RugbyRebels

morepork wrote: ↑Thu Sep 07, 2023 8:52 pm The fuck he is. He is privileged, not cunning. He is an actor slightly worse than Arnold Schwarzenegger. He is as thick as pig shit and when not acting/whining proves his profound intellectual incuriosity. It's not cunning to suggest washing out you lungs with bleach or UV light in a public address. It's not cunning to blurt out national security intelligence in front of Russian diplomats or give the big two thumbs up and grin while taking a photo with an infant whose parents were killed in a mass shooting two days before. Watch him give an interview where he isn't able to talk himself up (the Aussie guy during COVID, or the man-woman-camera-TV beauty), or better still a deposition where he has to answer questions....he is developmentally disabled. No, he appeals to bigots, the white Christian Taliban, and psychotic libertarians that believe the wealthy should give nothing and get everything (Peter Thiel and such), with the latter hijacking the former two for some grand eugenics master plan. He is a fucking puppet.

Stom wrote: ↑Fri Sep 08, 2023 8:10 am

morepork wrote: ↑Thu Sep 07, 2023 8:52 pm The fuck he is. He is privileged, not cunning. He is an actor slightly worse than Arnold Schwarzenegger. He is as thick as pig shit and when not acting/whining proves his profound intellectual incuriosity. It's not cunning to suggest washing out you lungs with bleach or UV light in a public address. It's not cunning to blurt out national security intelligence in front of Russian diplomats or give the big two thumbs up and grin while taking a photo with an infant whose parents were killed in a mass shooting two days before. Watch him give an interview where he isn't able to talk himself up (the Aussie guy during COVID, or the man-woman-camera-TV beauty), or better still a deposition where he has to answer questions....he is developmentally disabled. No, he appeals to bigots, the white Christian Taliban, and psychotic libertarians that believe the wealthy should give nothing and get everything (Peter Thiel and such), with the latter hijacking the former two for some grand eugenics master plan. He is a fucking puppet.

To disregard everything he's managed in terms of following because he comes across as stupid, and has lost a lot of money, is a bit foolish.

His speech patterns in his speeches are incredible. The verbal gymnastics he goes through to put the stresses in the perfect places for his audience are incredible.

Just to put it in perspective: I've used Trump style writing for various products and it has outperformed any other style I'd used, no matter the audience. The guy has that innate ability to structure his insane utterings perfectly for impact.

morepork wrote: ↑Thu Sep 07, 2023 8:52 pm The fuck he is. He is privileged, not cunning. He is an actor slightly worse than Arnold Schwarzenegger. He is as thick as pig shit and when not acting/whining proves his profound intellectual incuriosity. It's not cunning to suggest washing out you lungs with bleach or UV light in a public address. It's not cunning to blurt out national security intelligence in front of Russian diplomats or give the big two thumbs up and grin while taking a photo with an infant whose parents were killed in a mass shooting two days before. Watch him give an interview where he isn't able to talk himself up (the Aussie guy during COVID, or the man-woman-camera-TV beauty), or better still a deposition where he has to answer questions....he is developmentally disabled. No, he appeals to bigots, the white Christian Taliban, and psychotic libertarians that believe the wealthy should give nothing and get everything (Peter Thiel and such), with the latter hijacking the former two for some grand eugenics master plan. He is a fucking puppet.

Son of Mathonwy wrote: ↑Fri Sep 08, 2023 5:33 pm Unfortunately for us, and democracy, and the chance of improvement in global quality of life, Trump and Johnson have shown how weak the controls are in the political system. They've shown the next generation of populists how to do it.

Sandydragon wrote: ↑Fri Sep 08, 2023 6:05 pm

Son of Mathonwy wrote: ↑Fri Sep 08, 2023 5:33 pm Unfortunately for us, and democracy, and the chance of improvement in global quality of life, Trump and Johnson have shown how weak the controls are in the political system. They've shown the next generation of populists how to do it.

