Speaking from a completely different political tradition, I believe you are right about the primary system. It encourages tribalism and produces voters who are baked into their voting tribe in a way that makes clear-eyed appraisal of the actual candidates seem like treason and disloyalty to “their people” - thus allowing extremist candidates to head off into the political stratosphere taking with them not only the people who like what they’re saying, but also all the people who just can’t bear to vote against their own identity group.
This happens in other political traditions as well, of course, but more so when the majority of people have “member of political group” as part of their core identity.
Mind you, I also think that clear-eyed appraisal of the candidates would literally have “leave the Presidency empty” as a superior choice to “elect Donal Trump”, so take that as you will.
No, the entire system is ridiculous. Especially in places that have open primaries. The idea that a person that has no vested interest in a party nor its candidates can still help decide who the candidate for that party will be even though they have absolutely no intention of voting for that candidate nor for that party in the general election, is completely ludicrous. The system is mob rule at its worst.
In a properly run political system the likes of Donald Trump, Hillary Clinton, or even career politician Joe Biden would not be on the presidential ballot from a major party.
We end up with the choice of many people, not just the ones we like.
Anyway, I don’t agree. I do think that crossing party lines to troll and vote for spoilers is bad idea, but shutting people out just because they have not pledged to vote for the winning candidate is anti-democratic.
I give two (and a half) reasons for this.
The first is that I strongly considered crossing over and voting for Kasich in 2016. Not to spoil, but because I truly believed that he would be better than Trump though I would have had no intention of voting for him in the general. Additionally, if I were a republican, I certainly would have voted in the republican primary for Kasich, with every intention of voting for him if he won, but when it came to the presidential, I would not have voted for Trump. Why does voting for Kasich require me to vote for Trump?
The second is, where I used to live, you had to vote in the Republican primary to have any say. The democrat was not going to win, not in any office. So I voted in the republican primary in order to have any say over the governance of my township. Then, even though I know that they won’t win, I usually vote for the democrat, as they better represent my interests. (for the offices that are not running unopposed, anyway. I usually had quite the under-vote on the general for local races.)
In either of these cases, following your advice simply disenfranchises me from having a say in my government.
What candidate would be on the ballot in your favored system? How would you enforce people to vote for the candidate of the party they primaried?
Hillary Clinton was more than qualified, and would be president if the RW media hadn’t spread lies about her for decades. Hillary isn’t the problem. Conservative people watching RW media that makes them effectively stupid through constant exposure to misinformation is the problem.
Even you, an intelligent person is willing to let the country fall into ruin, literal ruin, so that your hobby doesn’t get slightly more regulation. That is absurd. And it’s not something, IMHO a reasonable person would do. But there are literally millions of people who are doing the exact same thing. One issue, let the world burn so long as I can coo at my guns in the firelight.
I would do away with the primary system. I would have actual party members and higher ups in each party decide who best represents their party platform and present said candidate to the public. If it sounds like I’m suggesting a return to the “smoke filled back room” days, well, I am. While not a perfect system I find it preferable to allowing Joe Schmoe or election saboteurs such as yourself deciding who the candidates in the general election will be.
I find the present system no more logical than allowing me to help decide who the coach and quarterback of the Chicago Bears is going to be.
I’ll have to disagree. In doing so, I am in fact voicing my preference. I note that you did not comment on all the other reasons that I would cross over.
How do you feel about a republican that really would vote for Kasich if nominated, who chooses not to vote for Trump in the general?
Still unethical?
So a return from democracy.
Like myself? Thank you for that little dig, but it is not sabotage to help you to nominate a better candidate. I’ll agree that there are those who do play that game, and I disapprove of it, but I disapprove of many decisions that voters make, but still think that they should be free to make those choices.
Except that the coach and quarterback of the Chicago Bears do not set policy or pass laws that you will have to live under.
Why even have a general at all? Wouldn’t it be better just to have your leaders chosen for you, without any input whatsoever from you?
You can count me as one of those Trump voters who wasn’t politically active prior to 2016. You see, the only thing I’ve ever asked of a President is that they appear in Home Alone 2: Lost in New York. And, in my lifetime, Trump has been the only nominee to do just that. True, he was in it for all of six seconds (out of 6,180) but he showed up. He paid his respects. That goes a long way with me.
If the Democrats really wanted my vote, they could’ve tapped Macaulay Culkin, Joe Pesci or one of hundreds of pigeons. I would’ve listened. Instead they chose to ignore me and the millions of Americans who love HA2:LiNY.
And that’s why we’ll be shouting, “MHA2:LiNYGA!” on election day.
Might I remind you that this nation was not founded as a democracy but a republic. The more democratic it became (like the primary system and the direct election of Senators) the more skewed things became.
And what do you mean by “leaders”? Who are these leaders you speak of?
Might I remind you that a democracy is a form of republic.
Democracy and Republic are not antonyms or exclusive.
At the time, the term “representative democracy” didn’t really exist, and so, the point of calling it a republic was to distinguish it from the monarchy they were breaking away from. It was specifically saying that it was giving the power to (some of) the people.
Now, there is such a thing as a direct democracy, which is probably a bad idea to try to run a nation on. Sometimes, in their zeal to win an argument, I have seen people make the poorly thought out leap of illogic to assume that if someone is talking about a democracy, then they are speaking of a direct democracy.
