Donald Trump

[yerrag]

That is the liberal version of George W Bush saying "When you're not with us, you're against us."

It sandboxes you into thinking you are either "left or right" or "red or blue.

When you can perceive, think, and act, you can choose neither. When the political system is geared towards a 2-party system, it forces the electorate to think in binary terms - yes or no, democrat or republican. This is worse than a stupid test based on multiple choices. There's no need to think further to form a complete sentence, nor a paragraph, much less an essay.

And these liberal zealots like to call themselves "educated" but I would substitute "brainwashed" for it. They are no different than Timothy McVeigh.

 

[zztr]

When the political system is geared towards a 2-party system, it forces the electorate to think in binary terms

This is a feature of the American system, not a bug. In a vast, diverse continental empire like America or Russia a parliamentary system such as in certain European countries would rapidly turn into a disaster here. The advantage of these parliamentary systems with multi-party representation is rapid and extreme change. The government can dramatically change and change fast. With multi-party euro-style rules, Trump and associated ascendant rightists would be seizing control and changing America far more dramatically than you'd like, I'm sure.

The system we have actually works pretty well at steadying the course.

 

[yerrag]

The system we have actually works pretty well at steadying the course.

Yes, too steady for sure. Steady as a ship goes, and very hard to steer or change course. So change will be as slow as an iceberg.

A little tweak here and there would help. Why not give way to 3 or 4 parties? Why not have a runoff election if no candidate gets a majority? Won't that keep people who support Jill Stein or Gary Johnson from not voting for them? The psychology at play here is the idea of a wasted vote. If there is the possibility of a runoff election, you can vote who you support without feeling that your vote is wasted because it will strengthen the chance of another candidate you fear would win.

 

[zztr]

The psychology at play here is the idea of a wasted vote

The psychology at play in your post is that of democracy. America is not and has never been essentially democratic. This is a constitutional republic and democracy is a horrible idea that has already been taken too far. The problems we face today are mostly to do with ignoring the constitutional rules, not that "the people" didn't vote hard enough. "The People" need to string up certain folks, not vote harder.

 

[yerrag]

The psychology at play in your post is that of democracy. America is not and has never been essentially democratic. This is a constitutional republic and democracy is a horrible idea that has already been taken too far. The problems we face today are mostly to do with ignoring the constitutional rules, not that "the people" didn't vote hard enough. "The People" need to string up certain folks, not vote harder.

So your idea being that democracy is a horrible idea, we should just accept whatever leadership is handed to us and let "the people" force the leaders to uphold the constitution? How's that for not being a more horrible idea? Who is "the people?" and how will they agree among themselves?

 

[Richiebogie]

@yerrag wrote: "When the political system is geared towards a 2-party system, it forces the electorate to think in binary terms - yes or no, democrat or republican. This is worse than a stupid test based on multiple choices."

While it is essentially a 2 party system, we have just witnessed a total outsider enter 1 of those parties and make his way to the top, hopefully to transform the entire operation.

Granted Trump was already a wealthy celebrity, a great speaker, with confidence, humour, and a sense of drama, but his policies struck a cord with a lot of people who felt repressed and unrepresented.

He bravely presented sensible yet non-PC policies without being muffled by a scoffing socialist (state run) media.

The people supported him against even hostile elements in the Republican Party.

It was a miraculous rise, but shows that the binary system is almost infinite.

 

[yerrag]

@yerrag wrote: "When the political system is geared towards a 2-party system, it forces the electorate to think in binary terms - yes or no, democrat or republican. This is worse than a stupid test based on multiple choices."

While it is essentially a 2 party system, we have just witnessed a total outsider enter 1 of those parties and make his way to the top, hopefully to transform the entire operation.

Granted Trump was already a wealthy celebrity, a great speaker, with confidence, humour, and a sense of drama, but his policies struck a cord with a lot of people who felt repressed and unrepresented.

He bravely presented sensible yet non-PC policies without being muffled by a scoffing socialist (state run) media.

The people supported him against even hostile elements in the Republican Party.

It was a miraculous rise, but shows that the binary system is almost infinite.

The Donald knows about loopholes. And only the Donald can take advantage of that loophole. How many more Donald's can we tap on succeeding elections? And won't the establishment keep rigging each of the 2 parties' nomination process. Infinitely.

 

[treelady]

I don't think political threads have any place on this forum. It is a RAY PEAT forum. There has been too much emotion and hate and division involved in the election. This is NOT the place to add to it!

 

[charlie]

I don't think political threads have any place on this forum. It is a RAY PEAT forum.

This is not a Pete topic, but too important not to post. Please google Steven Greer, learn about him, and listen to This Steven Greer interview .

You can talk about non Peat topics, but we cant? Peat talks about politics, he was recently on the radio talking about politics. Why can't everyone be respectful like Ray Peat and have a peaceful discussion? This is a community of like minded individuals who would like to share information with each other.

