Have to be born on US soil, which was the genesis of why we have had to endure this prick for these years. Trump mobilised a base around the birther conspiracy theory shit that Obama was born in Kenya and so not eligible to be President.I always thought that but the criteria seems to be: Over 35, US citizen and resident for 14 yrs according to the US gov website. Nothing about having to be born on US soil.
Edit: Another page says natural-born but there's a wiki page about it being untested. Hopefully one of our US posters can confirm.
Thanks for your daily patronising. It helps put a smile on my face each morning.Morning Sam :)
Yes I would take companies power away, I would nationalise them. Companies would be under the democratic control of the workers, not random Billionaires using their wealth to influence political decision making.
A lot of people replied to my points yesterday, it was not possible to reply to them all, I apologise to anyone who feels neglected and I will attempt to address those points today when time allows.
I reiterate once again, Trump has crossed the line and acted in an undemocratic fashion, the man is a lunatic, yet still I do not believe it is corporations who should be holding him to account. It is an undemocratic abuse of corporate power and it could possibly lead down the path to Oligarchy.
It feels like it is only me who is upholding democratic accountability whilst a majority are happy for their lives to be run by the Billionaires who control the corporations. Nobody elected them to wield such power.
Channelling Bigga? Or just wishing Trump had won?Biden the warmonger, the man who supported American Imperialism.
No wonder the American corporate elites are so happy, there is treasure to be plundered. Get Trump out of the way and the road to plunder is wide open, the riches are on the horizon.
Biden is a hawk, his advisors are Hawks, the British will follow him blindly into military adventurism and then everyone will mourn the deaths of British troops and ask why.
Will the lessons of Bush/Blair/Obama never be learnt.
Rather than attacking the Capitol at the instigation of a mad fascist.Not the point, it is corporate censure.
Driving extremism underground.
Said every Jew on Kristallnacht.I prefer my fascists where i can see them.
Should be a punishment if anything.Since when was having a Twitter account a basic human right?
It’s gigs, Dave. Gigs.Would you get gig's there Michael?
You'd probably get him there if his brother's wife was there, Steve. I'm sure there's a g missing though.It’s gigs, Dave. Gigs.
Morning Sam :)
Yes I would take companies power away, I would nationalise them. Companies would be under the democratic control of the workers, not random Billionaires using their wealth to influence political decision making.
A lot of people replied to my points yesterday, it was not possible to reply to them all, I apologise to anyone who feels neglected and I will attempt to address those points today when time allows.
I reiterate once again, Trump has crossed the line and acted in an undemocratic fashion, the man is a lunatic, yet still I do not believe it is corporations who should be holding him to account. It is an undemocratic abuse of corporate power and it could possibly lead down the path to Oligarchy.
It feels like it is only me who is upholding democratic accountability whilst a majority are happy for their lives to be run by the Billionaires who control the corporations. Nobody elected them to wield such power.
ExactlyNeither was Trump this time. It's worth mentioning that Twitter only banned Trump after he failed to be elected and then tried to effectively seize power regardless, basically sending in thugs to attack elected officials doing their job. Obviously the fact that he's still technically president two months after losing is a flaw in their system.
So you see that private entities can have their own codes of conduct.That is an interesting point.
Ric, bless his little cottons could quite easily decide to ban everyone he disagrees with politically. He could cull the politics forum of all the cranks and i would be left with nobody to argue with.
So you’re fine with him being banned then?I reiterate once again, Trump has crossed the line and acted in an undemocratic fashion, the man is a lunatic,
But you’re doing the exact opposite. You just can’t see it.It feels like it is only me who is upholding democratic accountability
If you know somewhere your utopia exists, could you tell us, explain its political and economic structure and illuminate the path the US might need to follow to such a Goldilocks society?
If I may be permitted to have a go at answering your questions, the more dysfunctional societies tend to be those within which extremes of economic inequality are tolerated, and the USA is an example. For the relevant research, see the bestselling publications of Richard Wilkinson and Kate Pickett.
Unfortunately, the neoliberal economic policies pursued by Thatcher, Reagan, Clinton, Blair and others, which are - to a greater or lesser degree - based on the macroeconomic theories of Hayek and Friedman, have exacerbated economic inequality, as noted by authors like Ha Joon Chang, Manfred Steger, and David Harvey.
So the solution is to regulate capitalism a little more, in order to avoid events like 2008 and the opening of fractures and fissures within our society that are illustrated by the current emphasis on divisive forms of identity politics.
As for a political system, I have to be more utopian here and suggest that a system known as deliberative democracy is preferable to the one that we have, as it is more empirically grounded and less open to manipulation by powerful interest groups. For more on that (and how it has been shown to work on a smaller scale), see Paul Verhaeghe’s Says Who? The Struggle for Authority in a Market Based Society.
Incidentally, the reason for the book references is because I was once required to teach a course from scratch that entailed looking at how ethical the macroeconomic systems of capitalism and socialism actually are.
After several years of extensive reading in the territory of recent economic history, in terms of my own perspective, I have ended up coming down on the side of a restrained form of capitalism.
However, I now refrain from voting as I do not consider the system we have to be fit for purpose. The only reason I would vote now is to prevent an extremist party from taking power. Unfortunately, the Republican Party at present seems to be heading in that direction and so if I lived in the USA, I would have voted for the Democrats.
You’re arguing that a POTUS, Once elected, can do whatever they like. That’s despotism.
Perhaps you do need a revolution, one that takes power away from your elites and hands it to the proletariat who can then rewrite your constitution or even abolish it. I am no expert but what relevance does a document from the 1780s have to todays world.
Actually replaced it yesterday with Peter Krotopkin "The conquest of bread" as recommended by Mr Genie.You still have Das Kapital by your bedside table don't you mate ;-)
I am not and have not argued that at all.You’re arguing that a POTUS, Once elected, can do whatever they like. That’s despotism.
I am not and have not argued that at all.
I am arguing that a Corporation should not have the power to control political debate, because that is Oligarchy.
I am not aware of Bigga's thought on the matter.Channelling Bigga? Or just wishing Trump had won?
Rather than attacking the Capitol at the instigation of a mad fascist.
So, Twitter should just allow him to say whatever he wants on their platform, simply because he's the elected President?I am not and have not argued that at all.
I am arguing that a Corporation should not have the power to control political debate, because that is Oligarchy.
Which are fair points.In general, I agree. However has anyone argued that it is a good thing for corporations to control debate? Anyone want to claim that as their position would get hammered, although some people whine when McDonalds start encouraging more healthy options!
Twitter/Facebook etc were set up privately and are private companies, albeit ones which can influence people more than they might realise. No-one has a rival platform that they are willing to fight for the marketplace, so they have dominance.
Without having looked into it, I assumed that Twitter used it's banning policy based on whether actions were likely to make it a target for legal proceedings - which would make its actions dependent on current laws. I would expect that most people would deem that better than allowing incitement in society.
What is the solution? Forcible nationalisation would just put them under a different editorial control to be argued about. A nationally owned rival would need a lot of backing to establish, and some would avoid anything run by a govt.