The Damage is Done

[Fooloso4]

Alias:

I don't think Trump has normalized anything. Indeed, if it comes from Trump - from mouth, from fingers, or from his wherever - it becomes by definition abnormal, farcical, even freakish.

But to the extent it is accepted, seen as appropriate, or, as some of his followers have claimed, represents what all of us want to say but can’t because it is not politically correct, it is normalized. Of course not all of us see it as acceptable or appropriate, but when Evangelicals support and defend him, the bar of what is normal and right and good has been lowered considerably.

He's given dyed-in-the-wool conservatives a Republican model to avoid and an opportunity to contemplate just how much damage they've done to their party through their divisive politics and relentless Obama-hating rhetoric. They have no choice but to rebuild the party from the ground up, and maybe the survivors will be the sane ones.

I am largely in agreement, but think the beginning of the end was the infiltration of the Tea Party. I am not sure to what extent the obstructionist tactics of the party have backfired. A scorched earth policy hurts everyone, but they have managed to fool a large percentage of the people into putting the blame on Obama and the Democrats. And so, however dysfunctional the party is they still garner votes if they convince people that the real problem is not them, that they are part of the solution. As long as they position themselves as the party of opposition it may not be the sane ones who survive, but those who are the most opposed to the government as it stands.

Trump will walk away unscathed, still rich, write off his losses and start some other harebrained enterprise …

There is speculation that he will start a TV network. It fits in very well with his attempts to discredit legitimate media outlets. I do not know if he will be unscathed. Clearly, he does not like to lose, and while he may put the blame elsewhere, it is still a huge blow to his ego.

-- Updated October 22nd, 2016, 10:51 am to add the following --

Empiricist-Bruno:

And if the media cover an unfair debate, I continue to see corruption or gross incompetence (irresponsibility) in their actions and end up feeling the same way about them.

I would not be too quick to shout corruption. That is a main point of this thread: everything gets thought of and portrayed as corruption.

The decision to limit participants is based on practical considerations. Why limit it to four candidates? There are others running as well. EVAN MCMULLIN, for example, announced his candidacy in August. It may be that these candidates would increase their percentage of votes if they could participate, but the question is whether they have a reasonable chance of winning. If they don’t then including them gives us less opportunity to judge the difference between the two candidates who do have a chance of winning. The time has passed for them to establish themselves as viable candidates. Not a perfect system but certainly not corrupt or grossly incompetent or irresponsible.

[Nick_A]

Apex Predator wrote:

He has normalized conspiracy theories.

Trump tried with the Obama eligibility issue but it bombed. I never believed I would read of a hoax on the American people greater than Jean Shepherd's classic "I,libertine " hoax. Is there anything more idiotic than a country arguing about a book that doesn't exist. You would think nothing can top that. The Obama eligibility hoax did.

I remember back in 2008 when a controversy arose as to if Obama was a natural born citizen. Concerned citizens seeking to do their civic duty and cast an educated vote asked for certified proof of Obama's eligibility. Since the government works for the voter as an atom of "We the People," it seemed the responsible thing to do. That is when the voter learned the truth.

Whiie it was true at one time that American citizens were respected as "We the People" who the government works for. they have devolved into "They the Great Unwashed" who work for the government. As such they are now considered unworthy of and too stupid to deserve proof of Obama's eligibility. The Great Unwashed working for the government only had the obligation to believe, obey, and pay the bills of their progressive superiors. Unworthy and stupid people have no right to question the government on constitutional matters. it is now considered insulting to even think it much less do it. It is an unpardonable sin.

When people proved themselves to be so gullible as to accept such an obvious hoax is it any wonder that they continue to be taken advantage of by the Great God Government: the three fatal Gs. I never thought Jean Shepherd's I,libertine hoax could be surpassed. Ol Shep was beaten out. Trump realized that the hoax was too powerful and just let it go by saying he forced the birth certificate which he and everyone else with the ability to spot a hoax knew is a forgery. Yes the damage is done. American citizens are now considered by government to be the great unwashed and treated as such. They accept it. What greater damage can be done?

[Empiricist-Bruno]

Fooloso4, why would it be the responsibility of the media to present winning choices to the public when it is the public that decides who wins? Such doings by the media based on the reason you suggest is condescending towards the very foundation of democracy. You then get candidates that fit this value system. To me, this is gross incompetence and it is corrupt because of the obvious bias.

[Fooloso4]

Empiricist-Bruno:

Fooloso4, why would it be the responsibility of the media to present winning choices to the public when it is the public that decides who wins?

I am not sure I understand the question. In what way does the media present winning choices? It’s responsibility is to report on the candidates, although it has tended to give Trump more than his fair share due to his ability to grab the spotlight. Frontrunners tend to get more attention than those who are not polling strongly or attracting crowds to their rallies. The media is not a monolithic entity that acts in concert.

Such doings by the media based on the reason you suggest is condescending towards the very foundation of democracy.

I was explaining the policies of the The Commission on Presidential Debates. It is not a media group. It is, according to its own description, a private, nonpartisan organization.

