Suicide in the west

Originally posted by karoly aczel
Yeah we got bs meters but we do get tired and worn down with costant negativity.

We got Pauline Hanson back with her "One Nation" stirring the pot of racial hate.
I don't think she'll ever be prime minister , but don't underestimate the idiotic and uneducated people spread throughout the continent.
We have responded to populist politicians as much as the U.S. or Britian

Trump is a demagogue rather than a populist.

From wiki:
Populism is a political doctrine that proposes that the common people are exploited by a privileged elite, and which seeks to resolve this.

From MW:
demagogue - A leader who makes use of popular prejudices and false claims and promises in order to gain power

Here's an interesting response found on Yahoo Answers as to the difference:
A populist is for "the people" as opposed to the Elite, while a demagogue pretends to be a populist when in reality he is for the Elite, not the people. A demagogue uses fear-mongering and plays peoples emotions off one another to gain power and influence.

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
Trump is a demagogue rather than a populist.

From wiki:
Populism is a political doctrine that proposes that the common people are exploited by a privileged elite, and which seeks to resolve this.

From MW:
demagogue - A leader who makes use of popular prejudices and false claims and promises in order to gain power

Here's an interesting response ...[text shortened]... ogue uses fear-mongering and plays peoples emotions off one another to gain power and influence.

There you go right there. You have exposed my lack of current political understanding. And in general, I try to educate myself about politics in my country far more than the average joe.
So I guess I'm saying that I see this country as largely politically ignorant, let alone about overseas politics.
So Trump getting all this press, despite much of it being negative, is making an impression on the Australian public.
I hope the compulsory voting systems continues to compensate for the rise of future fear-mongerers in politics.

Originally posted by karoly aczel
There you go right there. You have exposed my lack of current political understanding. And in general, I try to educate myself about politics in my country far more than the average joe.
So I guess I'm saying that I see this country as largely politically ignorant, let alone about overseas politics.
So Trump getting all this press, despite much of i ...[text shortened]... lsory voting systems continues to compensate for the rise of future fear-mongerers in politics.

With all the Republican voter suppression of the Democratic vote, a compulsory voting system here is an idea whose time has come.

Add an abolition of the antiquated and ineffective Electoral College, and I doubt we'd ever see a debacle like this ever again.

Originally posted by Suzianne
With all the Republican voter suppression of the Democratic vote, a compulsory voting system here is an idea whose time has come.

Add an abolition of the antiquated and ineffective Electoral College, and I doubt we'd ever see a debacle like this ever again.

I've noticed non-compulsory voting seems to impact on poor people the most. The ones that may not want to brave extreme weather or need to travel further and for longer to vote.(And other such factors)

As far as the "Electoral College" I must confess, this was the first U.S. election where I've become aware of this part of the voting system.

Originally posted by karoly aczel
I've noticed non-compulsory voting seems to impact on poor people the most. The ones that may not want to brave extreme weather or need to travel further and for longer to vote.(And other such factors)

As far as the "Electoral College" I must confess, this was the first U.S. election where I've become aware of this part of the voting system.

Yes, the poor are impacted most. They're also more likely to get their vote suppressed because, well, they're poor and no one listens when they complain, and they are more likely to vote Democrat. This last election we saw massive voter suppression among blacks, hispanics, and asians, again, because they're most likely to vote Democrat. This racial voter suppression was instigated by Republicans this time under the guise of preventing people from voting more than once, or even 'illegally voting'. Actual voter fraud is extremely rare in America, and yet voter suppression is rampant. Millions were yanked off the voter rolls within a month of the election (because registering to vote must occur at least 30 days before the election in most states) merely for having a last name which indicated their race, i.e. Washington, Garcia, or Kim.

As for the Electoral College, it was put in place precisely to prevent demagogues from being elected president. We saw how spectacularly it failed to prevent precisely that. If a system cannot even properly perform its prime function, then yes, it should be abolished.

Originally posted by Suzianne
Yes, the poor are impacted most. They're also more likely to get their vote suppressed because, well, they're poor and no one listens when they complain, and they are more likely to vote Democrat. This last election we saw massive voter suppression among blacks, hispanics, and asians, again, because they're most likely to vote Democrat. This racial voter ...[text shortened]... If a system cannot even properly perform its prime function, then yes, it should be abolished.

wow, yeah ... thanks for that. only brief but points me in the right direction. 🙂

Originally posted by Suzianne
Add an abolition of the antiquated and ineffective Electoral College, and I doubt we'd ever see a debacle like this ever again.

