Never forget...

[JKane]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Ruthrieston]

Yes, I am laughing at most of that, but at the same time it makes me feel so sad that so much of the population could support all that insanity. The damage tRump did across the civilised world in those four years was catastrophic.  

[PeterRS]

There can be little doubt that Trump is responsible for a great deal of the damage. Yet, I think we should never forget why this con man, fraudster, litigious bigot and TV personality actually managed to get elected in the first place. At the outset his candidacy was regarded as a joke by most Republicans. He treated his fellow candidates worse than cheating schoolchildren. Yet the US electoral system enabled him to become President! And now more than a year after he was kicked out, the faults in the US electoral system - of which so many have now become so obvious - enable him to continue with his lying, cheating and undermining of the very democracy the US is supposed to be built on.

Anyone who really examined Trump before the election would have known full well the extent of the damage he could do. His failed business dealings, his close relationship with the in-the-closet homophobic bigot sue-at-all-costs lawyer Roy Cohn and so much more - failure to provide tax returns, obviously manipulated medical "record", views on women and so forth - should have disqualified him as a candidate. But he was the teflon Don. Nothing stuck.

Set aside for a moment the antiquated and now ridiculous electoral college system. Trump was elected because a great many Americans felt left behind. It was not just the disastrous failures resulting from the 2008 financial meltdown which saw so many suffer so very badly but the fact that the bankers and financiers who actually caused it with their personal and corporate greed get away, in all but I think one or two cases, scot-free in the years following the scandals. Even before then, though, I believe the average American had seen many of the rich getting mega-rich while that average man or woman had to work harder just to make ends meet.  At the same time the poor got poorer and felt helpless. When such a small percentage of the population owns such a huge amount of its wealth, how does that square with 35-40 million Americans relying on what used to be called food stamps. It matters little that it has been Republican policies which have largely created this wealth disparity. Americans were just fed up of government in general. Trump, the "successful" "billionaire" TV star gave too many some hope that life might just get better for them. It didn't, other than for the mega-rich and members of the Trump clan.

I trashed the US electoral system earlier. I could as easily trash those of other countries, especially my own, but the topic of this thread is America. Whenever I hear pundits talk about American history, the wisdom of the founding fathers and their Constitution is praised to the heavens. We know that that document caused a great deal of angst before it was adopted. Now much of it is very much outdated and should be radically altered in my view. Two reasons. That Constitution was ratified by only 9 out of 13 states. In 1788 there were no motor vehicles, no planes, no computers, no public transport. A long period of time was required to collate all votes within a state and then another long period for those votes to be safely delivered to the capitol. There is today absolutely no reason on earth why it should take more than two months for an election to be certified. There is no reason why for a national rather than a local election a Federal law regarding election procedures should not be adopted rather than a whole series of separate voting systems and procedures mandated by individual states. There is no reason why the resultant votes cannot be quickly verified within days if there is a dispute. The hanging chad business in Florida that stretched out the election process in 2000 was a total farce in the eyes of the democratic world. A new administration could - and in my view - should be able to take over the government within a week or so at most. In the UK it takes 24 hours.

Secondly, that long totally unnecessary drawn-out period between polling day and certification plays right into the hands of crooks and naysayers like Trump. No doubt some will argue that it has never happened before; that Trump is a maverick and it won't happen again. Oh really? I can't talk about the past but I certainly would not bet on the future!

There are actually three other related points stemming from the present electoral mess. One is the example shown to the rest of the world. And it's a dreadful example of democracy and how it should work. The Putins, Xis and other dictators must be salivating as they trumpet how much better their system of government is. And let's be frank. Right-wing nationalism is now on the rise in many parts of the world. 

Secondly, the four year term of office is surely totally out-dated if only because it encourages short-termism. Few of us might choose to live in Putin's Russia, but for the vast majority of his people it appears he is doing a good job of restoring Russia's reputation after the humiliation of the fall of Communism. He has had two decades to do that. Xi has few critics, not because they are likely to be thrown in jail or worse. The fact is - and few in the west ever really acknowledge this - that since the end of the disastrous Cultural Revolution and the collapse of virtually everything, the economy included, the one-party leadership of that country has pulled a basically peasant society into the world's second largest economy in little over 45 years. Forget for a moment how it has done that, the theft of intellectual property, a disastrous human rights record etc. (but when we talk about human rights for Tibetans and Uighurs, it always seems odd to me that Americans conveniently forget to talk about the mass slaughter of the Native American population or the historical treatment of African Americans!). Just stick to the facts. China will be the world's next great power and there is nothing any other country can do other than resort to nukes. The fact that China is not a democratic society is constantly trumpeted in the west, especially in the US. Yet the US was founded on democratic principles. The people of China have never known democracy throughout the entire period of their history. One man (only once, one woman) has ruled China for millennia. The dictators have time to carry out their plans. A system of government that changes every four years - with an ensuing government able to undo what the previous one has effected as with the Iranian nuclear deal, for example - is a far from ideal way of being the world's superpower.