To me, this is gross incompetence and it is corrupt because of the obvious bias.

From its website:

Scores of candidates run for president every election cycle, including dozens who do not seek the nomination of either major party. The CPD applies its nonpartisan candidate selection criteria in the final weeks of a long general election campaign. The CPD's selection criteria have sought to identify the individuals whose public support has made them the leading candidates.

In addition, candidates for federal office are not required to debate. History teaches that it is speculative at best to assume that the leading candidates would agree to share the stage with candidates enjoying only scant public support. Thus, a sponsor of general election debates that aims to provide the electorate with a focused debate that includes the leading candidates faces a difficult task. The sponsor needs to be inclusive enough to invite each of those candidates, regardless of party affiliation, whose level of public support genuinely qualifies him or her as a leading candidate. At the same time, the sponsor should not take an approach that is so inclusive that invitations to candidates with scant public support leads to the public losing the opportunity to see debates that include the candidates in whom they have the greatest interest. The CPD strives to strike this balance in an appropriate fashion.

Apparently we see things differently. I do not detect gross incompetence, corruption, or obvious bias in the selection process. If any of the other candidates had a chance of winning they would have much greater public support by the time the debates begin and would for this reason be included. I do not think that the fact that they do not have greater support is the fault of the media. In any other election cycle the conventional wisdom would be that the attention given to Trump would have assured that he would not win the nomination.

[Empiricist-Bruno]

Fooloso4,
I had read that section and others, thanks to you. This 'charity' began by asking the Republican and Democrates what they should be doing... I have also read the names and affiliations of those on the board. My conclusion is that corruption tries hard to give itself an appearance of legitimacy and this appears to be the case here.

The media do know that they have an undemocratic dictatorial power over the election and Trump notices this and so I am happy to see him denounce them even though I think his politics would exacerbate the problem and certainly not solve it. As far as enemies of democracy is concern is concerned, I would have to rank mainstream media slightly higher than Trump and so I am not displeased with his feud with them. Trump is the product of mainstream media and he will certainly bite the hand that fed him all the publicity because Trump really believes he made himself. And he has a point, in my opinion. Narcissists often excel at that.

[Fooloso4]

Empiricist-Bruno:

This 'charity' began by asking the Republican and Democrates what they should be doing... I have also read the names and affiliations of those on the board. My conclusion is that corruption tries hard to give itself an appearance of legitimacy and this appears to be the case here.

It is not a charity. It is a non-profit. They are not the same. It has bipartisan representation on its board. No one has to tell the organization what it should be doing. That was determined long ago and has not changed. It provides a platform for the leading candidates to debate. I started to research the members of the board and was puzzled by why you would reach the conclusion that the organization is corrupt. Then I read your second paragraph it all became clear:

The media do know that they have an undemocratic dictatorial power over the election and Trump notices this and so I am happy to see him denounce them …

Another victim of the Trump conspiracy virus. You see what you are led to believe you will see. I will ask you the same question I ask other victims: how deep does the conspiracy go? Is anyone exempt?

[Empiricist-Bruno]

Fooloso4,
I do not feel affected by any virus. What symptom am I exuding and are you a Dr? I have been seeing this corruption for years. Trump has had no effect on me in this regard. I have quite a bit of political experience and so I believe to know first hand about this. My anti establishment feelings do not originate from Trump; they originate with my experience with the Canadian political establishment. And since the US and Canada share the same disfunctional first past the post electoral system, I feel confident that my feelings would have grown similarly if I were involved in the US system.

Have you ever asked yourself why independent candidates never win? I'd like your take on that one. Should they then be removed from the ballot as they have no chance of winning? If you agree, do you not see how you have started to undermine democracy?

[Fooloso4]

Empiricist-Bruno:

Have you ever asked yourself why independent candidates never win?

I avoid discussions of conspiracy theories. Conspiracy is a foregone conclusion and everything follows from and leads back to that conclusion no matter how weak the evidence of a conspiracy or how strong the evidence against it. I will say only that I prefer to deal in particulars. I would frame the question in terms of why this independent candidate did not win or why that independent candidate decided to run as a major party candidate. Of course if one has already concluded that it must be a conspiracy then the particulars do not matter, but for someone who does not begin with a conclusion it is much harder to think conspiracy when it becomes clear that the candidate did not win for quite ordinary reasons such as lack of qualifications or views that are at odds with the majority of voters or even not having the right connections. I do not think that connections means conspiracy or corruption. It is simply the way the world works. And this leads to the biggest problem of conspiracy theories they tend to extend outward indiscriminately until almost everyone is culpable.

[Dolphin42]

When considering the merits of a given system - its media and its democratic institutions - it makes no sense to consider it as an absolute, in isolation. It has to be considered relative to other systems and other possible systems that we could imagine being brought into existence and them existing, and being fairly stable, in the real world.

Bruno: Can you think of a way that our democracies could be radically better arranged? If you were in a position to pass legislation, how would you change the legislative environment in which "big media" operates in order to make it operate better, from your point of view? What positive and negative consequences might that legislation have?

