What does a TRUMP presidency look like?

[Valmy]

Again, my point isn't that we should all hate Hillary, or that she was not competent. My point is that we should be honest and recognize them for what they are - corrupt politicians who are an integral part of a broken system. Your Wolsey anaology only works if you agree that in fact Clinton is corrupt.

I think the system is corrupt and we need reforms.

However I am a bit fatalistic about the whole thing. Even if we had dramatic reform it is kind of like Sulla trying to legalize away he and Marius ever existing again. I feel like whatever reforms we do the corruption would just modify itself to function in the new reality. Somehow a tipping point was reached to where it is really ingrained in our culture.

But we should still try our damndest because it is so important.

Just my two cents. Electing outsiders is not going to change anything unless they start passing anti-corruption reforms.

[The Minsky Moment]

And by putting up a candidate who has exploited the corrupt system in a truly breathtaking manner, the DNC let a fucking terrible candidate whose only apparently redeeming quality in this context is that he claims he will fix that system, win.

But nothing like that happened.  The DNC doesn't "put up" candidates and HRC certainly wasn't running on the sufferance of the DNC.  HRC became the candidate because she had the financial resources and no other Democratic candidate interested and ready to run (e.g. not Biden) had access to those resources.  Sure the DNC backed HRC over Sanders.  Not because the DNC is some nefarious kingmaker but because it was the obvious play - Sanders was clearly heading to defeat, and the standard play for Party Committees is to persuade the runner up to back out as quickly as possible.

The idea that DNC, of all things, is responsible for "letting" Trump win . . . I don't know what to say to that.  If one would make a list of factors in Trump's win, the DNC wouldn't even crack the top 100 were it not for the Wasserman-Schultz email leak. 

[The Minsky Moment]

I think a majority of people who voted for Trump thought he was incompetent, and Hillary more competent. This wasn't about competency.

I agree.  And they sure as hell got what they voted for.  Sometimes the only way people learn is by jamming the finger in the socket.

[Valmy]

If the voters are demanding change, and you offer them up competence with no change, then you might not like the result.

Well it is kind of late to inform us of that now isn't it?

But I personally did not want a change candidate. We did that in 2008 and we got amateur hour for a few years. Change and reform candidates have been fucking things up with their inflexible puritanical posturing for years now and not a single reform of any substance has been passed. At some point you have to move on from idiocy and get an insider in there for a bit. That was my opinion and I am a voter and I have just as much a right to demand things as any other asshole.

[The Minsky Moment]

Demanding change is all fine and good, but it requires understanding of how change is achieved.  Valmy's right - Sulla is not an option here, thank God for that.  Change in America is achieved through the ugly and tedious process of grinding the sausage of legislation through the Capital Hill wurst factory.  You really do need the professional politicians with all their warts to get that done.  LBJ made the Clintons look like eagle scouts, but he sure knew how to get change done. 

[Berkut]

Again, my point isn't that we should all hate Hillary, or that she was not competent. My point is that we should be honest and recognize them for what they are - corrupt politicians who are an integral part of a broken system. Your Wolsey anaology only works if you agree that in fact Clinton is corrupt.

I think the system is corrupt and we need reforms.

However I am a bit fatalistic about the whole thing. Even if we had dramatic reform it is kind of like Sulla trying to legalize away he and Marius ever existing again. I feel like whatever reforms we do the corruption would just modify itself to function in the new reality. Somehow a tipping point was reached to where it is really ingrained in our culture.

But we should still try our damndest because it is so important.

Just my two cents. Electing outsiders is not going to change anything unless they start passing anti-corruption reforms.

No argument with any of that. I am also very cynical about the possibility of real change.

But at the same time, politically you have to recognize that this matters, and adjust accordingly, if you don't want people whose only possible redeeming quality among of a nightmarish mix of absolutely appalling qualities, is that they are the only one willing to be an agent for change.

People voted for Trump, in part, because they wanted change and they know Hillary was not going to bring it. Trump was their murder weapon, even if they didn't like anything else about him.

I think it is a terrible error to focus on those other appalling qualities, and just ignore the fact that the perception that change of some kind is needed so desperately that a lot of people rejected the competent, sane, qualified, and corrupted by the machine candidate for the incompetent, idiotic, grossly unqualified, dangerous, and even more corrupt (but NOT in the manner of the machine) option.

[Berkut]

Demanding change is all fine and good, but it requires understanding of how change is achieved.  Valmy's right - Sulla is not an option here, thank God for that.  Change in America is achieved through the ugly and tedious process of grinding the sausage of legislation through the Capital Hill wurst factory.  You really do need the professional politicians with all their warts to get that done.  LBJ made the Clintons look like eagle scouts, but he sure knew how to get change done. 

The Dems need to cultivate and groom a set of candidates who can both understand the process well enough to work within it, but be committed to changing that process.

After Obama blindsided the Clintons, they worked hard to make sure such candidates were nowhere to be found, and they succeeded. There was no option out there but Clinton, and she is clearly not interested in changing anything. If she was, her and Bill would have spent the last eight years beating that drum, instead of running around siphoning up cash from the people who such change would certainly harm.

So what happened? Bernie. And Trump. The DNC did a much better job than the RNC in making sure their mainstream candidate won the nomination, so that is good. But ignoring the message being sent here (basically a third party candidate stole the Republican nomination, and another third party candidate damaged the Dems badly enough to let that terrible Republican win) would be a critical error.