I disagree. The controls have held up fairly well. Trump couldn’t stay as president and Johnson couldn’t remain PM when his cabinet walked out.

morepork wrote: ↑Fri Sep 08, 2023 3:12 pm Bear in mind that he has been trained during his years in "reality" TV. Nothing innate about it.

Stom wrote: ↑Sat Sep 09, 2023 11:20 am

morepork wrote: ↑Fri Sep 08, 2023 3:12 pm Bear in mind that he has been trained during his years in "reality" TV. Nothing innate about it.

So you'd rather think he's bright enough to take on teaching from someone who isn't himself, and execute it to a world class level?

Nah, I'm not buying that.

It's a talent. A useful one for him.

Sandydragon wrote: ↑Fri Sep 08, 2023 6:05 pm

Son of Mathonwy wrote: ↑Fri Sep 08, 2023 5:33 pm Unfortunately for us, and democracy, and the chance of improvement in global quality of life, Trump and Johnson have shown how weak the controls are in the political system. They've shown the next generation of populists how to do it.

I disagree. The controls have held up fairly well. Trump couldn’t stay as president and Johnson couldn’t remain PM when his cabinet walked out.

Son of Mathonwy wrote: ↑Sat Sep 09, 2023 7:31 pm

Sandydragon wrote: ↑Fri Sep 08, 2023 6:05 pm

Son of Mathonwy wrote: ↑Fri Sep 08, 2023 5:33 pm Unfortunately for us, and democracy, and the chance of improvement in global quality of life, Trump and Johnson have shown how weak the controls are in the political system. They've shown the next generation of populists how to do it.

I disagree. The controls have held up fairly well. Trump couldn’t stay as president and Johnson couldn’t remain PM when his cabinet walked out.

Neither is fit for office but both became rulers of their country. (And Trump may well get a second term.) That doesn't look like functional controls to me.

Donny osmond wrote: ↑Sun Sep 10, 2023 8:31 am

Son of Mathonwy wrote: ↑Sat Sep 09, 2023 7:31 pm

Sandydragon wrote: ↑Fri Sep 08, 2023 6:05 pm

I disagree. The controls have held up fairly well. Trump couldn’t stay as president and Johnson couldn’t remain PM when his cabinet walked out.

Neither is fit for office but both became rulers of their country. (And Trump may well get a second term.) That doesn't look like functional controls to me.

How do you control who's running for office? Surely the point of democracy is that anyone can run and it's up to the voters to separate the wheat from the chaff?

Donny osmond wrote: ↑Sun Sep 10, 2023 8:31 am

Son of Mathonwy wrote: ↑Sat Sep 09, 2023 7:31 pm

Sandydragon wrote: ↑Fri Sep 08, 2023 6:05 pm

I disagree. The controls have held up fairly well. Trump couldn’t stay as president and Johnson couldn’t remain PM when his cabinet walked out.

Neither is fit for office but both became rulers of their country. (And Trump may well get a second term.) That doesn't look like functional controls to me.

How do you control who's running for office? Surely the point of democracy is that anyone can run and it's up to the voters to separate the wheat from the chaff?

Stom wrote: ↑Sun Sep 10, 2023 10:11 am

Donny osmond wrote: ↑Sun Sep 10, 2023 8:31 am

Son of Mathonwy wrote: ↑Sat Sep 09, 2023 7:31 pm
Neither is fit for office but both became rulers of their country. (And Trump may well get a second term.) That doesn't look like functional controls to me.

How do you control who's running for office? Surely the point of democracy is that anyone can run and it's up to the voters to separate the wheat from the chaff?

Democracy has never worked like that. Even back in classical times, you could be disqualified from holding office. But that rarely happens in the modern world, and usually only for crimes that do not impact the political process and are just heinous.

Better checks would probably see most of the Tory party disqualified anyway...