There has been too much emotion and hate and division involved in the election.

Generated by the media, education, the establishment, and their followers.

So you purpose we shut down our conversations because a certain faction of this election cannot handle their emotions and does not agree with the other side so they call names, riot, assault, destroy property, while doing all they can to shut the other side down?

How about we come together and make America great again!

 

[tankasnowgod]

A little tweak here and there would help. Why not give way to 3 or 4 parties? Why not have a runoff election if no candidate gets a majority? Won't that keep people who support Jill Stein or Gary Johnson from not voting for them? The psychology at play here is the idea of a wasted vote. If there is the possibility of a runoff election, you can vote who you support without feeling that your vote is wasted because it will strengthen the chance of another candidate you fear would win.

While I think the format elections take is a worthy topic to be discussed, I don't that is what keeps the US basically a two party system. It should be noted that Ross Perot got 18% of the Popular Vote in 92 (almost certainly would have gotten more, had he not dropped out and reentered the race), and in '68, the electoral votes for President were split between three candidates.

Independents and other parties do crack through, though 98% or so of all major offices (president, congressmen, senators, governors, mayors, and other local politicians) are either democrat or republican. The question is why? Why isn't there some small, local parties in certain states that hold offices? Like, why couldn't some X party have held seats as mayor, governor and local councilmen in like Iowa? Gary Johnson was on the ballot in all 50 states, why couldn't he get more votes? Or even get some electors?

For the record, one race here in CA this election featured a Libertarian vs. a Democrat, another was a race between two Democrats.

 

[sladerunner69]

Trump is great. I gotta say I like the ol'

I don't think political threads have any place on this forum. It is a RAY PEAT forum. There has been too much emotion and hate and division involved in the election. This is NOT the place to add to it!

Allow me to explore this...

Is not hate a natural human emotion, one that serves a place and purpose in life? As rational beings, we are allowed to feel hate, anger, depression, sadness, these are an integral part of the human experience. Something should not be banned simply on the basis that it causes a negative emotion. No, a ban has to be rooted in rationality or ethical reasoning and such.

Being against hate is, fundamentally, the same as being against love. It's prioritizing emotions ahead of reason. It reminds me of divorces where the husband/wife claim "Im filing for divorce because our love lost its flame and I feel I could be happier on my own again" meanwhile they have a home unit with 2 or 3 kids who will deprived of a proper upbringing, who will likely not grow into the hardworking, responsible adults they would have, inside a complete home. It's damaging to society and the effect grows as the divorces trickle down from generation to generation, setting lower and lower standards for marriage and family. Divorcce is an epidemic that has lasting damage on all of society, yet many are promoting and encouraging divorce because of negative emotions. In the days before divorce was acceptable, people were more likely to make it work, and the children were better off. To me, that aspect is more important that trying to escape negative emotions that are probably just the result of flawed thinking, and are maybe just a natural part of growing as a human. Adults shouldn't feel positive emotions 100% of the time, that was a central theme in the warning novel Brave New World. Negativity and less desirable emotions exist and for good reason...

 

[dbh25]

I don't think political threads have any place on this forum. It is a RAY PEAT forum. There has been too much emotion and hate and division involved in the election. This is NOT the place to add to it!

Here is some actual hate+violence-
Trump supporter, 15, beaten during Rockville protest
"The group surrounded the teen, punching him repeatedly, then threw him to the ground and kicked him repeatedly in the ribs."
“They jumped him and beat him up pretty bad,” Max Stucky, a bystander who witnessed the attack, told WTOP.

 

[Queequeg]

@sladerunner69 "Adults shouldn't feel positive emotions 100% of the time, that was a central theme in the warning novel Brave New World. Negativity and less desirable emotions exist and for good reason..."

Agreed. except IMO It was more of a how to book than a warning

 

[Richiebogie]

Karl Marx, a satanist, first encouraged people to identify as victims. Eg. the worker is being ripped off by the factory owner. This would lead to revolution, a miserable totalitarian society and often mass murder. Eg Mao, Stalin, Hitler, Pol Pot...

You might have predicted that 8 years of a black president would bring racial harmony, yet he has encouraged identity politics and the art of taking offence straight out of the Karl Marx play book.

Black Lives Matter pretends white police deliberately shoot black people while ignoring music videos' encouragement of black thug culture and the police's right to protect themselves from gun violence.

We see the systematic shutting down of free speech. If a man criticizes a woman it is sexism. If you criticize jihad or diversity ratios in hiring it is racism. If an advertiser uses slim models it is fat shaming. If you don't agree with gender reassignment of children you are a sociopath.

The left has trained its minions to be quick to take offence and quick to give offence.

Hence the bizarre situation that it is seen to be good to attack peaceful Trump supporters while calling them dangerous.