[Valmy]

I think it is a terrible error to focus on those other appalling qualities, and just ignore the fact that the perception that change of some kind is needed so desperately that a lot of people rejected the competent, sane, qualified, and corrupted by the machine candidate for the incompetent, idiotic, grossly unqualified, dangerous, and even more corrupt (but NOT in the manner of the machine) option.

I would like to think that everybody is interested in cleaning up corruption. But I don't recall the national outrage over the Citizen's United Ruling. Rather I think people are unhappy with their lives in general in a rapidly changing world and are anxious about the future. They are demanding the politicians fix that and they are unable to do so.

Anyway that is what I think. Even if every politician were some kind of platonic mendicant public servant selflessly working to craft laws from their cardboard boxes along the Potomac I still think people would be unhappy. Just my IMO.

Not that I don't think the corruption should be addressed or that I wouldn't support anybody who was making informed and honest attempts to reform.

[DGuller]

I guess that after all is said and done, one of the big problem is the general immaturity of the voters.  If you don't understand what realistically can or can't be done, you can't choose intelligently the person whose job it would be to get that shit done.

[Berkut]

I guess that after all is said and done, one of the big problem is the general immaturity of the voters.  If you don't understand what realistically can or can't be done, you can't choose intelligently the person whose job it would be to get that shit done.

Voters can only make choices between the candidates placed in front of them.

If you always count on the alternative being terrible enough that your own nearly terrible candidate is slightly better, and then hope that the voters are "mature enough" to accept the pile of shit you are demanding they swallow...well, that will work a lot of the time.

But clearly not ALL of the time.

[Valmy]

I guess that after all is said and done, one of the big problem is the general immaturity of the voters.  If you don't understand what realistically can or can't be done, you can't choose intelligently the person whose job it would be to get that shit done.

Well that is an eternal and immutable fact. It is pointless to be upset about that. The voters will be the voters.

[Valmy]

I guess that after all is said and done, one of the big problem is the general immaturity of the voters.  If you don't understand what realistically can or can't be done, you can't choose intelligently the person whose job it would be to get that shit done.

Voters can only make choices between the candidates placed in front of them.

If you always count on the alternative being terrible enough that your own nearly terrible candidate is slightly better, and then hope that the voters are "mature enough" to accept the pile of shit you are demanding they swallow...well, that will work a lot of the time.

But clearly not ALL of the time.

Look I just disagree with your assertion that candidates are manufactured in a lab by some committee somewhere. So if you could stop bringing this strawman up that would be great. Not every single candidate ever run has been terrible. Or if they have then maybe you need to adjust your definition of terrible, since it does not conform to reality.

[Berkut]

I guess that after all is said and done, one of the big problem is the general immaturity of the voters.  If you don't understand what realistically can or can't be done, you can't choose intelligently the person whose job it would be to get that shit done.

Voters can only make choices between the candidates placed in front of them.

If you always count on the alternative being terrible enough that your own nearly terrible candidate is slightly better, and then hope that the voters are "mature enough" to accept the pile of shit you are demanding they swallow...well, that will work a lot of the time.

But clearly not ALL of the time.

Look I just disagree with your assertion that candidates are manufactured in a lab by some committee somewhere. So if you could stop bringing this strawman up that would be great. Not every single candidate ever run has been terrible. Or if they have then maybe you need to adjust your definition of terrible, since it does not conform to reality.

Who said every candidate ever was terrible? Where did that come from?

I think Clinton was a terrible candidate.

I think there have been plenty of non-terrible candidates. I think the only one creating a strawman here is you.

Hell, in this very election there were some decent candidates. None of them were Dems though, because the DNC and the Clintons made sure that there was only one viable Dem candidate.

[viper37]

Again, my point isn't that we should all hate Hillary, or that she was not competent. My point is that we should be honest and recognize them for what they are - corrupt politicians who are an integral part of a broken system. Your Wolsey anaology only works if you agree that in fact Clinton is corrupt.

I think the system is corrupt and we need reforms.

However I am a bit fatalistic about the whole thing. Even if we had dramatic reform it is kind of like Sulla trying to legalize away he and Marius ever existing again. I feel like whatever reforms we do the corruption would just modify itself to function in the new reality. Somehow a tipping point was reached to where it is really ingrained in our culture.

But we should still try our damndest because it is so important.

Just my two cents. Electing outsiders is not going to change anything unless they start passing anti-corruption reforms.

If you think about doing one set of reforms and that's it, corruption is gone, maybe not forever, but for a long while, then you have lost the battle.

As you said, corruption will alwayd adapt itself to the environment.  It is a constant battle and you must fight it constantly, never rest about it, and adapt the rules to a changing environment.  Governments have this idea that changing the rules once in every 25 years is just about enough to keep it at bay.  And the people think the legislators are wasting time debating about a problem that affects less than 1% of the situations... and when it affects 25%, then they start complaining politicians don't do anything.

You got to be pro-active at everything, balance rule-making and freedom at every turn, have dedicated police task force to hunt corruption at municipal, state and federal levels.  And you can't be too shy about bringing union leaders or and politicians to parade in front of the cameras in handcuffs, for that act as a deterrent as much as any prison sentence you could give them.

[Razgovory]

I guess we should just go back to the time when the parties simply chose the nominee instead of having primaries.  Much less corrupt.