When I was a young college freshman I went to school with a group of young, naïve but extremely intelligent (i.e. high IQ) kids my own age. We had identical class schedules and would convene in an empty classroom between classes and argue endlessly about everything from Marxism to Quantum Theory. (Think "The Big Bang Theory") We thought, at the time, that these arguments were the most important things on the planet. Of course as time progressed those think sessions gave way to the concerns about things like paying tuition, getting a job and actually inserting ourselves into a profession. This forum reminds me of those ultimately pointless discussions. Of course, those discussions, while pointless, were also essential to our becoming mature men. What formed an essential basis for those discussions was the background of basic information without which nothing meaningful could be accomplished. I have taken a few minutes to assemble below a simple list of references containing basic information that seems to be lacking in order for the discussions in this forum to make any progress beyond childish mutual sniping and insults. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marxism http://blog.acton.org/archives/85553-how-to-understand-the-folk-marxism-of-trump-supporters.html https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dialectical_materialism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Populism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Representative_democracy http://www.realclearpolitics.com/vi...sconsin_speech_trump_returns_to_populism.html viel gluck
Just 2 cents: 1. imo, probably a better and more stable system could be that majority/most profiles for ministers/chiefs are elected directly by voters according to their policies/framework/model in their own profile. 2. Therefore, the elected policy chief and the appointed operational chief (normally appointed by the CEO/President/Prime Minister) both are knowledgeable and experienced in their own field/profile. Such as internal control and audit, that would be very much independent from the CEO/President/Prime-Minister circle. 3. The CEO/President/Prime-Minister would be mainly for some key/major profiles such as budgeting/fiscal, national security, foreign, where the responsible ministers/chiefs are appointed by the CEO/President/Prime=Minister, who is directly voted/elected, same as in the present/conventional systems. 4. This kind of balancing powers between appointed and elected ministers/chiefs could provide better government operations overall, hopefully. 5. Co-ordination among all chiefs/ministers would be also a main job for the CEO/President/Prime-Minister. Defining how many minimal number of chiefs/ministers that can effectively cover all aspects of effective government should be also her/his key policy, whether during and after election cycle. 6. Problems on party politics, partisan bias, transparency, corruption, long/short-term balance, over/under spending, etc. could be improved. 7. Early election of an elected minister/chief can be suggested within the government and decided by the CEO/President/Prime-Minister, based on pools data or no-confidence motion or else. 8. Small parties that offer good policies, without big money to spend during election cycles, then would have much better chance with this approach. Since local newspapers/the Internet can publish their policies/credentials. https://www.elitetrader.com/et/threads/trump-rough-around-the-edges-as-a-politician-however.301894/
Ha ha makes me laugh to see Trumpy sucking up for the black vote ! Most of them would like to kick him in the crotch imho.
No, most blacks are trying to figure out how to rip each other off, deal drugs without getting caught, shoot each other without getting caught, hoping another cop shoots a young black kid so they can loot and riot and get a new TV. I haven't covered all of their wants, but you get my drift.
The wiki article on representative democracy is interesting in that it assumes in a "representative democracy" the elections are "democratic" . If you look up the definition of democracy you'll find statements like this: "a system of government by the whole population or all the eligible members of a state, typically through elected representatives" ; or statements such as this: "control of an organization or group by the majority of its members." The latter implies that a democracy has something to do with the will of the majority. Although at the local level the government in the U.S. tends to be quite democratic. At the Federal level, however, there is only one vestige of democracy left: election of the Senate as done currently within the States. Because of gerrymandering of House districts, the House is no longer elected democratically. The Head of the Executive branch, the President, because of the Electoral college which has the effect of disenfranchising vast numbers of eligible voters, is not elected democratically. Nevertheless, often the result of the presidential election, but by no means always, happens to correspond with the result that would have been obtained had the election been democratic. And of course the members of the Judicial branch are appointed. But there is at least a vestige of indirect democracy there as well, as their appointment must be approved by our democratically elected senators. However, even there, two features of American government interfere with a truly democratic result. One is that there are two Senators from each State regardless of the States population and the other is the filibuster. It can be argued that the following statement found in the Wiki article on "representative democracy", to wit: " All modern Western-style democracies are types of representative democracies," is quite wrong. The United States , at least, seems to be a very notable exception. Probably any of several alternative forms of government, in the case of the U.S. government, would be, while not entirely accurate, better descriptors of the type of Federal government extant in the U.S. ; for example, Plutocracy, Oligarchy, or Fascism come to mind. I am not advocating any particular form of government; I'm merely pointing out that the United States, at the Federal level, is not much of a representative democracy. It is clear from reading the Original Constitution that the Founders never intended it to be very democratic, but they did have high hopes for "the peoples house", vested it with the most power, and did set it up to be democratically elected by eligible voters according to their version of representative democracy. Subsequently, however, the House has became much less democratic.
I apologize for having left out a very important reference in my basic list: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oligarchy (it has always seemed to me that every other form of government ends up as a de-facto Oligarchy . https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascism and of course, Nazism is a lesson never to be forgotten: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazism Just one word: There is a basic error in identifying an idealized government form with the implementation of that form by very fallible (not to mention greedy and power hungry) humans... as piezoe has pointed out. Can anyone doubt that the Clintons...and I'm sorry to say Trump are in this for personal gain (not necessarily all monetary)??. also: http://www.whatwouldthefoundersthink.com/direct-election-of-president-considered-by-founding-fathers Recess:
waist of time the problem is not the luck of knowledge, but the huge gap between the moral coordinates of many people this gap can not be bridged so there is no need to discuss anything one can post his opinion, and that's it...nothing to talk about now, regarding young geniuses with great iq , they should of realized quite early (even without going into "The Capital"), just after reading "The Communist Manifesto", what a huge crap Marx is talking about.... but its ok - iq is not a substitution for the experience.. couple of weeks spent (not as a tourist but as a citizen) in cuba, or soviet union circa mid 70-th, and they would learn much more and much faster what is Marxism in a nutshell