America

[morepork]

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]

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.

[Mikey Brown]

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.

Exactly. It shows just how far you can go with a financial leg up, innate car-salesman skills and being slightly too dumb/privileged to recognise your own limitations.

Maybe that's the dream after all.

[morepork]

Bear in mind that he has been trained during his years in "reality" TV. Nothing innate about it.

[Mikey Brown]

Nah. Nobody learns that.

It’s not particularly complimentary. He just knows how to bullshit. Being able to make his reality tv star routine work as a presidential candidate is quite revealing though.

[Son of Mathonwy]

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]

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.

Yes he’s privileged. But he knows how to spot weakness and to exploit people. I’ll mock him as much as anyone but it’s dangerous to assume people you detest are just thick.

[Sandydragon]

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.

[Donny osmond]

It's always an interesting discussion about the relative intelligence of leaders. Johnston could, apparently, read and write in both Greek and Latin, which by any measure would make him a very intelligent man... however, someone who publicly announces a set of rules and then within hours breaks those same rules and then pretends he didn't know what he was doing is clearly thick as shit. Braverman has law degrees, undergrad and postgrad, coming out of her fundament, which needs a high degree of intelligence, however someone who makes the public utterances that she does is clearly thick as shit.

Even if we might consider characters such as these to be blinded by their own arrogance and privilege, the way they've carried on is still a display of a profound absence of 'intelligence' even if they're academic backgrounds might suggest they are in fact highly intelligent.

I don't know enough about Trump to say the same for him but I would say simply dismissing him as thick is both missing the point and kinda playing into his hands.

[Donny osmond]

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.

Have had this conversation with nationalists in Scotland who look askance at Johnston and sneer that we could do better. The system took too long to work, and humiliated the UK on the international stage but the reality is that Johnson was eventually forced out as both PM and MP.

That contrasts starkly with Scottish domestic politics where the leader who lied in the chamber and under oath to a parliamentary inquiry was feted until her last day as leader and retains a huge popularity as a backbencher.

[Stom]

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.

[morepork]

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.

No. I think he believes the character he plays is real.

[Son of Mathonwy]

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]

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.

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]

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?

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...

[Son of Mathonwy]

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?

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]

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...

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]

[Donny osmond]

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.

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]

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]

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.

[Mellsblue]

There were rumours that the Conservatives were thinking of passing legislation along these lines so that Corbyn could be deemed as ineligible to become pm should he win an election.

[Stom]

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.

As a start, Trump businesses have filed for bankruptcy at least 6 times. That’s before we get to any of the hundreds of cases against him and other of his companies over the years.

He would have been banned from running the first time round in Rome…

[Son of Mathonwy]

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.

Agreed Johnson is intelligent enough to pass a competence test. Not convinced about Trump though. Psychological testing would be interesting - as I said, not necessarily to bar them from office but wouldn't it be interesting for the voters if they knew that a candidate scored highly for psychopathy or narcissism? A test of memory might be pretty relevant for these aging US candidates.

Re the press - look at the UK TV news services. While they're not perfect (eg the BBC would benefit from an independently appointed governor) they are reasonably impartial. They're also pretty reliable about reporting the truth. Imagine if the same standards were applied to our newspapers.

I raised the point about controls and definitely didn't confine the discussion to controls for removing politicians from office. These are necessary but not sufficient.

[Son of Mathonwy]

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.

Permanent ban for having been on reality TV?

[Son of Mathonwy]

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]

We could learn something from this (while certainly not adopting it all!) The intention to separate the Senators from personal benefit is good. No pay is bad - this just gives us a plutocracy. But I would ban all remuneration from second jobs /consultancies and limit time spent on them.

While I wouldn't say ban someone for bankruptcy or a criminal record, this information should be made available to the voters.

And we certainly need much stronger rules over corruption in office. Even criminal charges for more serious matters.

[Donny osmond]

Hey Son of Mathonwy, I saw this and thought of you ...