leave !!!)

 

Edited October 31, 2016 by comem47

[Jacques]

Okay, I hear you John. But let's say that it is so. For example that near total intransigence has permeated the public milieu. If that is the case, then the question could be why this have happened? For example, and jsut a thought, would it be possible, that the basic idea of everything being a "fight" would slowly sink into the mentality, thereby forming and shaping the intellect and the founding way of reaction and response, to be be influenced by this? I remember having seen old Commercials from the US showing breakfast products, and there always seemed to be a captain xxx directing the "battle" against unhealthy living, making the user of said food product the Winner. So this seems not to be something new. A banale example, I know, but never the less an indicator of what I am trying to point out. This appears to me as a foreigner, to have penetrated many areas of the American society, thereby having a constant focus of being the stronger, being the Winner etc. But real life is not always so. Behind the scenes, the cameras, the facade, there is an underlying reality that Counts the masses.

As they strive to get the same success, my question is this: will they also learn to be content with what they have? Or learn about social responsability? Personally, I think it should be okay to earn Money for having taken a risk to Invest hard Work, time, Money and education. But the mentality about if everyone can be a Winner within the "fight" mentality, is at least worth thinking about. For example, one may think about the pure marketshare obtainable; wouldn't it be better to have a (bigger)market that could afford to buy the product or service on offer, thereby indicating that a certain level of economy and social awareness and responsability could go hand in hand, making a benefit for everyone? It's just a thought, I am not promoting anything. But I am interested in trying to see some of the underlying reasons that have led to this rather extreme election campaign. Please feel free to comment more on this, because it's interesting to understand why this have happened, and if it's a one time only occurrence, or could be part of a larger scale develeopment. More Trumps and more Clintons, as everyone uses the same method, they raise the bar, thereby getting quite extreme and personal, as we've seen in the campaign and during the tv debates on US tv.

Bob, I'd like to ask why it is so, that some people may be thinking something so strange, as for example in the case you mention with Grand Canyon? And moreover, if there is a level of awareness on that scale for anumber of people, then what is the consequence of this in an election such as this?

Someone once said, that democracy is far too important to be left to the people.

On the other hand, someone else said that we get what we deserve.

Despite the congress, despite the advisors and all of the apparatus governing, I'd like to ask this: if someone like Trump or Clinton, can rise to power like we have seen, and be the candidate for president, with all of the backup and support they need to reach this far, and with interest Groups and ngo's standing at the sideline, what would in reality prevent them from doing something dangerous, while being in office?

Kind regards,

Jacques.

[Iconic Ride]

Jacques, Bob's example of a fellow Grand Canyon tourist saying that the canyon (which I have had the pleasure of visiting four times) is but a few hundred years old is a perfect analogy for what the informed voter is up against in this election cycle (and maybe most?). For every voter who has a decent grasp of current events and a good working knowledge of the issues at hand, there are far more who (and I realize that I'm about to sound quite "elitist") have only the vaguest clue about the facts in question. In most cases the lack of sufficient education (either formal or self taught) is to blame. Not everyone has access to a quality education. Thus hobbled, such individuals fall back on whatever mythology they were raised in...there are many in which to be born. 

I don't have a better system than "one person, one vote" to put forth. Certainly democracy is a fairer political system than most. But such a system brings with it a degree of excess baggage. Cultural bias imbued within malleable young minds is a self perpetuating generational freight train, not easily redirected. Changing people's minds about tenants they hold dear is a difficult, often impossible task. 

I know I've not really answered your question. I'm not certain that an accurate answer is to be found. We are a nation of many opinions on many things. The concept of "majority rule" seems to have worked well enough over the last couple of centuries, but it will never be a perfect system. "Chaos Theory" incorporates the concept of a "strange attractor," defined as "a set of numerical values toward which a system tends to evolve, for a wide variety of starting conditions of the system." Donald Trump might qualify as that entity this time around. But that same theory also incorporates the creation of "fractals," perhaps the most beautiful of all mathematical renditions. The chaos currently enveloping our political system is a product of a set of "initial conditions" balanced on the tipping point of a nonlinear system, headed in who knows what direction.  Forest was right. Life is "like a box of chocolates."

