Kevin O'Leary Running for leadership of Conservative party

Trump seems to have set a dangerous precedent which may influence further governments for the future. The before-mentioned being that somebody can run for, win and hold office largely in part due to their status, whether that be for things like wealth, media presence or any other contributing factors that are not political knowledge.

People are not invested enough in learning about the political system, and keeping up to date with politics (which is something that our government school systems fail in teaching us). Because of this it appears that a large majority of the population that participates in voting will not fully understand the logistics of what makes a "good" world leader.

Some evidence of this is the fact that voting from young African American voters surged 8.3% in different from 2004 vs 2008 (When a "Black" candidate was running)



Do you think this change in how political systems are currently turning out will provide negative results from how governments operate in the future?

 

Precedent? It was already set by Obama with the very reason you stated, he only won because he's black. I can still hear the screeching of my high school friends about voting for "teh ferst blakk predident!" and the videos of people actually saying "he gon' pay fo' muh mortgage!"

The reality is this; you have to have some level of notoriety to even stand a chance. You could be the most intelligent individual on the face of the Earth with a solution to every single problem, and you could be instantaneously trounced by someone with more public expose/notoriety. Personally I would have voted for Rand Paul, and still believe he or his father would have been a better choice than any number of people running for the Presidency, however, obviously the chances of that happening are about as good as federal income tax being done away with.

The much, much, MUCH greater majority of people in this country in general don't care enough to take the time and educate themselves thoroughly.

Do you think the majority of people bothered to go through all the Wikileaks email dumps? Nope. Veritas videos? Nope. Guccifer? Nope.

Everything else you want to discuss is just assuming the conclusion. Trump's inauguration is this Friday and we won't see any real changes until a few months down the road, until then, what makes someone a "good world leader" is entirely irrelevant and can be changed with a single term.

Oh, and just to top this all off, this is where the majority of this country get their information from-- idiot shill media outlets.

 

Lets be honest we all know a mailman or a chef or even a pizza delivery guy who could form better polices then all the candidates we have ever had.
Truth is all of people on this planet are sheep ; we all are in some way.
Some less sheepy then others to somethings.
Tons of friend across the world 15 -70 years old. would say 2% know anything about their government. Even my own close friends vote obama just cause he is a nigga like us. Thats the quote "one of us" . Alot of girls I knew voted for Trudeau because hes pretty. You know why trumps website and speeches are so vague?
Its easy to process and people are lazy.
I say wall you jump
I say illegal you jump
I say fake news you jump
Anyone who has ever looks at a candidate and said they are perfect is just high quality sheep which both sides have .
People voted trump to be edgy or because they like the wall idea and his acting ( trump is a actor he dont give a fuck about any of yall same as hilary )
People voted hilary to be edgy or because they stand with "her"/ liberal side
Even the third parties are shit
The green money wants to suck the tit of the country and the libertarians cant make any decisions.
Ill be honest didnt even bother reading any wikileaks .. why?
Fuck em obama probably kills people for sport w.e all they politicians are corrupt and useless.
Lets enjoy our little ecosystem while we can ; its not perfect but its sure as fuck better then roman empire or when we were chasing our food down manually.
Ill be dead in 50 or so years as long as my toilet flushes and my vodka still goes down firm idc.

 

I'm not arguing that Obama received more votes because of the color of his skin, I absolutely believe this to be true given the facts. But there are things that need to be taken into account in this matter.

Obama did not get a "free walk" to the general election based off of the color of his skin. It was a much closer than Trump in the republican party in 2016.

It appears Trump has received a "free walk" to the general based off of his notoriety and ability to influence the media. I could ask many people who were in the republican primaries and they would have no knowledge on who received the other delegates. However almost everyone knows about the struggle that was Hillary fighting against Bernie during this time.


I understand what you are saying about Obama, but this hardly the same influence I am referencing.

