4 ms·

And yet, look what kind of candidate is still in the race to become president. The American government is voted into office. At least parts of the American peop

And yet, look what kind of candidate is still in the race to become president. The American government is voted into office. At least parts of the American people are also partially responsible. I am not saying, they could have known entirely, but the US is involved in the Middle East making it worse and worse since the early nineties, well before 9/11. Edit: Actually since after WW2, but the Iraq wars started in the nineties.

danjayh 10y ago
Unsure which candidate you're talking about (both?)? They're both equally awful in different ways.
ekianjo 10y ago
Candidates are selected in primaries which represent only a tiny bit of total american voters. So thats it.
- allendoerfer 10y ago
  Properly done opinion polls represent the American voters, for example this one [0] which states that 41% of American voters think that it would be a good idea to elect Trump. That is more than a tiny minority. [0] https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/clinton-holds-lead-over-trump-in-new-poll-but-warning-signs-emerge/2016/09/10/800dee0c-76c8-11e6-b786-19d0cb1ed06c_story.html https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/clinton-holds-lead-o...
  - Jtsummers 10y ago
    It's hard to base anything off opinion polls like that. They don't ask "Who, at of all eligible men and women in the US, should be elected?" They ask, "Who, of these <small set> candidates do you support?" Someone can support Trump if only because they don't support Hillary (fuck, the reverse is probably half her vote).
    - allendoerfer 10y ago
      In every representative democracy you elect the lesser evil. That is part of the point of democracy, you compromise with everybody else. In my opinion "not bombing people", "not building a wall around the country" and similar stuff should be pretty high on everybody's wishlist for a new president. Apparently in America 41% of the voting population has a very different wishlist and/or is ignorant to or does not know the things candidates actually say. I get that Americas election system is broken and I also get that "not Clinton" or for some people "not a woman" is on their wishlist. It just puzzles me that America, the country of "the [letter]-word", does not have a blacklist of phrases a candidate simply cannot say engrained deep enough into society.
      - ekianjo 10y ago
        This has nothing to do with democracy. This is what you get when you have a majority based voting system with centralized power structure. Democracy in its origin was about the separation of powers and the involvment of citizens in governance.
        allendoerfer 10y ago
        I intentionally said representative democracy. I personally think it is a good model. Council and referendum based democracies have been tried, I think as the main model, they do not work. And even with them, compromising is the point of the Western democracy, its definition almost always includes human rights and protection of minorities.
  - pessimizer 10y ago
    Trump is a vote for American white nationalism, not the kind of overseas aggressiveness that normally angers other nations about US foreign policy.
    - allendoerfer 10y ago
      Nationalism is a foreign policy. Bombing and wall building definitely are, too.
    - FireBeyond 10y ago
      Huh, what?? Have you listened to Trump? He has stated, in as many words, that we should go into Iraq and "take the oil". He's advocated our involvement in other issues. He's repeatedly suggested the use of nuclear weapons to deal with current conflicts. How is this not a textbook example of "overseas aggressiveness that ... angers other nations"?
  - mindslight 10y ago
    It's a bit incomplete to act incredulous about the existence of one specific candidate while ignoring how terrible the other mainstream option is as well. While each of us will have our personal alarms set off harder for one or the other, please work to avoid transmuting this arbitrary difference into actual support for either of the bags of shit.
  - ekianjo 10y ago
    When you only have two options thats what you get. Such polls are meaningless.
- tamana 10y ago
  Primaries get about 50% turnout per party. And "we don't care to use our power to decide who are leaders are" isn't much of a moral defense against what those leaders do.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
at-fates-hands 10y ago
>> but the US is involved in the Middle East making it worse and worse since the early nineties, well before 9/11. I think we've found out people want freedom in the Middle East, they just don't want to have to fight to keep it anymore. We gave Iraq freedom and look what happened. We toppled several dictators in the Middle East and what happened? It created a power vacuum and ISIS stepped into the fold and look what they're doing. The pseudo democratic governments we set up were rotten to the core. How soon we forgot that here religion and family ties means nothing to the people voting. There, your family and religious views dictate everything you do - it turned into a huge dumpster fire because of our nativity in thinking all we have to do is give you this incredibly powerful thing (freedom) and you'll be fine keeping and protecting it. Even in this country we had a fairly long revolution and a very nasty civil war in order to get where we are today - something these countries are now having to go through and endure the pain and misery of doing so. I won't touch on how having several global super powers running proxy wars between these countries involved in civil war isn't help them figure it out at all either.
- allendoerfer 10y ago
  I think the problem is not what America and the West has done here, but that it will not stop repeating the same mistake over and over. People in the West are not rational either, they vote based on enemy stereotypes, too. Socialism, islam, China, immigrants are some of them, "socialism" probably being the most abstract and religion-like one.
- ionised 10y ago
  Giving Iraq 'freedom' after decimating its infrastructure and institutions in a war based on lies by rich white men is not the gift you think it is. It's a comdemnation if anything.