Christian values have been replaced by their opposite - Satanic Marxist values.

Is it possible to combat strong delusion? (2 Thess 2)

 

[tara]

When the political system is geared towards a 2-party system, it forces the electorate to think in binary terms - yes or no, democrat or republican.

+1

This is a feature of the American system, not a bug. In a vast, diverse continental empire like America or Russia a parliamentary system such as in certain European countries would rapidly turn into a disaster here. The advantage of these parliamentary systems with multi-party representation is rapid and extreme change. The government can dramatically change and change fast. With multi-party euro-style rules, Trump and associated ascendant rightists would be seizing control and changing America far more dramatically than you'd like, I'm sure.

One of the advantage of a more proportional system that allows third and other party participation is that a much larger portion of the electorate can have a chance to vote for someone/party that they actually support and expect to get at least some representation.
Since bot Trump and Clinton were widely disliked, I assume many people voted for one or other of them mainly because they disliked the other. In a proportional system, many of them could have voted for someone they liked instead. I don't know if that would improve the pathetic turnout (feature of a weak democracy), but it might be part of the solution.

Limits on campaign financing and decent public broadcasting attention can also help people to be informed about the range of policies etc, rather than just advertised at by the ones with most wealthy supporters. (This can help counter the US problem with plutocracy.)

It is not true that multi-party systems always allow more rapid change. Sometimes two party systems can bestow excessive power on a small elite group to effect rapic and radical changes without the need to negotiate with other parties that might modulate extreme policies.

 

[zztr]

A straight national popular vote on the executive branch leader is simply not going to happen in America. States would secede first. It's not an option, for obvious reasons. This is not England or Holland or Sweden, and a lot of people seem to have some difficulty understanding that. Our system is designed pretty well for the circumstances.

What could be changed about the electoral college system is that most states (only two exceptions) bind all their electors to the statewide popular vote total, rather than allocate electors proportionally. This could totally be changed with zero legislation. It would have exactly the opposite effect people complaining about the recent election would desire. Suddenly states like NY and California would have massive get out the vote efforts in rural areas. Presidential campaigns would be completely transformed and you'd probably see Republican rule locked in for decades because the disproportionate impact of major urban areas would be diluted.

 

[yerrag]

It is not true that multi-party systems always allow more rapid change. Sometimes two party systems can bestow excessive power on a small elite group to effect rapic and radical changes without the need to negotiate with other parties that might modulate extreme policies.

I still remember with shame on myself that I got carried away with pretty much the whole country when GW Bush and his henchmen lied about WMD and brought this country from the promise of a peace dividend from the end of the cold war to the burden imposed by war on our finances, setting off a cascade of death and destruction this time on Arab countries. That was a year of infamy.

Ron Paul's voice was drowned out. Bill Maher lost his job going against invading Iraq. My German friend Kerstin, who reflected the sentiment in Germany, was angry at me for my support of the invasion. Looking back, we needed more voices to round out our perspective, which was very much shaped by fear, and a lot of that has the media parroting the official narrative of the administration.

The 2 parties were united for the invasion. If there were more parties involved in the conversation, such as the Libertarian Party and the Green Party, we might have the benefit of an alternative perspective going in. And yes, going into war in Iraq, as if the adventure into Afghanistan wasn't enough, was a seismic and radical shift in US foreign policy. And we are feeling the effect of that impulsive national reaction now. Lost goodwill. Lost opportunities. Lost lives. Hobbled finances. Stretched too thin, the government is on tired legs and the population is restive. There is a lot of hope for real change with Trump's election, but the card dealt to any administration isn't a good one anyway you slice it.

 

[charlie]

Here is some actual hate+violence-

And here is some more:

TEENAGE GIRL BEAT ON CAMERA FOR SUPPORTING TRUMP! STOMPED IN THE FACE! TOLERANT LEFT!!!

 

[zztr]

I would have to spend a lot of time and develop a model as I've not seen analysis on this, but I think people complaining about the electoral college right now are probably completely wrong about how national popular votes would go. Massive numbers of people in "blue states" know their votes don't count and don't necessarily bother with national elections. If for some insane reason the system were reformed to become a national popularity contest on the executive branch nominee I bet it would go exactly the opposite as certain people think it would.

 

[tara]

America is not and has never been essentially democratic.

+1 (US)

A straight national popular vote on the executive branch leader is simply not going to happen in America.

Quite possibly. Most electoral systems resist change pretty strongly.
I don't think just switching from electoral college to popular vote, without other changes, would necessarily lead to a big improvement in democracy. Using a single transferable vote could improve it significantly. So could campaign finance regulation. No doubt other changes too.

Our system is designed pretty well for the circumstances.

It's designed, as are most countries' electoral systems, to ensure as far as possible the continuing status quo control, even if it switches periodically between the two arms of the big business party.