We have the first-past-the-post system in the UK too, and its merits and downsides are widely debated. It is one of the factors, but not the only one, that tends to tip the balance against smaller parties and independents. One thing which tends to cause politics to be dominated by a small number (usually two) of big parties is nothing to do with any deliberate conspiracy. It's the blind hand of the market. It's the same as the reason why well known brands sell well in shops, despite being more expensive than shops' own brands. It's the same reason why Facebook out-competed Myspace. How would you change the electoral system to give more of a voice to independents? Would it be an unqualified good thing? Or are there problems with every possible political system?

[Empiricist-Bruno]

Dolphin,

Thanks for the question about asking me how I would solve this problem with some piece of legislation. It really makes me and my opinion feel valued. If you ran in an election, I would surely vote for you, if I could. You obviously hold the solution.

Democracies may be better arranged for sure but you first need the will to improve them before you can improve them. This will is there with you and me but this is too uncommon to make a difference, in my opinion.

So you lay the responsibility for the lack of independent candidates being elected upon the freedom of choice of the voter? The solution then seems obvious: let's take away their voting privileges. Trump may have something like that in mind as part of his hidden agenda.

Jokes apart, the key to make a system more fair is to identify those who generally take advantage the least of the system and give them more power over it, in a way that will be useful to them. But then again, if you manage to produce some policy like this and start working to make it a reality, you will have nasty publicity campaigns going up against you in the mainstream media...by experience.

[Dolphin42]

Bruno:

So you lay the responsibility for the lack of independent candidates being elected upon the freedom of choice of the voter?

I lay the responsibility mostly on human nature in general - our tendency to trust famous brand names.

Jokes apart, the key to make a system more fair is to identify those who generally take advantage the least of the system and give them more power over it, in a way that will be useful to them.

Sounds promising but I don't know how it would work in practice. One problem that springs to mind is that people who take least advantage of the system often don't take advantage of the system because they don't want to. Give them a voice and they might not use it. You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make it drink. It's like when Jesus said "the meek shall inherit the Earth", did he ever consider the fact that being meek often means that you're not really interested in inheriting the Earth? - too much commitment and antisocial hours.

But then again, if you manage to produce some policy like this and start working to make it a reality, you will have nasty publicity campaigns going up against you in the mainstream media...by experience.

Do you mind sharing some specifics about that experience? What did you try to do to give a voice to the meek and in what way did this mainstream media thing act against you?

[Rederic]

https://inews.co.uk/opinion/impossible- ... s-muslims/

[Alias]

I'm trying to imagine an inclusive debate http://www.politics1.com/p2016.htm

One reason third-party and independent candidates have no chance is that they have no money or financial backers. In some cases, that might change over time, if they gained some grass-roots membership or did something to attract mass attention. That's how Perot did it, and Pat Paulsen before him and Ralph Nader. Trump started the same way, but then hijacked a dysfunctional Republican party vehicle, which was a lot easier than building his own, and that's what he's been riding. The fear&loathing tracks had been well laid decades ahead of him.

But the real reason these marginal candidates can't be elected is that they tend to be one-issue candidates. It's a big, powerful, disparate, multi-cultural country with political economic and military entanglements all over the world. To be president of the whole shooting-match, you need to be far better informed about the country, its population, security, commerce and foreign relations than Johnson or Maldonado seem to be.... or Trump, for that matter, but as i say, he's taking a free ride.

[Mark1955]

The trouble with lambasting Trump is that like Hitler and Putin, millions of people have voted for him and surely will do so again. It's those people you need to worry about.

[Empiricist-Bruno]

Bruno:
I lay the responsibility mostly on human nature in general - our tendency to trust famous brand names.

I love this, your own f****** human nature is to blame! I have nothing more to add here other than to say that I will be pleased if you describe me as inhuman. This seems too harsh, but I can't seem to find the more appropriate words right now.

But then again, if you manage to produce some policy like this and start working to make it a reality, you will have nasty publicity campaigns going up against you in the mainstream media...by experience.

Do you mind sharing some specifics about that experience? What did you try to do to give a voice to the meek and in what way did this mainstream media thing act against you?

My most recent experience was with bill C246. It was about updating animal protection laws in Canada. Yep, the media made sure it did what it could so it died and that nothing improved and that brutality and bestiality toward animals is still for the most part, just fine here. I supported the passage of the bill. I called my MP and asked to meet with her, etc.

The mainstream media saw that the animal abusing establishment had no interest in seeing this bill pass and so it kept repeating irresponsibly the concerns (legitimate or not) of those who opposed it. That's what they publicized because they didn't want to make the rejection of this bill look bad on their main clients. This way, they maintain the confidence of the establishment and of the dirty and cruel industries that support them.

Trump can launch his lynching mob against CNN if he wants to. I won't lift a finger to stop him; I would remain as neutral on this issue as the mainstream media here was 'impartial' in their coverage of bill C246. I do understand Trumps' feelings and apparently so do many other people as it was reported that his blaming of the mainstream media did appear to help improve his poll results.