[comem47]

John,  yes, that's the way I feel. Too many people blindly jumping on the Trump bandwagon without questioning. Everyone should  play the skeptic and do research (not blindly vote for what your neighbor tells you is right) I think of Trump as a snake oil salesman peddling his wares to the country bumpkin types in his audiences easily enticed by his demagoguery.  When people see his harpies on TV they figure "that's all the confirmation I need"

DUE DILIGENCE PEOPLE  !!!    And Jacques, it IS scary that democracy allows ANYONE to get in this position of power . No vetting other that being born here. One would like to think we get the best of the best competing, not the worst of the worst.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

]

Edited November 1, 2016 by comem47

[Chillidoggy]

I see a parallel here, in the way that our indigenous Bremoaners bleat that no-one bar them was intelligent enough to vote in the way they wanted. I include my own son in that, who reckons his parents shouldn't have been allowed a vote on the matter.

Welcome to democracy.

[Barrykearley]

You think you guys have it bad with trump and Clinton. 

Weve now got the ultimate snake oil scum bag low life sleaze ball asshole war criminal  - Tony Blair now spouting about revolution 

[C8RKH]

I really do think Blair needs to go away, think long and hard, and then find a rather large stone to crawl underneath, for ever!

[DaveC72]

[Iconic Ride]

4 hours ago, Barrykearley said:

Weve now got the ultimate snake oil scum bag low life sleaze ball asshole war criminal  - Tony Blair

C'mon, Barry, don't hold back. Tell us what you really think about Tony.

[Barrykearley]

Not allowed to - those words are banned on here and I'd be told off lots 

[Iconic Ride]

That's why God made ****'s and ###'s and %%%'s for us to use.

Vent away, mate.

[comem47]

1 hour ago, Iconic Ride said:

That's why God made ****'s and ###'s and %%%'s for us to use.

Vent away, mate.

Yes vent away!!! a certain presidential candidate does and he doesn't use characters to hide how he really feels 

[Jacques]

Once upon a time, in a galaxy far far away (Greece), there was a tradition to let the elder be listened to, as they held the summarized life experience, and could see beyond youths temper and anarchy and they had developed wisdom, something that may come with age. And more than that, you had to be a devoted chosen Citizen to have the right to vote. Even at that time, the Greeks invented voting "machines" that kept your identity a secret.

To put it into perspective and to widen the understanding and uphold the morality and maturity, they invented modern Theater, in which they performed plays that were political, even criticizing those in power and other aspects. There were always this tow-sided meaning of a play. Something that have gone lost in todays entertainment industry. For example the play Antigone. The point is that men do what they do, rule to their own will, but they should not disobey the higher law. Something like what Gods implored, dare not reviled by men, if I said it correctly in English.

The Greeks always kept the Theater and politics together, closely intertwined. Theater was a political Tool as well as a Means to keep sanity, not letting the opposite rule the descicion making.

That was 3000 years ago, and I don't really see a positive development since then, relating to this election campaign. Rather the opposite.

so, to get to the current election, even the Romans 2000 years ago said that bread and entertainment to the people, then you can enslave them.

It seems that noone these says pays any attention to the elders. Youth is the only thing that has a marketvalue, it seems.

I tend to think that one of the underlyeing reasons for this behaviour is speed. Nearly the only real invention and Development for centuries. Speed does not give us the time needed to think and rethink the consequences of certain actions. Instead we react by instinct and schooled behaviourism. Perfect way to bedazzle large populations, but sad for mankind.

What is it they say? At the frontline of a war, you don't fight for your country, but for the man next to you.

It will be interesting to see to what effect the newest fbi investigation (or whatever) of the 33.000 emails, will have for the outcome of the Clinton campaign.

Kind regards,

Jacques.

[C8RKH]

With this action the FBI potentially have anointed the newest US President. Is this a very dangerous new Precedent that has been set?

[Iconic Ride]

Well, the U.S. Supreme Court "anointed" our 43rd President in the 2000 "election," so why not the FBI anointing the 45th?

[molemot]

I don't think democracy is under threat from either the "elite" or the "dumb". Intelligence levels conform to the usual bell shaped curve...there aren't many at the extremities. \What we all have to worry about is the great mass in the middle....they outnumber the extremities by such an amount that, whatever happens with the graph extremities, they can't win by themselves. The truly dumb are probably not sufficiently persuasive to change the opinions of the centre mass....but the upper end of the bell curve could well be; for good or ill. The inertia and hysteresis of the masses provides a damper to wilder excesses.

However, they do know when they are being taken for idiots...and when they are being exploited...and when everything they had has been frittered away and gone. That's when they turn to people like Trump, who tells them what they want to hear....or BoJo who did the same in our referendum (and,like all the other Brexiteers, ran away afterwards!) and It becomes a juggernaut...and people vote for gutthink rather than brainthink...then after it's over and the truth becomes clearer and they can see that, as always, everyone has been lying to them...it's too late.  

