3 ms·

Because he doesn't care about facts or economics. It's pure populism to attract young people. This greatly damage the US economy.

lsllc 7y ago
In the old days a politician just needed a single wealthy donor (say a George Soros or one of the Kock brothers), now with crowd sourced fundraising, you just need 1M people to give you $20 via your website or app. So yes, all you need do now is to appeal to the masses! [much to the chagrin of the wealthy -- see Schultz' attempted presidential run]. However, representing the masses vs a few special interests is definitely a step toward greater democracy.
- ChrisLomont 7y ago
  >However, representing the masses vs a few special interests is definitely a step toward greater democracy. Unless the masses don't understand how/why some systems work and want to tear them down. Many systems in modern life are complex enough that most don't understand them, and such systems, if simply ran by popular vote, would make life worse, not better, for the masses. This is how we get rent controls (which ultimately hurt those it is supposed to help), it's how we get anti-vaxxers, climate change denialists, those who would tear down modern banking and replace it with a gold standard (despite ample evidence this is a terrible idea), we'd block all sorts of medical advances, we'd block human rights, and on and on. The masses is not a very good deciding factor in running a modern world. They should feel represented, and have some say, but certainly they need protected from really bad decisions. I'm not sure the best way to do it, but it's pretty clear the masses would run things terribly in many cases. Sometimes having representatives try to get good advice from experts and follow it is a much better solution. Populists historically have appealed to the masses like this, and they have a pretty bad track record. An old quote has some truth to it: “The best argument against Democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter.”
  - lsllc 7y ago
    I hear what you are saying (tyranny of the masses) ... but you can't have a democracy when it's "all are equal but some are _more_ equal than others".

lsllc 7y ago

In the old days a politician just needed a single wealthy donor (say a George Soros or one of the Kock brothers), now with crowd sourced fundraising, you just need 1M people to give you $20 via your website or app. So yes, all you need do now is to appeal to the masses! [much to the chagrin of the wealthy -- see Schultz' attempted presidential run]. However, representing the masses vs a few special interests is definitely a step toward greater democracy.

ChrisLomont 7y ago
>However, representing the masses vs a few special interests is definitely a step toward greater democracy. Unless the masses don't understand how/why some systems work and want to tear them down. Many systems in modern life are complex enough that most don't understand them, and such systems, if simply ran by popular vote, would make life worse, not better, for the masses. This is how we get rent controls (which ultimately hurt those it is supposed to help), it's how we get anti-vaxxers, climate change denialists, those who would tear down modern banking and replace it with a gold standard (despite ample evidence this is a terrible idea), we'd block all sorts of medical advances, we'd block human rights, and on and on. The masses is not a very good deciding factor in running a modern world. They should feel represented, and have some say, but certainly they need protected from really bad decisions. I'm not sure the best way to do it, but it's pretty clear the masses would run things terribly in many cases. Sometimes having representatives try to get good advice from experts and follow it is a much better solution. Populists historically have appealed to the masses like this, and they have a pretty bad track record. An old quote has some truth to it: “The best argument against Democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter.”
- lsllc 7y ago
  I hear what you are saying (tyranny of the masses) ... but you can't have a democracy when it's "all are equal but some are _more_ equal than others".