Elon Musk: Trump as the ‘Only Way’ to Preserve U.S. Democracy, Says Billionaire

[RuamRudy]

59 minutes ago, JonnyF said:

 

You don't need to be a "Trump fan boy" to realize that Harris is a complete charlatan. 

 

I've even had Thai colleagues comment on her in disbelief that she is really the candidate. They thought it was some kind of joke. Which in a way, it is.

 

But she sees nothing worrying or incredible that trump is in the running again? 

[JonnyF]

9 minutes ago, RuamRudy said:

 

But she sees nothing worrying or incredible that trump is in the running again? 

 

Actually it was a bloke.

 

But yeah, he thought Trump was pretty funny, but just seemed amazed at Harris. Actually brought me an iPad to watch a YouTube compilation of some of her "greatest" moments.  

 

How we laughed.

[WDSmart]

Musk is, IMO, a POS, and the USA, my home country, is not a democracy but a republic. But even without considering all that, how would speeding up the process of enabling an immigrant to become a citizen and then be eligible to vote be seen as "a threat to democracy"? The majority of the votes cast would still determine the winner of the elective office in each state. That's democracy, isn't it? Trump had shown himself as a "threat to democracy" when he tried to invalidate the democratically elected Electors from a couple of states by declaring their election was corrupt and asking for new, appointed Electors to be used instead.  

[Cameroni]

7 minutes ago, WDSmart said:

Musk is, IMO, a POS, and the USA, my home country, is not a democracy but a republic. But even without considering all that, how would speeding up the process of enabling an immigrant to become a citizen and then be eligible to vote be seen as "a threat to democracy"? The majority of the votes cast would still determine the winner of the elective office in each state. That's democracy, isn't it? Trump had shown himself as a "threat to democracy" when he tried to invalidate the democratically elected Electors from a couple of states by declaring their election was corrupt and asking for new, appointed Electors to be used instead.  

 

Well, this underlines one of the key problems of democracy, who should have the right to vote. In Athenian democracy only adult males who had completed military service were allowed to vote. Most offices were restricted to property owners or those who paid the highest taxes.

 

In Athens, 10/20, maybe 30 percent of the population was actually allowed to vote.

 

If the Democrats push immigration because they know Latinos will overwhelmingly vote Democrat, if they push votes for 16 year olds, because they know the very young vote Democrat, if they want to change the Electoral College system, to favour their own candidate, then one has to conclude that indeed Musk is right, the Democrats are trying to change the system to favour themselves.

 

All this would be a threat to democracy, because it would skew the system disproportionately in favour of the democrats.

 

[Skeptic7]

1 hour ago, Cameroni said:

 

Instead of doing the same old boring standard response when you hear a message you don't like, ie paint the messenger black, why not look at the argument he made?

 

Is Musk not right, that illiegal immigration will benefit the Democrats massively? And going beyond that are the Democrats not supporting votes for 16 year olds for this very reason? Are they not trying to change the  Electoral College system for this very reason?

 

The Democrats ARE trying to mold the system in their favour. Only Trump can stop it.

Yeeeeah...no

[soalbundy]

1 hour ago, Cameroni said:

 

Instead of doing the same old boring standard response when you hear a message you don't like, ie paint the messenger black, why not look at the argument he made?

 

Is Musk not right, that illiegal immigration will benefit the Democrats massively? And going beyond that are the Democrats not supporting votes for 16 year olds for this very reason? Are they not trying to change the  Electoral College system for this very reason?

 

The Democrats ARE trying to mold the system in their favour. Only Trump can stop it.

Yes, both parties try to manipulate, it's part of the dirty world of politics, Trump has been in the news for doing the same thing in Alaska for instance. The Dems had a plan for stopping illegal immigration but the GOP stopped it by order of Trump simply because he wants the government to fail, he also tried to encourage a government shutdown. It's pointless getting radical for any political party, none of them are concerned about you and the USA is so far mired in the quicksand of debt it doesn't matter who is in charge the people (not the elites of course) are going to suffer. Trump should never be in charge of the country he has divided, he is old and senile and by many accounts is in the first stage of dementia (just listen to one of his erratic nonsense speeches) he also is an uncouth embarrassment, no grace, no intellect, what sort of person says "I am a stable genius" or fist bumps the queen of England.

