If we can, against the backdrop of sometimes very undemocratic party politics, begin to understand why Trump was successful and the others weren't, we can begin to understand the defects of democracy and what elements are essential for it to work well. Democracy seems to have the least worst defects of all known forms of government; yet it provides us with no guarantee of good government.
You would, I'm sure, enjoy reading E.O. Wilson's "The social conquest of Earth" -- Wilson is the World's foremost expert on ants. Both ants and people are eusocial species. And it turns out that there are not many of us eusocial species. Bees are another.
Interesting. Read it this morning. As someone who has been around longer than most here, I would say that there is no doubt that conspiracy and disinformation, although it's always been with us, now competes effectively with facts in establishing our own realities to a far greater extent than in the pre-internet era. Will this matter? I suppose it means that the most practiced and skilled liars will prevail in the media and therefore have the greatest influence in the lives of those "hooked up." Truth may become the province of a few nerds who can read more than 140 characters without boredom setting in and don't care if they are loved or not. Edit: Oh my god! I think I may have just inadvertently described Bernie.
yeah..... because its really important to let a man with a penis into a womens rest room with women and girls in it. This is what happens... the left screws the workers and the tax payers and then brings up a wedge issue to keep some people voting for the globalists trying to extract all the freedom and assets out of the country they can. I suggest you read this... about team soros and friends... http://www.wsj.com/articles/how-global-elites-forsake-their-countrymen-1470959258 How Global Elites Forsake Their Countrymen
What the fuck are you babbling about now? Holy crap, you are out to lunch without your pail. Take your meds. Wall St Urinal? LOL. You don't even pretend to be objective.
I was thinking in the opposite direction actually. I thought possibly the reason Trump was able to get the Republican nomination was that the party had allowed too much, "from the party's viewpoint," democracy in the nomination process and as a consequence the establishment lost control.Trump had great appeal to a sizable fraction of the Republican base, and apparently it was a majority of Republican primary voters. That would make it a democratic process, wouldn't it? Whereas the democratic nomination was, as has been confirmed for us, a very much inside operation with Hillary more or less having the nomination sewed up from the outset. And I think in the end, even if you don't count superdelegates, she got more votes in primaries then Bernie. However a number of those primaries were closed. Bernie seemed to do better in the primaries where independents could vote or in the caucus states. Had all the democratic primaries been open primaries then Bernie might have edged out Hillary in the total vote, but there were not enough open primaries for this to happen. I'd welcome, however, a different opinion. I'm not at all certain I've got this right.
Wikileaks via the NSA released state department emails that clearly showed Hillary Clinton ordering the arming of Isis in Libya and Syria against the warning of the CIA and American generals. The Clinton foundation is now under multiple investigations for corruption and selling influence to foreign powers. Further, 50 intelligence analysts from centcom blew the whistle that Obama distorted Intel on Isis to shield them from attack Obama and Clinton clearly are in bed with the jihadis.
No he did not appeal to the majority of Republican voters. He got roughly 42% of the vote which means 58% did not vote for him. 58>42 The 42 number is flawed also because he ran un-opposed in the final primaries so he was really somewhere in the 38% to 40% range. I still stand by my analysis that it was crowded field and the guy with the loudest voice won.