The ethical requirements of senators were significant. Senators could not engage in banking or any form of public contract without legal approval. They could not own a ship that was large enough to participate in foreign commerce without legal approval,[1] and they could not leave Italy without permission from the Senate. In addition, since they were not paid, individuals usually sought to become a senator only if they were independently wealthy.[4]

The censors were the magistrates who enforced the ethical standards of the Senate. Whenever a censor punished a senator, they had to allege some specific failing. Possible reasons for punishing a member included corruption, abuse of capital punishment, or the disregard of a colleague's veto, constitutional precedent, or the auspices. Senators who failed to obey various laws could also be punished. While punishment could include impeachment (expulsion) from the Senate, often a punishment was less severe than outright expulsion.[5] While the standard was high for expelling a member from the Senate, it was easier to deny a citizen the right to join the Senate. Various moral failings could result in one not being allowed to join the Senate, including bankruptcy, prostitution, or a prior history of having been a gladiator. One law (the Lex repetundarum of 123 BC) made it illegal for a citizen to become a senator if they had been convicted of a criminal offense.[5] Many of these laws were enacted in the last century of the Republic, as public corruption began reaching unprecedented levels.[5]

Son of Mathonwy wrote: ↑Sun Sep 10, 2023 10:20 am

Donny osmond wrote: ↑Sun Sep 10, 2023 8:31 am

Son of Mathonwy wrote: ↑Sat Sep 09, 2023 7:31 pm
Neither is fit for office but both became rulers of their country. (And Trump may well get a second term.) That doesn't look like functional controls to me.

How do you control who's running for office? Surely the point of democracy is that anyone can run and it's up to the voters to separate the wheat from the chaff?

Neither is competent or morally fit for office, so a functional system would prevent them from getting to that position.

The voters can't possibly discern the wheat from the chaff if they are constantly being lied to. Having a trustworthy news service (papers and TV) would make a huge difference - ie with impartiality standards, with no majority ownership. Strict control over political advertising is important (more of a problem in the states).

A test for basic competence and psychological stability wouldn't go amiss either - not necessarily to bar them from running but so the voters could see the results and factor them in.

Stom wrote: ↑Sun Sep 10, 2023 11:08 am

Stom wrote: ↑Sun Sep 10, 2023 10:11 am

Donny osmond wrote: ↑Sun Sep 10, 2023 8:31 am

How do you control who's running for office? Surely the point of democracy is that anyone can run and it's up to the voters to separate the wheat from the chaff?

Democracy has never worked like that. Even back in classical times, you could be disqualified from holding office. But that rarely happens in the modern world, and usually only for crimes that do not impact the political process and are just heinous.

Better checks would probably see most of the Tory party disqualified anyway...

To expand on this, and I know it's Wikipedia but it's the easiest and most digestible form of information easily available, here is how Roman Senators were disqualified or impeached...

The ethical requirements of senators were significant. Senators could not engage in banking or any form of public contract without legal approval. They could not own a ship that was large enough to participate in foreign commerce without legal approval,[1] and they could not leave Italy without permission from the Senate. In addition, since they were not paid, individuals usually sought to become a senator only if they were independently wealthy.[4]

The censors were the magistrates who enforced the ethical standards of the Senate. Whenever a censor punished a senator, they had to allege some specific failing. Possible reasons for punishing a member included corruption, abuse of capital punishment, or the disregard of a colleague's veto, constitutional precedent, or the auspices. Senators who failed to obey various laws could also be punished. While punishment could include impeachment (expulsion) from the Senate, often a punishment was less severe than outright expulsion.[5] While the standard was high for expelling a member from the Senate, it was easier to deny a citizen the right to join the Senate. Various moral failings could result in one not being allowed to join the Senate, including bankruptcy, prostitution, or a prior history of having been a gladiator. One law (the Lex repetundarum of 123 BC) made it illegal for a citizen to become a senator if they had been convicted of a criminal offense.[5] Many of these laws were enacted in the last century of the Republic, as public corruption began reaching unprecedented levels.[5]

Sandydragon wrote: ↑Sun Sep 10, 2023 1:13 pm

Stom wrote: ↑Sun Sep 10, 2023 11:08 am

Stom wrote: ↑Sun Sep 10, 2023 10:11 am

Democracy has never worked like that. Even back in classical times, you could be disqualified from holding office. But that rarely happens in the modern world, and usually only for crimes that do not impact the political process and are just heinous.

