A quote about the 2016 presidential election

The current election in the US reminds me very much of a quote from James P. Hogan's "Code of the lifemaker":

If you support Donald Trump, Hillary Clinton or Ted Cruz in this election, now or in the general, you're part of the problem. Sorry, but they all three fit the quote to a "t".

Well, I strongly disagree. The US government is not representative of the population.

Well, I strongly disagree with your disagreement. In a democratic society such as the United States of America, the government is indeed representative of the population. Obviously not the whole population, but a pretty damn good portion of it.

FTFY.

Oh and thanks for telling us how stupid we all are.

The views and policies favoured by the population at large are strikingly different from the ones pursued by the government. There are numerous filters in place, including media coverage and access to campaign finance which effectively "screens" candidates so that only those who favour the policies preferred by the very rich are elected to high office.

It is only representative in a formal legal sense. In practice the US is increasingly a plutocracy.

Much as I disagree with Bernie Sanders on his policies, the primary reason he is not doing all that well in the primaries is because he refuses to play the "tell them what they want to hear, until you get into office" game. So no, he doesn't fit the quote

And I never said you were "all" stupid. Only those who support Clint0n, Trump, or Cruz.

You're welcome.

I agree and disagree at the same time.

No, all Americans, or even a majority of Americans, don't agree with the policies of the government. But the American people are nevertheless to blame for enabling the government to play their game, and for letting two huge political parties, both corrupt and interested only in power and money, take over what was intended to be a wonderful form of government "of the people, by the people and for the people". When the potential candidates of both parties, selected by free primary elections, are as dismal as the front-runners this year, the people are guilty. It is too simple to just "blame the government".

I do not think that you can assign blame for long-term political trends to such a diverse and heterogeneous group as "the American people". That's such a vague generality that it only serves to avoid identifying the specific groups and social forces that have led to the situation.

In any event, even if you blame people for allowing the government to become unrepresentative, it's still unrepresentative.

I think you are making a huge mistake with this analysis. People who support those candidates aren't necessarily ignorant of the way thinks work. Voting for a flawed candidate does not necessarily mean endorsing those flaws. People mostly vote for a combination of reasons, but usually it's a ratio of most aligned philosophy vs. best able to get something done. Add in the question of electability, and what is left, is a choice among the three that you decry.

There's plenty of blame to go around. The media plays a huge factor, they have control over the narrative, they are the ones hosting and moderating the debates, they're also the ones asking the questions. The debates themselves aren't actual debates. The media also controls how much time they spend on each candidate, which polls to show, which sound bites to use, which clips to show, etc... There's also people who are eligible to vote, but don't. The two parties that put up barriers to prevent the other parties from participating. They also make back door deals and decide ahead of time who they want, making it really hard for other candidates to compete. There's also people who vote, but don't really inform themselves about the candidates, there's people who vote strictly down party lines. There's people who vote for the lesser of the two evils, which is most people. There's people who vote for certain pet issues. There's probably some people who will vote for Clinton just because she's a woman and, "it's about time", which is pretty fucking stupid. There's a SCOTUS decision that allows endless amounts of money with no transparency that influences the race. There's lobbyists and special interests. There's the internet cluttered with junk and trying to find honest journalism is like trying to fin Bigfoot. There's plenty of things that I'm probably forgetting, but like I said, there's plenty of blame to go around.

Good call, Async.

Much better to pick up our marbles and refuse to play the game since we don't like who's playing. Much better. Akin to a petulant little fuckin child.

[oh, when did you become so dim about life in the real world?]

I blame conservative talk radio.

The removal of the fairness doctrine was a mistake which has greatly harmed this country.

Here's fairness - put your message out in a smart and entertaining manner and people will listen. The consumer will decide. If you can't win any particular group of people over that's on you.

There is plenty of blame to go around.

Our education system sucks. Any time an attempt is made to enforce a set of standards or hold teachers accountable for student performance the usual suspects fight it until they are defeated. This leaves a system in place that wastes time on courses that are unnecessary and leaves students completely unprepared for the working world. Many parents seem to not spend time with or discipline their children. They don't take the time to make sure the homework is done nor follow up with teachers to inquire about their child's performance. They let their children watch garbage on T.V and never attempt in any way to challenge their minds. This leads to them growing up ignorant and completely not interested in anything that demands them to think.

