Comments by "Tony Wilson" (@tonywilson4713) on "We Went to CPAC. It Was a Disaster" video.

Yeah and its the same everywhere across the developed world. I'm Australian and we have these sorts too, just not as many and they are always saying the same sorts of ridiculous crap because they get all of the information from idiots. They all claim to do research but their idea of research is to listen to some narcissist who tells them what they want to hear.
80
E. E. Lawson As I said we tried to warn everyone!!
5
E. E. Lawson Yes its called "Sky News Australia" and its owned by Rupert Murdoch. Hey, we tried to warn the Brits when he moved there and they didn't listen. Then we tried to warn America when he moved there and they didn't listen either. 🤷‍♂🤷‍♂🤷‍♀🤷‍♀🤷‍♂🤷‍♂🤷‍♀🤷‍♀🤷‍♂🤷‍♂🤷‍♀🤷‍♀
1
@davidbroadbent854 Your 1/2 right we don't elect a head of state like other countries elect a president. And even if we did elect our Governor General he wouldn't have anywhere near the power the US President has because of how our constitution operates. Where you are 1/2 wrong is on the weakness our system has and its called "the balance of power." Its when an election ends with neither main party getting enough to form a clear majority. We most often see it in our senate where minor parties have their best chance to gain seats. What happens is that a minor party ends up with the balance of power and they can either help the government pass legislation or help the opposition block it. You see this a lot in places like Italy and Israel. A while back our version of Trump a genuine Billionaire POS named Clive Palmer tried this with his "Palmer United Party" and he got damn close to having real power. In his arrogance he ended up destroying his own party. He's tried again since with some influence but zero real power. So we aren't immune to it and we are vulnerable if we get enough stupid people being stupid.
1
@melwelker6077 I don't disagree that Sky News needs to be contained but I'd hate to see it simply banned because we don't like what they say. Disagreement isn't a good enough standard. I think we do need enforceable laws on HARMFUL misinformation. The problem is where do we draw the line, who defines what's harmful and most importantly who polices it. So far nobody has ever made it work. Its either too slack (like America) or to tight (like China). Even Australia has tried banning people from talking and it always backfires at some stage. Years ago we banned David Irving the English Holocaust denier from Australia. It hasn't stopped Nazis being in Australia or recruiting disenfranchised people. It and the gun laws didn't stop Brenton Tarrant from becoming radicalised and then becoming a mass murderer. I really do sympathise with your idea but its such a damn hard thing to make work.
1
@davidbroadbent854 Absolutely great point and usually when we have had a "balance of power" situation people have acted in good faith. Clive Palmer had plans and none of it was in good faith.
1
@davidbroadbent854 Your right on our compulsory voting laws and a visiting American academic last year said its the one thing she'd like to bring to America. I don't think the electoral college is as ridiculous as people say. Its like a senate election and if you consider what the Presidents role originally was then it should never have been a problem it now is. When Newt Gingrich became speaker of the house he said he wanted to return to the pre-WW2 arrangement where the President was mostly figurehead and the speaker ran the country. The US Speaker is actually very close to the British or Australian Prime Minister in that they are the leader of the House of representatives. The President as head of state is like an elected King or Queen or our Governor General. The President was meant to do the international handshaking while the Speaker ran the country. Go look at Washington on that subject. But somehow after WW2 and it might have been going on earlier the Presidents role became the dominant position especially with respect to domestic policy. Then there's the whole gerrymandering of the smaller states. We've had some major issues with gerrymandering in the past. They used to joke that in some parts of Australia sheep voted. We've had some horrendous electoral disparities at times. I'm certain many countries have. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h6mJw50OdZ4
1
@jimdavison4077 Again you are right, there's no valid reason for making anyone person's vote worth more than another's. But the reason we do have some of those systems like the US Senate and the United Nations General Assembly is so that smaller GROUPS do have a voice and larger GROUPS cannot dominate without check.
1
@jimdavison4077 I didn't say NOT rule or NOT be in charge I said NOT dominate and there's a difference. I absolutely agree that the majority should rule, but they should NOT dominate because to dominate means you give little or no consideration to the the party being dominated and that never goes well. That's why countries quite often have secondary houses with different systems like the US Senate. Where such systems can fail is when minorities end up with too much say in outcomes and become obstructionist. Those systems are so minorities cannot be dominated or ignored. They ware NOT in place so those minorities can hold the majority to ransom. These are basic concepts that too many people in politics forget too often.