Just to clear up your confusion, I did not ever use the word direct in relation to democracy, so your concerns are entirely unfounded.
So, when someone talks about democracy, they are talking about the citizens’ ability to choose those who represent them.
Is that what you are against?
You know, leaders, people who run the country. Presidents, congresscritters, the like.
The ones that you want to chosen for you. You must know who they are. I don’t, as I would rather choose my own.
Could you tell me who you want to choose these leaders are that you speak of?
You still haven’t answered the question as to whether a Republican who votes for Kasich in the primary is obligated to vote for Trump in the general. I won’t press the question any further, as if you do not answer it this time around, I will know that it was not just overlooked, but deliberately ignored as you have no answer that doesn’t either undercut your own argument, or admit a preference for a totalitarian state.
The folks in congress are not our “leaders”. They are suppose to represent us rather than a direct democracy. But they work for us, not the other way around. U.S. Senators were supposed to represent the interest of the state government which sent them but that got watered down. But I wouldn’t call anyone except maybe a head of state a “leader”.
Regarding the weakness of the primary system that gave us Donald, it isn’t the system it’s the candidates. Too many people with huge egos running in a race they couldn’t win. The sane vote in the 2016 GOP primary was splintered among several candidates while the batshit vote all went to one guy. Had the sane group decided early on to drop out and rally behind one of their own, we wouldn’t be in this mess today. Thank goodness the Democrats learned from this, else Bernie would have been nominated only to get his ass handed to him in November.
Another problem is that politics has become so toxic that serious people won’t run for office, knowing that packs of jackals will descend upon their friends and family and drag them through the mud.
So, you get politicians who have no scruples and don’t care, like Trump. Or, you get career politicians who crave power above all else and who have already run the press gauntlet, or hard ideologues willing to ‘fight’, or corrupt people looking to profit.
There’s an old saying that anyone who wants the presidency so badly they are willing to put their family and friends through that should be disqualified for poor judgement or overweening ambition.
I see this mentioned frequently but never examined. How did our military need “rebuilding” after the Obama administration, and what exactly has Trump done to get credit for accomplishing it?
The $2.5 trillion number comes from the total defense budgets for the last four fiscal years.
The Trump administration has made some strides, but the military is far from “completely rebuilt.”
Most weapons and infrastructure are the same as they were before Trump took office.
I’m still curious why people believe the military needed any kind of “complete rebuild,” instead of the standard trillions that go into upgrading and replacing equipment, paying personnel, etc. Was there evidence that it had fallen behind or become less capable under Obama, or do Republican voters just assume that the military automatically declines under Democratic administrations?
As for the Iran and China points, it is clear that Sam does not read cites that were posted already (And he even pointed at Foreign Policy Magazine as a very good source that he also used in the past in other discussions):
Trump’s approach to Iran is another painful and costly example. Over three years after the Trump administration withdrew from the nuclear deal, Iran has more highly enriched uranium available for a nuclear weapon, more operating nuclear facilities, more sophisticated technology, and a shorter breakout time to build a nuclear weapon. Its malign behavior in the Middle East has not ceased, Americans remain detained by Tehran, and human rights in Iran have worsened. U.S. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo and Iran envoy Brian Hook advertise this as a campaign of “maximum pressure,” but their ultimate objective—which they insist is not regime change—remains a mystery.
Perhaps most damaging to U.S. strategic interests and global stability is Trump’s complete mishandling of Russia and China, where he has veered between mere transactional tactics and his desire for photo-ops with authoritarian strongmen. Years from now, we will hopefully discover the exact nature of Trump’s personal relationship with Russian President Vladimir Putin beyond mere envy of power. Trump has already voiced his envy of Chinese President Xi Jinping’s status of president for life. And in both cases yet again, there appears to be no overarching objective, no strategy for getting there, no coherent policy process. There is no evidence, for example, of a desire to preserve arms control with Russia or to stop Russia’s (or any other country’s) persistent disinformation campaigns that are now looming as an ever-larger threat to the integrity of the U.S. election. And by scoffing at Russian bounties on the heads of American soldiers in Afghanistan, Trump underscores his continued stance of putting Russia above U.S. interests and American lives.
At the same time, the Trump administration has made no effort to find areas of cooperation with China, such as climate change, even as the United States challenges and confronts China on issues such as intellectual property theft, unfair trade practices, and control over the South China Sea.
What remains after all these failures is a clear effort by Trump and his allies to obtain Russian and Chinese help for his reelection. We should all remember Trump’s shocking plea for Russia to interfere in the U.S. election when he was still a candidate in 2016: “Russia, if you’re listening, I hope you’re able to find the 30,000 emails that are missing.” This time around, we know from former National Security Advisor John Bolton that Trump, at the June 2019 G-20 summit in Japan, pleaded with Xi to help him win reelection. At the same summit, during his meeting with Putin, Trump laughed off Russian interference in U.S. elections. And this week, at a congressional hearing that followed a senior counterintelligence official’s warning that Russia, China, and Iran are actively trying to influence the November election, Attorney General William Barr hesitated to say that it was inappropriate for a presidential campaign to solicit or accept foreign assistance.
The only possible conclusion is that the objective in Trump’s relations with other countries is not national security but Trump’s security. Nothing else explains the vacuous and vain approach of a foreign policy without objectives, without strategy, without any indication that it protects and advances U.S. interests.