Iran fires rockets into israel page 8 swamp gas forums gasbuddy near me

My point was that we truly don’t “choose” who is presented to us as a presidential candidate. We are issued a menu per se, from those in a position of authority, where the menu contains those who we can vote for President. We individually don’t decide the presidential candidates, we are given a list of choices that are acceptable to the powers that be in both parties, and are “allowed” to vote for our choice. Like the South Park episode, if your only “realistic” option is between a douche and a turd sandwich, do you really have a valid choice?

Obama came up through the Democratic political system, served as a Democratic senator, and as such can be considered to be part of the Democratic system. Black, single mother, etc. is irrelevant, as he came from within the system. Hhhmm, dull Republican same old, same old, or new energetic hope and change Democrat. His race didn’t hurt, but certainly wasn’t the only reason he was elected. I didn’t cite Obama because I don’t think you can truely cast Obama as an outsider who was not part of the system.

Versus Trump, who is viewed as an outsider, not part of the political system, who decides to run for president, joins the Republican Party and places himself in consideration for the Republican nomination. He hadn’t served in a political position in his entire life, and certainly wasn’t welcomed by the mainstream Republican decision makers.

Well, we got a poster responding to me that the US system offers an "illusion of choice" too, and he’s not exactly wrong either. We have a choice between two establishment parties, basically. How many times have you heard that voting for Democrats and Republicans is like voting for Coke vs. Pepsi? Or that voting doesn’t actually make a difference? Or people claim that the vote is rigged or illegitimate? Or that politicians attempt to rig the system to their advantage? Or people protest the results? A lot of the things we accuse the Iranians of people say / do the same here. I dont know if those are good guidelines. The main difference is that the US is a liberal society, in which we can all freely support parties outside the establishment (or even rhetorically support their destruction), even though in reality they will probably never hold power, and the major parties can effectively muscle them out of debates or from media coverage, etc. Iran has a range of political choices to, that do make a difference in how the country is governed. They are however an illiberal society, unapproved opposition is subject to government suppression or worse. Perhaps we are going about it wrong, what would qualify a country as "democratic/undemocratic?" We can safely say that Iran has undemocratic elements to its government, but on the same token, so does the United States, so what are the rules for how democracy is used? And doesn’t using modifiers like liberal democracy vs. illiberal democracy solve that conundrum? Russia, Edogan’s Turkey, various Central Asian republics, those are nominally democratic countries, but they are illiberal democracies. I mean, I will concede that Iran is no one’s idea of what you’d want an ideal democracy to be!

Click to expand… Look, if you want to posit the notion that there’s a "ruling class" in the United States, its hard for me to take seriously the idea that a white male wealthy businessman is outside of it simply because he’s uncouth, has poor taste and hadn’t run for office before. If there is a ruling class, not everyone gets into it by merit. Some of them are just rich idiots born into it, like our own version of the nobility. If this country didn’t have a long history of electing rich, white male idiots who were largely unqualified, I’d chew on your point a little more. All Trump did is correctly read the mood of a Republican party. Iran had their Trump, Ahmedinejad was basically just a crude reactionary and relative new comer to politics that they elected mostly because they thought he’d scare people. The establishment have pretty much made their peace with Trump, and have more or less set the agenda for him (tax cuts, his biggest legislative accomplishment to date) rather than vice versa.

Click to expand…In any sense of the word, Trump wasn’t the first choice of the Republican Party/establishment. He was viewed as a rich buffoon who had no idea about politics or how things are supposed to work. The fact that he has money and fame, allowed him the latitude to make a serious run for president. So yes, if you are rich, you have more options than when you are poor. It doesn’t make you part of the “ruling class”, it just gives you a level of freedom to act that others don’t have. If I am living paycheck to paycheck, or even moderately well off, without support from external sources (i.e. becoming a career politician), there is no way I could run for President.

Rich white male wealthy businessmen are not a monolithic group. Some support Republicans, some Democrats, some both sides. If you think old money doesn’t despise new money, then Caddyshack got it all wrong. You can endure the company of a boorish buffoon, but that doesn’t mean you would happily support that same boorish buffoon being elected president of your country and setting policy. Additionally, just because you are rich and white doesn’t make you part of the “ruling class”, that’s pure garbage in itself.

Before and after Trump joined the race, the Republican front runners were Bush, Cruz, and a couple of others I can’t remember, with Trump being considered a publicity stunt at best. Once he was elected, everyone’s opinion was that he was an uncouth loose cannon who was going to start WWIII. The fact he was elected doesn’t make him part of the “ruling class”, it just means the American people gave the middle finger to the “ruling class” and said take your candidates and shove them up your a$$, we’ll take this one.

It could be a con job, but from your opinion of Trump, it doesn’t appear you think he is that smart. If Ahmedinejad wasn’t ok with the Ayatollahs, then he never would have made the ballot, much less been elected. If you are on the ballot in Iran, you are either ideological ok, or you are smart enough to go along and follow orders/“recommendations”.

My point was that we truly don’t “choose” who is presented to us as a presidential candidate. We are issued a menu per se, from those in a position of authority, where the menu contains those who we can vote for President. We individually don’t decide the presidential candidates, we are given a list of choices that are acceptable to the powers that be in both parties, and are “allowed” to vote for our choice. Like the South Park episode, if your only “realistic” option is between a douche and a turd sandwich, do you really have a valid choice?

Obama came up through the Democratic political system, served as a Democratic senator, and as such can be considered to be part of the Democratic system. Black, single mother, etc. is irrelevant, as he came from within the system. Hhhmm, dull Republican same old, same old, or new energetic hope and change Democrat. His race didn’t hurt, but certainly wasn’t the only reason he was elected. I didn’t cite Obama because I don’t think you can truely cast Obama as an outsider who was not part of the system.

Versus Trump, who is viewed as an outsider, not part of the political system, who decides to run for president, joins the Republican Party and places himself in consideration for the Republican nomination. He hadn’t served in a political position in his entire life, and certainly wasn’t welcomed by the mainstream Republican decision makers.