3 ms·

Elections now are generally 2 people with influence, connections, and wealth (or someone that can be exploited as a puppet) that are chosen by financial backers

Elections now are generally 2 people with influence, connections, and wealth (or someone that can be exploited as a puppet) that are chosen by financial backers to win, and a remaining pool of stooges and fake implants meant to take votes away from either of the 2 people mentioned prior. Everything else, including the idea that an honest candidate can "climb out of nowhere" and win hearts and votes, is a pipe dream because of PACs, political parties, and obvious corruption. Been that way for almost forever if you ask me...

rayiner 5y ago
The alternative is where the party doesn’t control the nominee, like the GOP, and you get the base nominating Trump.
- AlexandrB 5y ago
  That seems... preferable? Say what you will about Trump, but his ineptitude and lack of party connections meant he was limited in what he could accomplish. Contrast that to the Bush presidency and its two foreign wars.
  - khuey 5y ago
    Bush was able to "accomplish" those wars because the country was "united" after 9/11. It didn't have much to do with his personal competence or connections.
    - deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]
    - raydev 5y ago
      That certainly helped, but it was well known even then that Cheney had a lot of power, and he had many connections. GWB wasn't a complete puppet, but he wasn't fully running the show either.
    - Crashbat 5y ago
      The US government (like all liberal, democratic governments) is a massive, many-headed bureaucracy, with competing and sometimes contradictory objectives. Those objectives are long-term, shaped by committee and subject to organisational inertia, so the departments will function regardless of the political weather. It doesn't matter what public sentiment is, nor how widespread that sentiment may be. Being able to utilise any part of it requires connections and a high level of managerial competence - in George W Bush's case that was through his own personal, familial connections, and through his cabinet, many of whom were career civil servants who'd served in previous administrations going back decades. The feeling of "unity" people may have experienced doesn't come into it.
  - redis_mlc 5y ago
    > Say what you will about Trump, but his ineptitude and lack of party connections meant he was limited in what he could accomplish. Actually the opposite is true, as his was one of the most productive administrations in the past 75 years, despite ankle-biting by Pelosi that exceeded even his term. Trump was the only man on Earth who could address the CCP, and started the rebalancing of NATO member funding. We now understand how essential his wall is. He also attracted remarkable advisors such as Bannon and Pompeo. I suggest you listen to their interviews, available on Youtube.
- inanutshellus 5y ago
  Notably -- and in alignment with winternett's post -- there were an unheard-of 16 nominees that year. Further, they stayed in the race, ensuring the rational voter's influence was split as many times as possible.
mc32 5y ago
I think Ross Perot with his own money obviously was able to climb out of nowhere to get 18% in the general. The two party duopoly ganged up on him and the Reform Party (as he was opposed to their globalization) and quashed any opportunity for him to succeed. These parties don’t shoot themselves in the foot, they adapt to and coöpt any threat.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]

rayiner 5y ago

The alternative is where the party doesn’t control the nominee, like the GOP, and you get the base nominating Trump.

AlexandrB 5y ago
That seems... preferable? Say what you will about Trump, but his ineptitude and lack of party connections meant he was limited in what he could accomplish. Contrast that to the Bush presidency and its two foreign wars.
- khuey 5y ago
  Bush was able to "accomplish" those wars because the country was "united" after 9/11. It didn't have much to do with his personal competence or connections.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
  - raydev 5y ago
    That certainly helped, but it was well known even then that Cheney had a lot of power, and he had many connections. GWB wasn't a complete puppet, but he wasn't fully running the show either.
  - Crashbat 5y ago
    The US government (like all liberal, democratic governments) is a massive, many-headed bureaucracy, with competing and sometimes contradictory objectives. Those objectives are long-term, shaped by committee and subject to organisational inertia, so the departments will function regardless of the political weather. It doesn't matter what public sentiment is, nor how widespread that sentiment may be. Being able to utilise any part of it requires connections and a high level of managerial competence - in George W Bush's case that was through his own personal, familial connections, and through his cabinet, many of whom were career civil servants who'd served in previous administrations going back decades. The feeling of "unity" people may have experienced doesn't come into it.
- redis_mlc 5y ago
  > Say what you will about Trump, but his ineptitude and lack of party connections meant he was limited in what he could accomplish. Actually the opposite is true, as his was one of the most productive administrations in the past 75 years, despite ankle-biting by Pelosi that exceeded even his term. Trump was the only man on Earth who could address the CCP, and started the rebalancing of NATO member funding. We now understand how essential his wall is. He also attracted remarkable advisors such as Bannon and Pompeo. I suggest you listen to their interviews, available on Youtube.
inanutshellus 5y ago
Notably -- and in alignment with winternett's post -- there were an unheard-of 16 nominees that year. Further, they stayed in the race, ensuring the rational voter's influence was split as many times as possible.

mc32 5y ago

I think Ross Perot with his own money obviously was able to climb out of nowhere to get 18% in the general. The two party duopoly ganged up on him and the Reform Party (as he was opposed to their globalization) and quashed any opportunity for him to succeed. These parties don’t shoot themselves in the foot, they adapt to and coöpt any threat.

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]