Why Trump - the white riot

[Skybird]

There is a penetrant tendency and a strong social pressure to not violate the consensus of the "reasonable", the poltically correct, the wellmeaning, the do-gooders. I would call it, in reference to some typical German, Merkel-related characteristics in this country here, a tyranny of consensus.

If you always accept to play by the rules of this setting, the tenedd towards the jiddle of this mess intensifies, necessarily. You MUST violate it if you want to break it up; even more so when the established social factions already use quite a solid ammount of pressure and social violance themselves to defend their cozy nests. Play by their rules means guaranteeing that they must not change.

Sometimes you do not get further by playing by such rules, they spell your defeat if you want to change things, and soon you get mercilessly pulled back into the swamp of mediocrity and dilletantism, not to disturb the collectvie around you any longer, and not to stand apart from it. With consensus being enforced again, graveyard peace clouds the minds of people again and nobody asks questions anymore, since nobody has the skill anymore to ask. Sometimes you must swing the sledgehammer and accept to be the wild man, for surgical cleanliness will get you nowhere anymore. The estalbished lobbies and elites are full of cleanly surgeons and coensus-driven career junkeys. And look what a servile breed bare of any imgination and courage to put the rzuling orde rin questio n they are. That too is oine of th ereaosns why "populists" in past years are on a rise. Because more and more people have joined the Be-Pissed-party, for a growing number of different reasons.

Whether it is wise to assume that just one replaced president can fix all that, is another question. But the motivation why people even accept radical options now to enforce a drastic change - that motivation can be perfectly explained.

[Bilge_Rat]

Originally Posted by Skybird

Not all Trump voters are stupid - but a certain subgroup certainly is. That much that one should forbid them to vote.

Well you could say about any group of voters in any political party.

I am sure the same percentage of German voters are just as stupid.

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by Bilge_Rat

Well you could say about any group of voters in any political party.

I am sure the same percentage of German voters are just as stupid.

Oh yes. Its Merkel's third term currently - and there even could be a fourth one.

That I hold the very idea of letting every Peter and every Paul have a vote not exactly in high esteem, should be known by now. Also that this is not what the ancient Greek ideas of majority-decisions and democracy were about. What we practice today, the ancient Greek called ochlocracy - the tyranny of the plebs. And they counted it as one of the three base forms of tyranny.

My arguments against allowing this, are not much different than the arguments of politicians today that want to limit public referendums. Just that our motivations could not be any more different.

Churchill and Mark Twain also had some pointy comments about it, hadnt they. The appreciation for our ochlocracy-that-now-is-called-democracy, is relatively new and young in history. Not too long time ago, the idea was dispised. And the United States in my understanding and interpretation were founded as an aristocratic republic, not a democracy in the meaning the term gets abused for today.

Originally, democracy means a feudal system in which only a very small elite - in Greece: 1. free (non-enslaved) 2. rich 3. males) - was eligable to discuss and cast a vote in majority-decisions. These elitist groups were called: citizens. Later, in European middle age, they turned into the socalled noblemen, or "the aristocracy".

I say again, like on various occasions before: what we do now, today, is a mix of oligarchy (the power of political parties, lobbies, business monopolists), and ochlocracy (the socialist redistribution and expropriation of the minority, as demanded by the plebs). The idea of letting every Peter and every Paul decide, in frequent intervals, on issues they have no clue of, is absurd. The idea of feudal democracy, is elitist, bears the risk of abuse and power monopoly, and thus is to be rejected as well.

And that is why I am against the concept of political states and supernational institutions - I am against that for very for principal reasons.

The freedom of the individual to share its voice in a decision making process of the community should only reach as far as the individual indeed can overwatch the total dimension of the coimunty system, and can be aware of all what goes on and how each thing and decisoonb affects evertyhgign else. This can only be relasied in communties of verys small, limited imensions,l we call it basic dmeiocracy today, I think. It sosmething for very very small communities only, else it canot work. The community sizes we have today: nations with millions and millions of people, are an insanity. Decentralization is of the essence.

[Onkel Neal]

Originally Posted by Skybird

That I hold the very idea of letting every Peter and every Paul have a vote not exactly in high esteem, should be known by now.

We certainly agree on that.

[Skybird]

Wicked British humour:

https://twitter.com/DanielAlpert/sta...939330/photo/1

[mapuc]

Originally Posted by Sailor Steve

Actually it was worse than that. Those same states threatened to secede in 1856 if John C. Fremont was elected. They threatened to secede in 1860 if Lincoln was elected. After he won, they did secede before he took office.

Thank you Steve. Now I have more knowledge to the "prologue to the American Civil War" or should a say a part of it.

And of course thank you August.

Markus

[mapuc]

It's not only on the street i USA people get beaten just because they have voted for Trump being mocked on social media.

Even here among Danish people there is a lot of hate between those that support Trump or not supporting.

Yesterday a Swedish celebrity chef was beaten by three young men-Reason-he looked like Trump.

There's also a lot of "conspiracy" stuff. Yesterday I read on a friends wall that he was convinced it have been vote fraud of some kind.

Markus

[em2nought]

Originally Posted by mapuc

There's also a lot of "conspiracy" stuff. Yesterday I read on a friends wall that he was convinced it have been vote fraud of some kind.

Markus

If there was any voter fraud it kept Hillary as close as she ended up, otherwise she'd have really been toast.

[August]

Originally Posted by em2nought

If there was any voter fraud it kept Hillary as close as she ended up, otherwise she'd have really been toast.

I read somewhere that fear of this being discovered is why the Clinton campaign is not demanding recounts in the close states.