What we are basically seeing is the result of a large segment of thr population that is incapable of comprehending complex problems and are easily swayed by whichever candidate has the most catchy slogans. Kennedy vs Nixon would never happen today because both men would be too smart and not " exciting" enough for the current instant gratification generation.

He might have mentioned a few sundry promises here and there that perked the people's ears...

• free college
• expanding Medicare and making it universal
• expanding / extending social security
• paid family and medical leave
• bringing over 11 million undocumented workers "out of the shadows"
• 1,000,000 jobs for disadvantaged youth

The WSJ valued his campaign promises at $18 trillion.

He's also performing head-and-shoulders above Clinton and wildly popular among hollywood comedians, late-night talk-show hosts, parody news mega-outlets, college students, millennials. He's drawing crowds to (almost) rival Trump.

I think Bernie fits the quote quite well, but the quote seems to me antiquated and perhaps a bit naive. As RickDeckard pointed out, the constitution doesn't guarantee representative government. Most culture-shaping decisions aren't put up to a vote.

I think Bernie's losing because:

• Hillary is cheating (i.e. purchased more delegates than Bernie can afford ( further proof government isn't representative?))
• Bernie has been too self-conscious to attack Hillary in a proper manner (she's a woman, and a dangerous elite at that)

I agree whole-heartedly with this.

This comedy is quickly becoming a documentary!

You legalize propaganda and you end up with lots of obvious propaganda and people who are too stupid to know the difference. That is Reagan's legacy.

Well thank fucking God the good ole' professor comes out of hiding in France somewhere to call the bulk of this board stupid.

Whatever would we do if not for the presence of the wanna-be cheese eating surrender monkey named Asyncritus?

More @gturner threads, probably.

Ironically, what has broken the representative system, IMO, is the development of a strong public sphere. Originally, you chose a representative, by character, and delegated that choice to individuals making choices about individuals they knew personally. Now you have public images "informing" a public that makes its choices directly, utterly misinformed about the persons they choose, oriented only by their public appearance.

The problem with the electoral college isn't that it isn't democratic. It is that we no longer accept the process for which it was created as valid, talking about all candidates as if they were running for direct election, then placing the winner in a system that assumes he was chosen by a different method and for correspondingly different qualities.

So when the liberals put their spin on things it's not propaganda too? But then again you did mention "people who are too stupid to know the difference." If propaganda is legal for everyone then how is that unfair? Because they can't compete? Give them a "participation medal" and a tissue to cry into.

Pretty much agree - let's admit it is a popularity contest. It bothers me when the media (both sides) say "governor X won that debate because he smiled more, but governor Y did respond with wittier jokes" etc.etc. So you "win" more mini-contests and you deserve to be awarded the presidency? It's like Nixon having stubble so TV viewers are more focused on facial hair than the message? Fucking pathetic. BTW we will never, ever, ever elect a president with a beard/mustache again. Not in our lifetimes anyway. There is no rule against it, but facial hair looks subversive and suspicious to many people, especially older voters. Jesus this makes me ill.

Bernie absolutely tells people what they want to hear.

And if you disagree with that, you're part of the problem.

Seems our professor has been in France too long.

Bernie is telling everyone, "Free shit. Don't worry the 1% will pay for it!" to anyone and everyone.

Of course he leaves out the part where he gives you free money for college while at the same time he's taking bigger chunks of your paycheck.

To Bernie everyone in America is a 1% except for those poor black people in the ghetto.......

The fairness doctrine at heart, meant every station had to give equal time.

You're making a common mistake:

Don't include Dinner in with Liberals.

"Dinner" is a quintessential leftie, his basis for his positions for everything essentially comes down to 'because I think it should be so.'

Anyone concerned with the balance of incentives of any particular policy, or the greater good for all mankind when actual humans are considered (and not some subjective theoretical 'utopic-man' concept used in their modeling), or decisions that lead to an overall greater productivity and output of a particular population invariably ends up conservative.