Nov 2023 Mod notice:
There may be other, more specific, threads about some aspects of US politics, but this one tends to act as a hub for all sorts of related news and information, so it's usually one of the busiest OTC threads.
If you're new to OTC, it's worth reading the Introduction to On-Topic Conversations
and the On-Topic Conversations debate guidelines
before posting here.
Rumor-based, fear-mongering and/or inflammatory statements that damage the quality of the thread will be thumped. Off-topic posts will also be thumped. Repeat offenders may be suspended.
If time spent moderating this thread remains a distraction from moderation of the wiki itself, the thread will need to be locked. We want to avoid that, so please follow the forum rules
when posting here.
In line with the general forum rules, 'gravedancing' is prohibited here. If you're celebrating someone's death or hoping that they die, your post will get thumped. This rule applies regardless of what the person you're discussing has said or done.
Edited by Mrph1 on Nov 30th 2023 at 11:03:59 AM
Aren't we getting into STARSHIP TROOPERS territory now?
Limited franchise?
"Voters should have proven they deserve to be able to vote."
Except now just restricting who they can vote for?
edited 9th May '18 2:37:33 PM by CharlesPhipps
Author of The Rules of Supervillainy, Cthulhu Armageddon, and United States of Monsters.Andrew Jackson is the basis of a politician elected because of being famous, ignoring the law of the land, racism, and institutional destruction as well as general buffoonery. He's also a man guilty of murder and genocide of people who were US citizens (a fact which gets ignored about the Trail of Tears—not that it matters in the long run but highlights the fact acclimation was never an option).
Author of The Rules of Supervillainy, Cthulhu Armageddon, and United States of Monsters.People have proved they're stupid enough to treat it like a popularity contest. If that's the case, then there needs to be some other control to stop someone entirely unqualified from being put in a position of authority over an entire country's economic, diplomatic, and military affairs.
In general, your rights stop where they start denying other people theirs or threatening mass destruction. That should extend to voting, too.
Don't know much about Cleveland but Wilson was in charge when Prohibition was first put in place and arrested people protesting the Draft during the First World War, not to mention meddled in Mexican affairs by invading Veracruz in 1914. He was kind of a shitty person. Racist too, from what I recall.
Have you any dreams you'd like to sell?Here’s the thing, restricting candidates doesn’t do away with the problem that people want a popularist strongman, you suddenly have the serious risk of civil unrest when someone wants to run, is popular enough to win and is blocked.
Stopping people being allowed to vote for bad candidates is a band-aid, the real solution is much more difficult, you need to stop people wanting to vote for bad candidates.
And there are checks on an insane idiot getting elected president, the problem is that in Trump’s case they all failed, the media failed, the FBI failed, congress failed, the primaries failed, the electoral system failed, the previous administration failed, on some level the CIA failed.
You can’t legislate again a total system failure, you have to just try and ensure that the systems don’t fail and are strong enough to withstand the storm.
edited 9th May '18 3:26:51 PM by Silasw
“And the Bunny nails it!” ~ Gabrael “If the UN can get through a day without everyone strangling everyone else so can we.” ~ CyranI'm pretty sure that if a system failure occurs, you not only strengthen the system to be able to withstand the failure, but also put in safeguards against some of the things that caused the failure in the first place. You don't just leave it as is and go "hope it works out better next time".
Also, how would a candidate who is unqualified to run somehow gain enough popularity to apparently win and enough support to cause civil unrest? The entire point is that they wouldn't be allowed to run or campaign or anything in the first place.
Most examples I can think of are bad, but inherently there are issues. A populist gets support by basically telling the people what they want to hear and promising to give them what they want. Now, if the people are generally good, upstanding folk, and what they want are good things, and the populist has the power to deliver on those promises, that's fine. But if the people are nationalist bigots, or the populist is just full of hot air and promised them the moon in order to get into power, then that's bad.
X4 The media are the 4th estate, they are meant to act as a check and they failed with Trump, they repeatedly lied to the public in support of Trump by acting as if he was reasonable and truthful, by acting as if his ideas had any grounding inf act and by hyping him up for their own reasons.
X3 Nobody is saying not to make changes, but change the things that failed: change the primary system, change the hyper partisanship of the Republican Party, change the FBI leadership, change the unwillingness of Dems to properly counteract Russia and the threat of Russian assets within the Republican Party, change the electoral system, change the attitude of the media, change the educational failure that meant people bought into Trump’s lies, ect...
Also the only way to stop someone campaigning (even if they legally can’t register as a candidate) would be total state control of all media, which means you’re basicly after a one party dictatorship.
The suggestion has been made not only that people should be blocked from legally running but also campaigning, which gets very totalitarians as it would involve total state control of all media.
edited 9th May '18 3:33:49 PM by Silasw
“And the Bunny nails it!” ~ Gabrael “If the UN can get through a day without everyone strangling everyone else so can we.” ~ CyranCan’t run TV ads and can’t campaign are far from the same thing, it’s the later that was suggested, not the former. If we’re only talking ad restrictions than they can still hold rallies, they can still send our physical mailers, they can still have campaign offices with volunteers, they can still have people appear on TV for them, they can still get tons of news coverage, ect...
Only limiting their ability to run TV ads would do little to stop someone like Trump mounting a massive campaign declaring ti unfair that they can’t run for office, also it again fails to address the root problem, that the voting public are ill-informed enough to think that Trump is in any way a sane choice for office.
edited 9th May '18 3:52:15 PM by Silasw
“And the Bunny nails it!” ~ Gabrael “If the UN can get through a day without everyone strangling everyone else so can we.” ~ CyranThat's like saying "Since people are stupid enough to touch the hot stove anyway, we shouldn't slap a warning sticker on it saying it's hot".
