Who is going to win this election in November?

[Snaploud]

I can see why, on a theoretical basis, presidential term limits could provide some check (however ineffective) against dictatorship. After all, it seems likely that a third, fourth, or fifth term leader would be better able to convince the populace that he or she is more important than the position. Historically, though, presidential systems have almost invariably led to dictatorship regardless of the individual rules, so I doubt term limits alone does that much good. We would be much better off in the long-run with a parliamentary system, though even that is no guarantee.

 

[Robert Maxwell]

Yeah, Presidential systems suck in general. The irony of Congressional term limits is that they would make the Executive even more powerful, and an overly-powerful Executive is a "problem" (depending on how you look at it) we already have.

 

[Ensign]

I believe you said one of the protections against dictarshipism in the US ins term limits. I'm saying term limits don't protect against dictators. As once they are in office they simply change the law. i.e the law around term limits

You're thinking in very simplistic terms. Every protection against dictatorship can be overcome but the diversity and quantity of protections makes this more difficult. Someone doesnt simply acend to power and then get rid of these protections... its more nuanced than that.

 

[Ensign]

Hostile, eh? Anything like, say, this:
http://www.nationalreview.com/artic...alt-right-internet-abuse-never-trump-movement

No, not like that.
More like trying to constantly demean you and paint you as a Republican every time you criticise Saint Hillary.

 

[JWPlatt]

I believe you said one of the protections against dictarshipism in the US ins term limits. I'm saying term limits don't protect against dictators. As once they are in office they simply change the law. i.e the law around term limits

Instead of bringing up all the checks and balances, separation of powers, The Constitution, the Senate, Representatives, The Supreme Court, States' Rights and autonomy, I'll just ask instead: How would that look - A United States President being able to change the law to become dictator - exactly? No fair saying that if Palpatine could do it, anyone can.

 

[Kai "the spy"]

No, not like that.
More like trying to constantly demean you and paint you as a Republican every time you criticise Saint Hillary.

There is a problem with this, apparently. Glenn Greenwald wrote an article about this a couple of weeks ago.

Glenn Greenwald via The Intercept_ | In the Democratic Echo Chamber, Inconcinient Truths Are Recast as Putin Plots

 

[MacLeod]

Instead of bringing up all the checks and balances, separation of powers, The Constitution, the Senate, Representatives, The Supreme Court, States' Rights and autonomy, I'll just ask instead: How would that look - A United States President being able to change the law to become dictator - exactly? No fair saying that if Palpatine could do it, anyone can.

Those are far more substantial protections than term limits, As for how it can happen in any country for example judges and politicans can be bought and bribed/blackmailled.

 

[ichab]

All I am saying is that term limits are a protection against dictatorship, which they are. Just because there are other protections, doesnt mean that term limits arent a protection against it.

Term limits would be as reliable a protection against a dictator as a gun free zone is against a terrorist. People who by definition break rules aren't going to be stopped by new rules.

Also, I think its very short sighted and simplistic of you to declare that we dont have to worry about dictatorship in the USA especially when politicans are, today, exploiting the system for their own ends with things like unlimited donations.
Yes, a lot of it is all within the rules. But the rules can be changed, manipulated, ignored and broken. Add time to this toxic mixture and you would be surprised how close dictatorship can be.

If it was really as close as you claim it is we would have seen an attempt at such power in the last 200 plus years. It's never happened.

 

[Tora Ziyal]

That's a deeply disturbing article. I imagine the Boston Globe is reputable, but I have to ask if that report can be believed?

Yes, the Boston Globe is reputable, and, sadly, the article is believable.

Just in general what do people think of this election?

Has this particular one polarized people more then any other previous election?

This is the most extreme polarization I've experienced, worse than what I remember of the Goldwater-Johnson election in 1964. (I'm old enough to even vaguely remember Kennedy-Nixon in 1960.)

I have noticed that people are really hostile to you if you dont support Hillary Clinton.
Its really sad to see so many liberals come to the defence of a lesser evil like that.