[Cameroni]

6 minutes ago, soalbundy said:

Yes, both parties try to manipulate, it's part of the dirty world of politics, Trump has been in the news for doing the same thing in Alaska for instance. The Dems had a plan for stopping illegal immigration but the GOP stopped it by order of Trump simply because he wants the government to fail, he also tried to encourage a government shutdown. It's pointless getting radical for any political party, none of them are concerned about you and the USA is so far mired in the quicksand of debt it doesn't matter who is in charge the people (not the elites of course) are going to suffer. Trump should never be in charge of the country he has divided, he is old and senile and by many accounts is in the first stage of dementia (just listen to one of his erratic nonsense speeches) he also is an uncouth embarrassment, no grace, no intellect, what sort of person says "I am a stable genius" or fist bumps the queen of England.

 

That's true, both parties are trying to manipulate it. I understand many do not want either Trump or Harris to be running for office, but that is the choice provided.

 

Now, Trump, judging by the debate is highly lucid, showing no signs of dementia at all. Of course politicians make factual errors, witness Kamala Harris claim that the US have a strong alliance with North Korea, or just now Walz's claim that he made friends with school shooters. We criticise them, but to be fair, if we were up there making speeches, we'd make the odd holwer or two for sure. Doesn't mean were suffering from dementia.

 

Trump was also very gracious about mentioning his call from Kamala in his rally and defending her, or in donating his presidential salary to charity.

 

Of course he is a showman and says some provocative things, but if you had to choose between him or Kamala Harris, to me he is the better choice. Though like you I have my doubts how much he can achieve with a dvided House and Senate.

Edited October 2 by Cameroni

[mrfill]

Immigrant, who supports son of immigrant, complains about immigrants.

[WDSmart]

39 minutes ago, Cameroni said:

 

Well, this underlines one of the key problems of democracy, who should have the right to vote. In Athenian democracy only adult males who had completed military service were allowed to vote. Most offices were restricted to property owners or those who paid the highest taxes.

 

In Athens, 10/20, maybe 30 percent of the population was actually allowed to vote.

 

If the Democrats push immigration because they know Latinos will overwhelmingly vote Democrat, if they push votes for 16 year olds, because they know the very young vote Democrat, if they want to change the Electoral College system, to favour their own candidate, then one has to conclude that indeed Musk is right, the Democrats are trying to change the system to favour themselves.

 

All this would be a threat to democracy, because it would skew the system disproportionately in favour of the democrats.

 

Thanks for the history lesson. I did not know all of that.

In my home country, the USA, at first, only citizens who were White landowners could vote. Eventually, and over a long period of time, the restrictions were reduced to all citizens of all races, of all genders, over 18, with no regard to wealth, and were registered to vote. Even citizens who have been convicted of a felony after being released from prison are eligible to vote in about half of the states. So, if a recent immigrant is granted citizenship, they should be allowed to register to vote. TO NOT DO SO would be a breach of democracy. 

You can read my opinion about the US Electoral College written in 2016 here: Rung & Bill:  US Electoral College - Opinion (billsmart.com)

And, yes, the Democrats are doing things to increase the number of voters who would be most favorable to them, just as the Republicans are doing things to decrease the number of voters in the hope of retaining their lead in the swing states.

A voting population that favors Democrats is not a threat to democracy, and neither is one that favors Republicans. What threatens democracy is how the laws of the various states are enacted to prevent or discourage voting.

[Cameroni]

4 minutes ago, WDSmart said:

Thanks for the history lesson. I did not know all of that.

In my home country, the USA, at first, only citizens who were White landowners could vote. Eventually, and over a long period of time, the restrictions were reduced to all citizens of all races, of all genders, over 18, with no regard to wealth, and were registered to vote. Even citizens who have been convicted of a felony after being released from prison are eligible to vote in about half of the states. So, if a recent immigrant is granted citizenship, they should be allowed to register to vote. TO NOT DO SO would be a breach of democracy. 

You can read my opinion about the US Electoral College written in 2016 here: Rung & Bill:  US Electoral College - Opinion (billsmart.com)

And, yes, the Democrats are doing things to increase the number of voters who would be most favorable to them, just as the Republicans are doing things to decrease the number of voters in the hope of retaining their lead in the swing states.

A voting population that favors Democrats is not a threat to democracy, and neither is one that favors Republicans. What threatens democracy is how the laws of the various states are enacted to prevent or discourage voting.

 

So you are perfectly comfortable with a Nicaraguan farmer, who speaks no English, has lived most of his adult life outside of the US, deciding who should govern you and decide how many taxes you pay, what wars you enter, and other issues that affect you?