[Chillidoggy]

Speaking as one who is neither 'dumb' nor 'elite', it's comforting to learn from a member of the elite that the rest of us middle-bell curvers know when we're being taken for idiots and being exploited, however I do believe that we were intelligent enough not to listen and be guided by BoJo the clown: I certainly didn't, anyway.

[Vanya]

3 hours ago, molemot said:

I don't think democracy is under threat from either the "elite" or the "dumb". Intelligence levels conform to the usual bell shaped curve...there aren't many at the extremities. \What we all have to worry about is the great mass in the middle....they outnumber the extremities by such an amount that, whatever happens with the graph extremities, they can't win by themselves. The truly dumb are probably not sufficiently persuasive to change the opinions of the centre mass....but the upper end of the bell curve could well be; for good or ill. The inertia and hysteresis of the masses provides a damper to wilder excesses.

However, they do know when they are being taken for idiots...and when they are being exploited...and when everything they had has been frittered away and gone. That's when they turn to people like Trump, who tells them what they want to hear....or BoJo who did the same in our referendum (and,like all the other Brexiteers, ran away afterwards!) and It becomes a juggernaut...and people vote for gutthink rather than brainthink...then after it's over and the truth becomes clearer and they can see that, as always, everyone has been lying to them...it's too late.  

Not sure if I agree with you entirely on the last point. On an individual level, most people possess some semblance of critical thinking ability, but when it comes to exercising choice of government to effect change, a mass psychosis ensues and there's a shift to flock behaviour. We can see this in Europe where the results of post-GW-Bush US foreign policy and continuous shafting by politicians on an EU and national level have seen several nations slide into a right-wing spiral. Either unable or unwilling to put the pieces of the geopolitical puzzle together, citizens have directed their displeasure at the unfortunate byproducts of the above - usually foreigners and refugees. This isn't quite evidence of quasi-informed behaviour if a large portion of the populace is willing to be taken on a populist ride in country after country. 

With Trump, his thin rhetorical veneer can be lifted with ease by doing a couple of searches and reading interviews from before he was a presidential candidate. Anyone and everyone who has worked with him has said the same things, and none of them good. All reveal a character who is unfit to hold office. And that he'll say anything to get what he wants. So the same people who know they're being taken for idiots, are once again being taken for mugs. 

And as for democracy being under threat from an elite - haven't we seen proof of this in the desired elimination by the DNC of Bernie Sanders and attempted toppling of Jeremy Corbyn?

I find it really funny that the US election is now universally described as an "unpopularity contest" when there were a slew of more level-headed and moderate (likeable?) candidates to begin with.... 

[Chillidoggy]

And sure enough, one doesn't have to wait too long for BoJo to prove what a clown he is:-

 

"In the words of our great Prime Minister, Brexit means Brexit, and we are going to make a titanic, a titanic success of it."

After loud laughter from the audience, Mr Johnson corrected himself, adding: "We are going to make a colossal, a colossal success of Brexit."

 

[Iconic Ride]

 

On 11/2/2016 at 12:32, Vanya said:

evidence of quasi-informed behaviour

A beautiful summation of the voting process, Vanya. 

"We are all confident idiots."

David Dunning

The Dunning–Kruger effect is a cognitive bias wherein relatively unskilled individuals suffer from illusory superiority, mistakenly assessing their ability to be much higher than is accurate.

To repeat, I don't have a better system in mind than "one man, one vote democracy." But no one man can possibly know every accurate detail of every issue being voted upon. Nor can any one man possibly know precisely what's inside any given candidate's head. We hear them speak, and we attempt to read between the lines, some less successfully than others, the rest somewhat able to see through the fog of "tell them what they want to hear" double speak. The vast majority of politicians are making the case for their election/re election. It's in their job description. The savvy voter knows to take this into consideration when pondering his selection. Even then it's largely a leap of faith.

“That's not a lie, it's a terminological inexactitude.”

 Alexander Haig

[Jacques]

In some areas of leadership in private companies, they have a put up a number of specific well-defined tasks to be fullfilled, to call it a success. If they are being met, it releases a monetary reward. A bonus.

In all areas of leadership in politics, they have put up a list of specific well-defined tasks to be fullfilled, to call it a success. If they are not met, it releases a monetary reward. A bonus.

In some areas of working places, private and public, they have put up well-defined tasks to be fullfilled, to call it a success. If they are met or not met, you are being sacked. A bonus.

Kind regards,

Jacques.