Better checks would probably see most of the Tory party disqualified anyway...

To expand on this, and I know it's Wikipedia but it's the easiest and most digestible form of information easily available, here is how Roman Senators were disqualified or impeached...

The ethical requirements of senators were significant. Senators could not engage in banking or any form of public contract without legal approval. They could not own a ship that was large enough to participate in foreign commerce without legal approval,[1] and they could not leave Italy without permission from the Senate. In addition, since they were not paid, individuals usually sought to become a senator only if they were independently wealthy.[4]

The censors were the magistrates who enforced the ethical standards of the Senate. Whenever a censor punished a senator, they had to allege some specific failing. Possible reasons for punishing a member included corruption, abuse of capital punishment, or the disregard of a colleague's veto, constitutional precedent, or the auspices. Senators who failed to obey various laws could also be punished. While punishment could include impeachment (expulsion) from the Senate, often a punishment was less severe than outright expulsion.[5] While the standard was high for expelling a member from the Senate, it was easier to deny a citizen the right to join the Senate. Various moral failings could result in one not being allowed to join the Senate, including bankruptcy, prostitution, or a prior history of having been a gladiator. One law (the Lex repetundarum of 123 BC) made it illegal for a citizen to become a senator if they had been convicted of a criminal offense.[5] Many of these laws were enacted in the last century of the Republic, as public corruption began reaching unprecedented levels.[5]

There is definitely an improvement needed to reduce the influence that can be bought in British and American politics. And most other democracies I expect to some degree. Yes government should listen to the views of big business, but not to the exclusion of other voices.

In terms of banning candidates it’s difficult. Trump is a twat, but how would you ban him? In 2016 he had never been convicted of anything, he was a businessman. And millions voted for him based on his message and tribalism.

Ideally the views he exposed would be seen as marginal. So for me the issue isn’t the candidate but the mainstreamism of views that should be marginal.

Donny osmond wrote: ↑Sun Sep 10, 2023 12:47 pm

Son of Mathonwy wrote: ↑Sun Sep 10, 2023 10:20 am

Donny osmond wrote: ↑Sun Sep 10, 2023 8:31 am

How do you control who's running for office? Surely the point of democracy is that anyone can run and it's up to the voters to separate the wheat from the chaff?

Neither is competent or morally fit for office, so a functional system would prevent them from getting to that position.

The voters can't possibly discern the wheat from the chaff if they are constantly being lied to. Having a trustworthy news service (papers and TV) would make a huge difference - ie with impartiality standards, with no majority ownership. Strict control over political advertising is important (more of a problem in the states).

A test for basic competence and psychological stability wouldn't go amiss either - not necessarily to bar them from running but so the voters could see the results and factor them in.

To work backwards...

A test for competency and whatever can be studied for or worked around, it wouldn't stop someone like Trump and certainly not Johnson.

The bit about the press I agree with to an extent but even that comes with its own problems... one person's truth is another person's lie, trying to impose on a population what they are and aren't allowed to accept as truth is a fools errand and anyway wouldn't stop the likes of Trump or Johnson. See previous conversation about Trump's speeches.

I also agree that neither DT not BJ were fit for office but the controls Sandy was talking about were controls to remove from office, not prevent from taking office. Removing BJ from office took too long but those controls did - eventually - work.

Sandydragon wrote: ↑Sun Sep 10, 2023 1:13 pm

Stom wrote: ↑Sun Sep 10, 2023 11:08 am

Stom wrote: ↑Sun Sep 10, 2023 10:11 am

Democracy has never worked like that. Even back in classical times, you could be disqualified from holding office. But that rarely happens in the modern world, and usually only for crimes that do not impact the political process and are just heinous.