Were you speaking out against the Electoral College here on these forums before your preferred candidate lost the 2016 election?

Originally posted by FMF
Were you speaking out against the Electoral College here on these forums before your preferred candidate lost the 2016 election?

Did you even read what I wrote a mere four hours before this latest swing at me?

I had no reason to "speak out" against it. The Electoral College has never been put to the test. When it is finally actually put to the test, it fails spectacularly. This has zero to do with anyone's "preferred candidate" and everything to do with an American institution which has failed the American people.

Do you actually have anything to contribute, or are you going to continue to ask questions which have nothing to do with the discussion at hand? Frankly, I think you can either contribute, or piss off. You might have better luck starting your own "sour grapes" thread.

Originally posted by Suzianne
I had no reason to "speak out" against it. The Electoral College has never been put to the test. When it is finally actually put to the test, it fails spectacularly.

The system failed "spectacularly" to deliver the election result you wanted, you mean.

Originally posted by karoly aczel
wow, yeah ... thanks for that. only brief but points me in the right direction. 🙂

I try to be brief because some things tend to bore people. Apparently, I wasn't brief enough to prevent some from taking umbrage at me taking more oxygen from the room.

Try this on for size. Google the Interstate Voter Registration Crosscheck System. This is ostensibly a program created by Kris Kobach (another good name to Google, you can learn all about his prior projects and motivations) to compile lists of people who are registered in more than one state to stop supposedly "widespread" voter fraud. Given that a majority of states in America are now Republican-dominated, it wasn't difficult for him to get most of these states to trim their voter registration rolls through the results of the Interstate Crosscheck Program. The problem is that these lists are wildly inconclusive, assuming that voters, who may have the same first and last name, yet different middle initials or different Social Security numbers, are the same person, putting them both on the lists for removal in both states. Look for the article in Rolling Stone magazine ("The GOP's Stealth War Against Voters", by Greg Palast, dated Aug. 24, 2016** ) which outlines this latest attempt by Republicans to stop Democrats from voting.

Your post about compulsory voting is what made me reply. If voting rights were taken seriously enough in this country to actually legislate compulsory voting, then the Republicans could not get away with these kinds of shenanigans any longer, they'd have to make voting easier and not more difficult, as they've been trying to do for decades.

** http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/features/the-gops-stealth-war-against-voters-w435890

Originally posted by Suzianne
As for the Electoral College, it was put in place precisely to prevent demagogues from being elected president. We saw how spectacularly it failed to prevent precisely that. If a system cannot even properly perform its prime function, then yes, it should be abolished.

If Clinton had been elected by the Electoral College, having lost the popular vote, and there were millions of people denouncing her as unfit to govern (as you are with Trump), would that have been grounds for abolishing the system for being "antiquated and ineffective"?

Originally posted by Suzianne
This has zero to do with anyone's "preferred candidate" and everything to do with an American institution which has failed the American people.

Aren't there approximately 63,000,000 American people for whom the system succeeded rather than failed?

Originally posted by FMF
If Clinton had been elected by the Electoral College, having lost the popular vote, and there were millions of people denouncing her as unfit to govern (as you are with Trump), would that have been grounds for abolishing the system for being "antiquated and ineffective"?

First of all, Clinton won the popular vote. Your demented "scenario" is comparing apples and oranges.

Secondly, there is a vast difference between someone calling someone "unfit to govern" merely because they don't like their politics and a demagogue gaining power and potentially ruining a country, i.e. actually BEing "unfit to govern". The Electoral College was put in place to prevent this. It failed.

Your "devil's advocate" show might play well outside of the States. Not so much from the inside.

I'm not going to hack this out with you over the next few hours. I've got far better things to do than entertain you. So, as I said, if you don't want to contribute, but only want to misrepresent me, then kindly piss off.

Originally posted by Suzianne
First of all, Clinton won the popular vote. Your demented "scenario" is comparing apples and oranges.

My scenario is the mirror image of what happened; it's a case of 'what if what happened had happened the other way round?' Therefore it is the opposite of comparing apples and oranges.

Originally posted by Suzianne
Secondly, there is a vast difference between someone calling someone "unfit to govern" merely because they don't like their politics and a demagogue gaining power and potentially ruining a country, i.e. actually BEing "unfit to govern".

But you are calling someone "unfit to govern" because you don't like his politics and you believe he is a demagogue. Why do you believe that your deeming a politician you dislike to be "unfit to govern" trumps people deeming the politician you like to be "unfit to govern"?