Clinton supporters hardly have a monopoly on vilifying other candidates' supporters. I've seen equal hostility from third party supporters, and worse from Trump and die-hard Sanders supporters.

 

[ichab]

DNC is now suing the RNC for not "speaking out" against Trump's rigged election charges. What a crock.

http://www.cnn.com/2016/10/26/politics/democrats-republicans-donald-trump-lawsuit/index.html

 

[Snaploud]

DNC is now suing the RNC for not "speaking out" against Trump's rigged election charges. What a crock.

http://www.cnn.com/2016/10/26/politics/democrats-republicans-donald-trump-lawsuit/index.html

That article is very poorly researched. The DNC is suing the RNC for violating a Consent Degree ordered by the Federal Courts in 1981. Basically, in 1981, the RNC got a bunch of off-duty cops (with guns) to act as "poll watchers" in New Jersey to deflate the turn-out in the gubernatorial race. The subsequent restrictions upon the Republican Party were set to expire in 2017, but, due to Donald Trump's calls to do basically the same thing this year as the RNC did in 1981, the DNC is asking that the Court enforce and also extend the Consent Decree restrictions for another 8 years.

http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slat..._s_ballot_security_is_voter_intimidation.html

http://electionlawblog.org/wp-content/uploads/Memorandum-of-Law-in-Support-of-OTSC.pdf

 

[JWPlatt]

Those are far more substantial protections than term limits...

Term limits would be as reliable a protection against a dictator as a gun free zone is against a terrorist. People who by definition break rules aren't going to be stopped by new rules.

Term limits don't operate in a vacuum as if they were the sole protection. They are one constituent of a much larger system of protections. Citizens United could be considered the defeat of one protection. The others I previously listed are far more difficult to eliminate.

 

[MacLeod]

Term limits don't operate in a vacuum as if they were the sole protection. They are one constituent of a much larger system of protections. Citizens United could be considered the defeat of one protection. The others I previously listed are far more difficult to eliminate.

If term limits are so good as a protection how come they don't apply to say US Senators as well as the US President. If people truly support term limits you might as well go all the way and impose them on every single politican no matter if it's at Local, State or Federal level.

 

[Robert Maxwell]

I think that is exactly what @JWPlatt is suggesting.

 

[Gingerbread Demon]

Did Mr. Trump really say climate change is a Chinese conspiracy?

 

[Doom Shepherd]

Did Mr. Trump really say climate change is a Chinese conspiracy?

Yep.
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...nald-trump-did-call-climate-change-chinese-h/

Of course, just like every other online troll who says something patently insane, he later claimed it was just a "joke."

 

[Robert Maxwell]

Did Mr. Trump really say climate change is a Chinese conspiracy?

A good rule of thumb is that if people are saying Trump said it, but he's denying it, there's a 99% chance he really did say it. The man lies compulsively even when we've got him on tape.

 

[Gingerbread Demon]

A good rule of thumb is that if people are saying Trump said it, but he's denying it, there's a 99% chance he really did say it. The man lies compulsively even when we've got him on tape.

That is because the tapes have been doctored, it's so obvious. :/

 

[Ensign]

If term limits are so good as a protection how come they don't apply to say US Senators as well as the US President. If people truly support term limits you might as well go all the way and impose them on every single politican no matter if it's at Local, State or Federal level.

I'm pretty sure that no one here said that term limits are really good at protecting against dictatorship.
People are saying, however, that they are a protection against dictatorship. Its a very simple premise. I dont see why its so hard for people to get their heads around it. I realpy dont get why its being met with so much resistance.

 

[Squiggy]

I'm pretty sure that no one here said that term limits are really good at protecting against dictatorship.
People are saying, however, that they are a protection against dictatorship. Its a very simple premise. I dont see why its so hard for people to get their heads around it. I realpy dont get why its being met with so much resistance.

1. I think you're the only one saying that.
2. No they're not.
3. A real dictator wouldn't let term limits get in the way of ... dictating? They'd just overturn them. Ya know, because dictator. Never once in the history of dictators has any one of them ever said "Ya know what? I was planning on global domination, but this pesky law won't let me. Ah well. Time to retire."