 

I am not sure I would argue that Trump's status got him elected; rather, Trump attempted to represent everything he did not. Trump was vying for the working class vote and support for Trump drops off dramatically after a college education. If individuals took the time and look at Trump's status, how he obtained it, and the steps he took (i.e. screwing over contractors), it is possible the election would of turned out differently. Ironically enough, Trump represented the anti-establishment with he himself being a part of the establishment. How? At least partially through incendiary remarks. Sure his brand and his money allowed him to run as the anti-establishment candidate and played a large part in getting his campaign off the ground, but I would not argue it is why he got elected. Many people wanted to change and Trump offered that change in whatever form. It is also worth noting that Trump's win relies on the electoral college system which was established in order to maximize representation of white men in southern states.

Part of Trump's win relates to who he ran against. Clinton is Washington. She represents the establishment and she was a very weak candidate to run against Trump.

I'm not sure if it will lead to negative future governmental operation (in relations to other governments), but I imagine Trump's win and the likes of Brexit will further embolden fringe groups and their quest for representation within their own government. Will is succeed? Now that remains to be seen.

Those arguing Obama only won due to his race, I suggest you check out the following paper:
Obama's Missed Landslide: A Racial Cost?
Michael S. Lewis-Beck, Charles Tien and Richard Nadeau
PS: Political Science and Politics
Vol. 43, No. 1 (January 2010), pp. 69-76

 

This is put together and presented well. I had a conversation with the owner of my store before the general took place and it was my opinion that the American people wanted change from their regular politicians. I believe this is why Bernie Sanders did well in the primary, Because while some of what he suggests might be too much change for Americans, its a step forward in reaching the quality of life that other countries have.

Looks like we are in agreement with this topic.

Keeping in mind that Kevin O'Leary has already stated he "is not like trump" do you view this different than how Trump announced and ran his campaign? The Canadian media is already buzzing about it; It appears the parallels between the two will only give O'leary more attention.

 

I disagree with the comment of needing to have some type of 'notoriety' in order to be elected. Let's use, for example, Bernie Sanders. Although he's been a politician basically all of his adult life, he was LARGELY unknown. Despite this, look at how far he got, he achieved something that hadn't been done in years, which was to get the young / up and coming voters interested in the process.

Regardless of your political preferences, which is something, I feel, some of you are basing your arguments on, the reason an unknown candidate like Bernie Sanders, or an outspoken, yet unexperienced, candidate like Trump can make it to the white house comes down, in my opinion, to their populist ideas. Many candidates no longer campaign on what they belief and/or think is right, but craft their message around the most popular/mainstream ideas of the moment, regardless if they actually believe in it. Let's face it, which other candidates have you guys seen change their political/social views from one day to the other as often as Trump and Hillary have?

You don't need to be famous, or black, or even a politician to be President of the United States, although that helps. It comes down to identifying what people think they need/want and shape a populist movement around it.

 

Bernie never got elected however. And if Bernie was the nominee we don't know for certain how we would do against trump

It's hard to make a comparison because of their respective parties, But Bernie literally had to fight to the very end, only to lose to Hillary, And had much less people to run against. Reference here and here

Trump had more people running against him, people who have had previous experience as political, or people who have had some notoriety, or a name in politics (bush). He literally steamrolled every single one of them. It is my belief that his notoriety and influence in getting the medias attention was the reason for his winning the primaries.

 

Honestly, I don't really know enough about O'Leary to really comment on it. I'll look into him when I get a chance, but I do not know enough to really debate in regards to him.

Bernie did have notoriety; in fact, it was very much like Trump's, just the opposite end of the spectrum. Bernie tapped into the anger at the Democratic Party for their inability to do x, y, and z. He was going against the grain of the Democratic Party and introduced himself as the anti-establishment candidate. The difference between Bernie and Trump (outside of policy and the likes) is one was already very much known.

There is nothing wrong with arguing based on preference, just do so in a logical way. People are not unbiased and no matter how hard they try, some of them will come out into their pieces (conscious or not).

The populist ideas may motivate a segment of the population, but you're oversimplifying while people vote the way they do (will mention more in the next quote).

Well, being black would arguably historically (and some may argue even now) damage your change at being president.

It is also not identifiying what people need and want, its identifying what a segment of people want. I think you're underestimating party loyalty in the regards to the election paired with Clinton being a horrible candidate to match Trump. Majority of Americans oppose Trump's stances on variety of issues and Clinton garnered more of the popular vote than both Nixon and Kennedy.