Besides, there are laws in place that govern how a campaign is run. I'm pretty sure that they can be tweaked to make it so that someone who can't run can't set up a campaign.
Novartis Drawn Into Mueller Probe After Payments to Trump’s Lawyer
[1]
The Swiss drugmaker said Wednesday that it had a one-year agreement with attorney Michael Cohen’s firm that began in February 2017 and was aimed at gaining insight into the administration’s health-care policy. The company quickly determined that Cohen’s firm would be unable to provide the services it anticipated and decided not to engage further, but was contractually bound to keep making monthly payments of $100,000.
Novartis said that it was contacted in November 2017 by Mueller’s office about its agreement with Cohen’s consulting firm. The disclosure comes as the company seeks to move beyond allegations of improper sales practices, stemming from gifts and payments to doctors and pharmacies, presenting a challenge to new Chief Executive Officer Vas Narasimhan.
Novartis has sought to strengthen compliance policies after the legal troubles, and elevated its top ethics and risk officer to the executive committee in March. Narasimhan, a 13-year company veteran who took the helm earlier this year, replacing Joe Jimenez, told investors in January that Novartis is “transforming our productivity, culture and reputation.”
Now he’s facing questions about an agreement with Essential Consultants, a firm founded by Cohen. Basel, Switzerland-based Novartis said in emailed statements that it provided all the information Mueller’s office requested.
Cohen initiated discussions with the drugmaker and got through to then-CEO Jimenez, according to a person familiar with the situation who asked not to be named because the matter isn’t public. After an initial meeting between Cohen and others at Novartis that Jimenez didn’t attend, the company decided not to keep talking to Cohen, according to the person.
Cohen’s lawyer, Joseph Evans, didn’t immediately respond to requests for comment. Jimenez wasn’t able to be reached for comment.
edited 9th May '18 4:00:53 PM by megaeliz
![]()
Except the reason people are touching the hot stove is because they keep being told that’s it’s not hot and haven’t been taught how to recognise heat, we’re ignoring the realy basic solution in favour of locking the stove with a padlock.
You’re not suggesting warning people, you’re suggesting banning people, there’s a big difference there. I’d be all for government mandated warnings that certain candidates aren’t qualified.
Also you realy can’t make restrictions on campaigning like that, because there’s always going to be the basic tweak of campaigning to change the law so that they can run for president, unless we ban criminals campaigning for that, which would be a massive thing.
edited 9th May '18 4:05:39 PM by Silasw
“And the Bunny nails it!” ~ Gabrael “If the UN can get through a day without everyone strangling everyone else so can we.” ~ CyranWell there was one guy...Abraham Lincoln.
He elected on a platform of a bunch of people who had no other issues in common other than their hatred of slavery (including the No Nothings oddly enough) with almost no political credibility.
Certainly, the South would have loved to block his candidacy.
edited 9th May '18 4:10:08 PM by CharlesPhipps
Author of The Rules of Supervillainy, Cthulhu Armageddon, and United States of Monsters.One good example is meaningless, no-one is saying that every inexperienced politician is terrible just that mandated experience would likely be a good thing.
Regardless the issue is a moot point in that I highly doubt any such reform would be implemented in the foreseeable future.
"Einstein would turn over in his grave. Not only does God play dice, the dice are loaded." -Chairman Sheng-Ji YangLincoln was a previous member of the U.S. House of Representatives. Not an example of an outsider. He had deep connections to the insiders of the GOP from their days as Henry Clay's Whigs.
"For all those whose cares have been our concern, the work goes on, the cause endures, the hope still lives, and the dream shall never die."
x3 Except Abraham Lincoln had experience; he fought Native Americans in Illinois during the Black Hawk War, served as a US Representative for Illinois as a Whig (for 1 term, during the Mexican American War), was a Lawyer, and ran against Stephen Douglas for one of Illinois' Senate seat (where their public debates made Lincoln's name known nationally). To say Lincoln had no experience in Politics and Law is to completely ignore what Lincoln actually did before his Presidency.
Also, Lincoln's political platform wasn't just 'End Slavery' (that wasn't even his policy, his was 'end the expansion of Slavery'); he also ran on a very Pro-Business and Infrastructure platform. It's just that Slavery dominated the time so much everyone forgets that Lincoln had other ideas then just 'End Slavery'.
edited 9th May '18 4:25:56 PM by DingoWalley1
So, recent polling is showing that the GOP is gaining on the Democrats with regards to both the generic ballot and enthusiasm among its voters.
https://www.cnn.com/2018/05/09/politics/cnn-poll-generic-ballot-narrows/index.html
Now, while there is worrying, there is a long time until November. The Mueller investigation will continue, campaigns are gearing up, Trump will undoubtedly stumble again, the Korean talks will take time. This isn't anywhere near being over.
Politics is the skilled use of blunt objects.

So yeah, some sort of experience in government or a distinguished (or at least honorably discharged) career as a military officer should be made necessary. Every past president has had one or the other or both. Trump has neither, and is explicitly a corrupt businessman and draft dodger.
You don't hire someone for a job position when they have no experience in a similar position or performed poorly in a similar position. I don't see why the office of the President of the United States should be somehow the exception to this.