Better checks would probably see most of the Tory party disqualified anyway...

To expand on this, and I know it's Wikipedia but it's the easiest and most digestible form of information easily available, here is how Roman Senators were disqualified or impeached...

The ethical requirements of senators were significant. Senators could not engage in banking or any form of public contract without legal approval. They could not own a ship that was large enough to participate in foreign commerce without legal approval,[1] and they could not leave Italy without permission from the Senate. In addition, since they were not paid, individuals usually sought to become a senator only if they were independently wealthy.[4]

The censors were the magistrates who enforced the ethical standards of the Senate. Whenever a censor punished a senator, they had to allege some specific failing. Possible reasons for punishing a member included corruption, abuse of capital punishment, or the disregard of a colleague's veto, constitutional precedent, or the auspices. Senators who failed to obey various laws could also be punished. While punishment could include impeachment (expulsion) from the Senate, often a punishment was less severe than outright expulsion.[5] While the standard was high for expelling a member from the Senate, it was easier to deny a citizen the right to join the Senate. Various moral failings could result in one not being allowed to join the Senate, including bankruptcy, prostitution, or a prior history of having been a gladiator. One law (the Lex repetundarum of 123 BC) made it illegal for a citizen to become a senator if they had been convicted of a criminal offense.[5] Many of these laws were enacted in the last century of the Republic, as public corruption began reaching unprecedented levels.[5]

There is definitely an improvement needed to reduce the influence that can be bought in British and American politics. And most other democracies I expect to some degree. Yes government should listen to the views of big business, but not to the exclusion of other voices.

In terms of banning candidates it’s difficult. Trump is a twat, but how would you ban him? In 2016 he had never been convicted of anything, he was a businessman. And millions voted for him based on his message and tribalism.

Ideally the views he exposed would be seen as marginal. So for me the issue isn’t the candidate but the mainstreamism of views that should be marginal.

Stom wrote: ↑Sun Sep 10, 2023 11:08 am

Stom wrote: ↑Sun Sep 10, 2023 10:11 am

Donny osmond wrote: ↑Sun Sep 10, 2023 8:31 am

How do you control who's running for office? Surely the point of democracy is that anyone can run and it's up to the voters to separate the wheat from the chaff?

Democracy has never worked like that. Even back in classical times, you could be disqualified from holding office. But that rarely happens in the modern world, and usually only for crimes that do not impact the political process and are just heinous.

Better checks would probably see most of the Tory party disqualified anyway...

To expand on this, and I know it's Wikipedia but it's the easiest and most digestible form of information easily available, here is how Roman Senators were disqualified or impeached...

The ethical requirements of senators were significant. Senators could not engage in banking or any form of public contract without legal approval. They could not own a ship that was large enough to participate in foreign commerce without legal approval,[1] and they could not leave Italy without permission from the Senate. In addition, since they were not paid, individuals usually sought to become a senator only if they were independently wealthy.[4]

The censors were the magistrates who enforced the ethical standards of the Senate. Whenever a censor punished a senator, they had to allege some specific failing. Possible reasons for punishing a member included corruption, abuse of capital punishment, or the disregard of a colleague's veto, constitutional precedent, or the auspices. Senators who failed to obey various laws could also be punished. While punishment could include impeachment (expulsion) from the Senate, often a punishment was less severe than outright expulsion.[5] While the standard was high for expelling a member from the Senate, it was easier to deny a citizen the right to join the Senate. Various moral failings could result in one not being allowed to join the Senate, including bankruptcy, prostitution, or a prior history of having been a gladiator. One law (the Lex repetundarum of 123 BC) made it illegal for a citizen to become a senator if they had been convicted of a criminal offense.[5] Many of these laws were enacted in the last century of the Republic, as public corruption began reaching unprecedented levels.[5]