What does a TRUMP presidency look like?

[Valmy]

The trump shaped hole in that system has brought us to the present.

If it was just Trump and it was just the Presidency I would agree with you. But it isn't so I don't.

I think I have made it clear that this problem goes far, far beyond the Presidency. Hell, the Presidency might actually be where it manifests itself the *least* being that it is so highly visible.

But does it go beyond the United States? Because this is hardly unique to us.

[Berkut]

That is such a cute idea.

The voters can only vote amongst the options presented to them. The options presented to them are all pre-vetter by the process that creates those options, and that has very little to do with the sovereign people.

The trump shaped hole in that system has brought us to the present.

The process that creates those options is the primary system, in which the voters are sovereign.

That is such a cute idea.

The voters can only select among the options presented to them in the primary system. And those options have all been vetted by a process requiring staggering amounts of money, and nearly all of that money comes from the same place.

I refer you once again to Gil Fulbright. Or Phil Gulbright. Or Bill Fulbright.

[Berkut]

The trump shaped hole in that system has brought us to the present.

If it was just Trump and it was just the Presidency I would agree with you. But it isn't so I don't.

I think I have made it clear that this problem goes far, far beyond the Presidency. Hell, the Presidency might actually be where it manifests itself the *least* being that it is so highly visible.

But does it go beyond the United States? Because this is hardly unique to us.

Of course it does, but I suspect it manifests itself differently depending on the political institutions in place.

[Valmy]

Of course it does, but I suspect it manifests itself differently depending on the political institutions in place.

Does it? It seems to manifest pretty uniformly. Politically radical candidates are winning elections promising to address problems that have nothing to do with government and everything to do with changes in technology and demographics and so forth.

Edit: Ok the government clearly has a few things it can do about the demographic issue. Just not normally things a mainstream party would do.

[Savonarola]

If Clinton was so bad, how did she get more than half the popular vote?

She didn't.  Hil won the plurality of the popular vote; but she was well short of a majority.

[Valmy]

If Clinton was so bad, how did she get more than half the popular vote?

She didn't.  Hil won the plurality of the popular vote; but she was well short of a majority.

I know. And they guy in there now has a minority three million smaller than that. Best not to think about it.

[Admiral Yi]

That is such a cute idea.

The voters can only select among the options presented to them in the primary system. And those options have all been vetted by a process requiring staggering amounts of money, and nearly all of that money comes from the same place.

I refer you once again to Gil Fulbright. Or Phil Gulbright. Or Bill Fulbright.

Getting your name on a primary ballot doesn't require staggering amounts of money.  It requires some signatures on a nomination form.

And none of this addresses my original point.  Assuming for the sake of argument that only candidates approved by Big Evil Money are allowed on the ballot, the choice between those Big Evil Money approved candidates still resides with the voter.

[DGuller]

I'm going to say this again:  if the voters just consistently voted for the least worst option, the keyword being consistently, that alone would go a long way towards fixing the system.  You may not start off with pleasant options, but when politicians know that being more worst is a guaranteed loss, they'll be inclined become even less worse than the currently least worst option. 

Unfortunately, US voters don't think that way.  They are fickle for no logical reason, and that lets the worst actors off the hook.  The worst actors just have to bide their time until the electorate's fickleness goes their way.

[Savonarola]

If Clinton was so bad, how did she get more than half the popular vote?

She didn't.  Hil won the plurality of the popular vote; but she was well short of a majority.

I know.

Apparently Solmyr did not.

[Valmy]

Apparently Solmyr did not.

I meant that in connection to my later point

That was not meant to be an attack on you.

[Admiral Yi]

The argument that Berkut and before him, Mihalia are presenting is that voting is akin to choosing consumer products.  It is the producer's responsibility to create a product that appeals to consumers, and if they don't like it, it's perfectly reasonable to not purchase it.  The logical flaw in that argument is that you can not opt out of consumption of government.  If you don't like Hillary's tofughetti, you don't get to eat a burger instead.  You're stuck eating Donald's shit sandwich.

[Gups]

Also, no refunds

[citizen k]

The worst actors just have to bide their time until the electorate's fickleness goes their way.

Chelsea 2020!

[CountDeMoney]

The argument that Berkut and before him, Mihalia are presenting is that voting is akin to choosing consumer products.  It is the producer's responsibility to create a product that appeals to consumers, and if they don't like it, it's perfectly reasonable to not purchase it.  The logical flaw in that argument is that you can not opt out of consumption of government.  If you don't like Hillary's tofughetti, you don't get to eat a burger instead.  You're stuck eating Donald's shit sandwich.

Funny how people who don't believe in the concept moral or Pyrrhic victories in sports will believe in it when it comes to politics.

"I can't believe Trump is <insert latest bullshit here>."
"You knew this was going to happen. It was all laid out. You were warned."
"Well I didn't vote for either one of them."
"And yet here you are, trapped in Trumpworld with me."

[grumbler]

And that is the reason 6 million Dems who voted for Obama in '12 didn't show up to vote for her in '16.

But, since she got 6 million voters who DIDN'T vote for obama, that evens out.

Obama 2012: 65,915,795
Clinton 2016: 65,853,516

The problem was that Trump got 2 million votes Romney did not get.

Romney 2012: 60,933,504
Trump 2016: 62,984,825

I know that the facts break the popular narrative, but I'm not sorry that that facile narrative is so easily disproven.