1
@jimdavison4077 Its a fair comment on the electoral college. The question is, why did they do it that way in the first place? Better still why do millions of American citizens get denied the opportunity to vote and be represented. As well as Puerto Rico there's the other territories that get denied ANY meaningful representation. They can serve in the US military and die for America but can't vote on their government. THAT'S ABSURD. On the UN you are right, the ability for the permanent members of the security council to veto anything is ridiculous. Its why the UN is a sad joke.
1
@jimdavison4077 If you want to talk about a part of the American system that desperately needs upgrading try SCOTUS. I'd list its short comings but neither of us have that much time.
1
@jimdavison4077 I don't disagree that the US needs a system rethink, most countries do from time to time. The problem is you already have people planning it and they are the worst people imaginable to do it. Thom Hartman has done a few vids on it, one recently.
1
@jimdavison4077 If I'm saying America it means the USA not Canada, not Mexico, not Brazil and not Venezuela,
1
@jimdavison4077 Do you know who's funding this push to rewrite the US Constitution? The bulk of the people who want it might be a pack of clowns, but the people funding it aren't. Behind it are people are like Charles Koch and Robert Mercer. Robert Mercer has a PhD in physics. He's a maths genius. That's what he was recruited in to the finance industry for. He funded Cambridge Analytica the company that used Facebook to manipulate the Brexit vote. Charles Koch has Bachelors and Masters degrees in chemical engineering from MIT. Their fans might be dumb but these guys a hyper intelligent and they have 10s of billions to spend on what they want. They spend billions like you an me spend dollars. Millions are like pennies to these guys.
1
@jimdavison4077 Your right the US Constitution is a disaster, but like everyone else you don't stop and ask why. And its an idiotic response to want to tear it apart. That's Trumpism 101. Let's just tear up this treaty and that treaty without any plan or thought of what comes next. The reason the US Constitution is failing is because extremely well funded narcissists have decided to exploit and undermine it. Its not failing because of what's written. Its failing because of what people are getting away with.
1
@jimdavison4077 So your answer is to let some of the worlds most selfish and greedy and destructive people who have ever lived just completely tear up the constitution of a nuclear armed state and re-write that constitution in a way that suits their business interests. Yeah that's a sensible option. There's thing called consequences. You should look up the word to see what it means.
1
@candyolson2871 Simple rule: It doesn't matter if you believe in God or Evolution you have 2 ears and 2 eyes which means listening and watching combined are 4 times more important than your mouth.
1
@49commander If any or anyone else wants an indepth discussion/interview on who the White Christian Nationalists are, Paul Jay interviewed Yale Sociologist Philip Gorsky https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xEY2FJyzSXk A couple of months earlier he interviewed author Steve O'Keefe who's written about the billionaires who fund WCN and how Trump gave them massive assistance via tax cuts. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NFhIq1rAm-M They are not short, but are worth the time.
1
@candyolson2871 Not meaning any disrespect at all. Just confirming your comment with a comment/quote from a friend. If you look at CPAC and most other politics to some extent and the cheering sheep don't listen, don't look and think what they say reflects reality. Another person put me onto a great comment from Ex-KGB agent Yuri Bezmenov who said in 1984 the purpose of propaganda was to get people to the point where they were incapable of reaching sensible conclusions no matter what evidence was presented. He was totally wrong in his assessment of how successful the KGB was because history tells us the Russians collapsed. We also know it wasn't the Russians that destroyed the West because it was a handful of Western billionaires that did it. Here's part of the 1984 interview: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IQPsKvG6WMI
1
@candyolson2871 Best wishes to you. And sooner or later some of your MAGA people will not be able to deny reality. When that happens be careful and patient, because some will be shattered and others even more dangerous. The harder people believe in fantasies the harder they fall when the bubble bursts and Trump's bubble is as big as his ego. Recently I heard about how Nixon's backers (who were blocking all attempts to charge Nixon) were put in a room and had the evidence spelled out to them. They had to accept Nixon was guilty because he was undeniably guilty. I think the same is about to happen to Trump and the MAGA hats will split into the truly mindless and the totally shattered as happens when any cult like movement blows up.
1
@candyolson2871 Hopefully when they charge Trump it will stick like superglue on a hot day. My bet is that's what's taken so long. They have waited for something undeniable that he can't get out of no matter how much the clown brigade that supports him screams and yells.
1
@candyolson2871 Thanks, best to you.
1