danjayh 10y ago

Unsure which candidate you're talking about (both?)? They're both equally awful in different ways.

ekianjo 10y ago

Candidates are selected in primaries which represent only a tiny bit of total american voters. So thats it.

allendoerfer 10y ago
Properly done opinion polls represent the American voters, for example this one [0] which states that 41% of American voters think that it would be a good idea to elect Trump. That is more than a tiny minority. [0] https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/clinton-holds-lead-over-trump-in-new-poll-but-warning-signs-emerge/2016/09/10/800dee0c-76c8-11e6-b786-19d0cb1ed06c_story.html https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/clinton-holds-lead-o...
- Jtsummers 10y ago
  It's hard to base anything off opinion polls like that. They don't ask "Who, at of all eligible men and women in the US, should be elected?" They ask, "Who, of these <small set> candidates do you support?" Someone can support Trump if only because they don't support Hillary (fuck, the reverse is probably half her vote).
  - allendoerfer 10y ago
    In every representative democracy you elect the lesser evil. That is part of the point of democracy, you compromise with everybody else. In my opinion "not bombing people", "not building a wall around the country" and similar stuff should be pretty high on everybody's wishlist for a new president. Apparently in America 41% of the voting population has a very different wishlist and/or is ignorant to or does not know the things candidates actually say. I get that Americas election system is broken and I also get that "not Clinton" or for some people "not a woman" is on their wishlist. It just puzzles me that America, the country of "the [letter]-word", does not have a blacklist of phrases a candidate simply cannot say engrained deep enough into society.
    - ekianjo 10y ago
      This has nothing to do with democracy. This is what you get when you have a majority based voting system with centralized power structure. Democracy in its origin was about the separation of powers and the involvment of citizens in governance.
      - allendoerfer 10y ago
        I intentionally said representative democracy. I personally think it is a good model. Council and referendum based democracies have been tried, I think as the main model, they do not work. And even with them, compromising is the point of the Western democracy, its definition almost always includes human rights and protection of minorities.
- pessimizer 10y ago
  Trump is a vote for American white nationalism, not the kind of overseas aggressiveness that normally angers other nations about US foreign policy.
  - allendoerfer 10y ago
    Nationalism is a foreign policy. Bombing and wall building definitely are, too.
  - FireBeyond 10y ago
    Huh, what?? Have you listened to Trump? He has stated, in as many words, that we should go into Iraq and "take the oil". He's advocated our involvement in other issues. He's repeatedly suggested the use of nuclear weapons to deal with current conflicts. How is this not a textbook example of "overseas aggressiveness that ... angers other nations"?
- mindslight 10y ago
  It's a bit incomplete to act incredulous about the existence of one specific candidate while ignoring how terrible the other mainstream option is as well. While each of us will have our personal alarms set off harder for one or the other, please work to avoid transmuting this arbitrary difference into actual support for either of the bags of shit.
- ekianjo 10y ago
  When you only have two options thats what you get. Such polls are meaningless.
tamana 10y ago
Primaries get about 50% turnout per party. And "we don't care to use our power to decide who are leaders are" isn't much of a moral defense against what those leaders do.
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]

at-fates-hands 10y ago

>> but the US is involved in the Middle East making it worse and worse since the early nineties, well before 9/11. I think we've found out people want freedom in the Middle East, they just don't want to have to fight to keep it anymore. We gave Iraq freedom and look what happened. We toppled several dictators in the Middle East and what happened? It created a power vacuum and ISIS stepped into the fold and look what they're doing. The pseudo democratic governments we set up were rotten to the core. How soon we forgot that here religion and family ties means nothing to the people voting. There, your family and religious views dictate everything you do - it turned into a huge dumpster fire because of our nativity in thinking all we have to do is give you this incredibly powerful thing (freedom) and you'll be fine keeping and protecting it. Even in this country we had a fairly long revolution and a very nasty civil war in order to get where we are today - something these countries are now having to go through and endure the pain and misery of doing so. I won't touch on how having several global super powers running proxy wars between these countries involved in civil war isn't help them figure it out at all either.

allendoerfer 10y ago
I think the problem is not what America and the West has done here, but that it will not stop repeating the same mistake over and over. People in the West are not rational either, they vote based on enemy stereotypes, too. Socialism, islam, China, immigrants are some of them, "socialism" probably being the most abstract and religion-like one.
ionised 10y ago
Giving Iraq 'freedom' after decimating its infrastructure and institutions in a war based on lies by rich white men is not the gift you think it is. It's a comdemnation if anything.