Lastly, the Trump years - and some prior to then - have shown that an entrenched two party system of government is basically undemocratic. Oh, I know. The more parties, the more difficult democracy becomes. Just look at Israel and its plethora of small, single issue parties and the mess it gets into in elections. But the whole point of what I am trying to say is to challenge Churchill's view that democracy is the worst form of government other than those which have already been tried. I challenge not the sentiment. I challenge the vital need for democracies constantly to review their procedures for electing governments. What worked in 1788 in the US does not work now. As long as it remains unchanged, the world becomes a more dangerous place.

All merely my views and I know these will have upset some readers. Fair enough, but perhaps you can explain how you believe the system should be changed?

[Guest]

Regarding your final question, I believe Singapore has certain criteria that leadership candidates must meet in order to get on the ballot paper.

As long as such rules are sensible and applied fairly, I think it's a good way to filter out some of the unsuitable candidates.

[vinapu]

3 hours ago, z909 said:

Regarding your final question, I believe Singapore has certain criteria that leadership candidates must meet in order to get on the ballot paper.

 

yeah but is Singapore democracy or just country with elections ? I'm not denying great successes of  it's enlightened leadership but better not to be dissident there.

[PeterRS]

4 hours ago, z909 said:

Regarding your final question, I believe Singapore has certain criteria that leadership candidates must meet in order to get on the ballot paper.

As long as such rules are sensible and applied fairly, I think it's a good way to filter out some of the unsuitable candidates.

I have to add that I'm very good at asking questions and pointing out what I believe to be problems. I am much less good at coming up with answers.

I have sometimes criticised Singapore which is hardly a democracy in the western sense. But I must admit I do not know if there are criteria for becoming a parliamentary candidate. If there are such criteria, I wonder what they are and who rules on them. I also suppose the moment you establish minimum criteria there will be a lot of people who cry foul as this could eliminate some potential candidates who might well go on to become good and conscientious MPs. I suppose, too, if there had been criteria in the US in 2016, Trump would either have met them or ensured his minions found a way of getting him to meet them. I am no fan of Boris Johnson in the UK - although I readily admit that his opposite number in the Labour Party at the last election was singularly ineffective and given the choice, I am sure many voted for Johnson as the lesser of two evils, as it were. I believed his former boss at the Daily Telegraph newspaper who wrote a scathing article before Johnson became leader warning readers that he was totally unqualified to lead his Party and to become Prime Minister. I believe much worse was written, but I cannot remember it now.

In theory, SIngapore could be an example of the type of democracy that western countries might look more closely at. The problem is that, like Japan, it is democratic in name only. Both countries are basically benevolent dictatorships and I do not see electors in western democracies giving up the rights and freedoms that would be necessary to make them work. The two core issues which I feel have to be tackled in countries like the USA and to a large extent the UK are firstly  the two party system. You just have to see the mess that the US now finds itself in to realise it no longer works. Add to that the enormous power given to the winning party to appoint judges right through the entire justice system which effectively gives that party the right to determine certain key policy issues for possibly decades after the party has lost power. Secondly, as mentioned in my earlier post, governments need more time. 4 years is no longer enough given that the world will soon have an undemocratic China as the supreme power..

[vinapu]

23 minutes ago, PeterRS said:

I have to add that I'm very good at asking questions and pointing out what I believe to be problems. I am much less good at coming up with answers.

 

this is how ideas are created, identifying problems and asking questions, answers of varied quality will follow and in politics good answer in 2022 my turn to be bad in say 2027. Then whole thing starts all over

[JKane]

 

 

 

Such a shitheel...

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

And what is extra terrifying is many of these are for positions of authority in future elections, such as Secretaries of State!  

 

 

 

 

 

Yesterday's news coverage...

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Even turd blossom!