The more layers, barriers and delays between the people and the rulers, the better it is.
We always knew democracy was a dangerous problem; given the time, the people will elect fascists, despots and tyrants. So people have to be protected from themselves and democracy strictly limited to an appearance or semblance of itself.
Yeah, it's meant to be funny - but with a strong germ of truth. Democracy is a potentially good form of government if the people make good decisions. But a majority can quickly become a tyranny if the rights of minorities are disrespected.
That is what essentially what the primary system is. You build your reputation (or expound upon it) in states like Iowa, and New Hampshire, but when Super Tuesday comes around, about half of the field is taken out (if not the nominee is named outright) largely because they don't have the resources to maintain a national presence. In a way, it makes the system a bit unfair because only a handful of states would have a direct impact in naming the nominee, but on the other hand, in most of those states, a majority is required to win the primary/caucus in that state. So while it is true that on a national level today that Trump would win the nomination, the real playing field is at the state level. The national polls just serve as who is going to get a bulls-eye painted on their backs this week.
Agreed. Even I find myself more in favor of a single primary date, set somewhere in May, for the entire country. That way we know who our two nominees will be and give them plenty of time to ruin each others' reputations.
That's 18% in a huge field. In a field of 3, that's a lousy number. In a field of 20, 18% is huge.
That's what primaries are for. Candidates will drop out before the important election stuff happens. There won't be nearly 2 dozen candidates, there will be a handful.
At this stage, it is really quite astonishing... and that share is only likely to increase as the also-rans drop out, which they will sooner or later - sooner if they have any sense. However, I can't see Trump attracting the endorsement of many other candidates (and hence a large chunk of their supporters) and I can see Bush, Walker and maybe one other candidate emerging as 'serious' candidates.
Same thing. However, where I am pegging Mr. Hypocrite Trump here is because he claims that he can produce jobs across the entire economy. A noble idea, fair enough, but real estate/property is a funny business as it never produces anything that you could actually use - a tangible item. Jobs, to an extent, are tangible because you earn a wage at the end of the day to use on what you (or other people) produce.
Had you read my post correctly, you would have known that Trump made his millions in the private sector, not public like Sanders did. Yeah, he bankurpted 4 companies into the ground in the process, but that is what happens when a big business buys out a small business, it would be doomed to failure on one small misstep (Note: If you don't believe me, read the whole nasty history of EA and their unreasonable expectations. Then you will see why their back-to-back Golden Poo awards were justified.)
Plenty. Businesses fail all the time in the private sector for all sorts of different reasons. Government doesn't step in and declare that business was too big to fail and provide bailout money at tax payer expense if you are truly in the private sector. I can name a handful of business that have received federal funds and yet went bankrupt anyways.