[WDSmart]

5 minutes ago, Cameroni said:

 

So you are perfectly comfortable with a Nicaraguan farmer, who speaks no English, has lived most of his adult life outside of the US, deciding who should govern you and decide how many taxes you pay, what wars you enter, and other issues that affect you?

If he/she has the qualifications and passes the tests to become a US citizen, is one, and has registered to vote, then of course I am. Why wouldn't I be?

And in anticipation of your response, how long do you think a citizen should have to be a citizen before he/she should be allowed to vote? Or what other qualifications do you think he/she should have?

Edited October 2 by WDSmart

[RuamRudy]

1 hour ago, JonnyF said:

 

Actually it was a bloke.

 

But yeah, he thought Trump was pretty funny, but just seemed amazed at Harris. Actually brought me an iPad to watch a YouTube compilation of some of her "greatest" moments.  

 

How we laughed.

 

Admittedly, the US is no better off than the UK when it comes to absolutely appalling choices for leadership, but why anyone would question Harris in particular when she is standing against a convicted fraudster, rapist, long term friend of Epstein, and utterly incompetent fool is beyond me. I guess one sees what one wants to see. 

[Cameroni]

20 minutes ago, WDSmart said:

If he/she has the qualifications and passes the tests to become a US citizen, is one, and has registered to vote, then of course I am. Why wouldn't I be?

And in anticipation of your response, how long do you think a citizen should have to be a citizen before he/she should be allowed to vote? Or what other qualifications do you think he/she should have?

 

Why wouldn't you be? Because perhaps a Nicaraguan farmer is ill equipped to evaluate the issues that come up in an American presidential election? He has lived all his life outside of the US except for a few years, and now he gets to decide on who should govern, what taxes should be put in place?

 

How does this not concern you?

 

Democracy was not built for mass immigration, it was built for a small local population with a vested interest and land ownership. If mass immigration involves rights of citizenship and the power to vote, this would be a massive distortion of the political landscape in due course.

 

Personally I think it is a mistake to allow immigration from social groups that are at the very bottom of the social stratas. I would make IQ testing mandatory to be able to get in, to be able to vote, and then also there should be language requirements and property requirements. Which I think should also apply to non-immigrants, or rather those who own property should have a more weighted vote at the very least.

 

Perhaps 8 years of residence is a reasonable time period.

 

 

Edited October 2 by Cameroni

[WDSmart]

3 minutes ago, Cameroni said:

 

Why wouldn't you be? Because perhaps a Nicaraguan farmer is ill equipped to evaluate the issues that come up in an American presidential election? He has lived all his life outside of the US except for a few years, and now he gets to decide on who should govern, what taxes should be put in place?

 

How does this not concern you?

 

Democracy was not built for mass immigration, it was built for a small local population with a vested interest and land ownership. If mass immigration involves rights of citizenship and the power to vote, this would be a massive distortion of the political landscape in due course.

 

 

So, my question above is still relevant: "How long do you think a citizen should have to be a citizen before he/she should be allowed to vote? Or what other qualifications do you think he/she should have?" Please answer that.

If you believe democracy should only be practiced in a "small local population with a vested interest in land ownership," then you're thinking exactly the way our (USA) forefathers did when they limited voting to only White landowners. But now, as I've said before, our (USA) laws governing citizenship and voting have changed. Those changes came about as a result of a democratic voting process (in each state in the republic. So, yes, all those changes allowing all citizens of all races, of all genders, over 18, with no regard to wealth, and registered to vote has caused a massive distortion of the political landscape.

So what? That's democracy at work. You may not like the results. I sometimes don't like the results myself. But that's all part of the democratic process. The majority calls the shots, not just the wealthy, like those who have a "vested interest and land ownership.

Please answer my previous question, which I've repeated at the top of this comment. I'd appreciate that.

 

[Chris Daley]

But Musk isn't allowed past Trump's wall.  No immigrants.

Edited October 2 by Chris Daley

[Cameroni]

5 minutes ago, WDSmart said:

So, my question above is still relevant: "How long do you think a citizen should have to be a citizen before he/she should be allowed to vote? Or what other qualifications do you think he/she should have?" Please answer that.

If you believe democracy should only be practiced in a "small local population with a vested interest in land ownership," then you're thinking exactly the way our (USA) forefathers did when they limited voting to only White landowners. But now, as I've said before, our (USA) laws governing citizenship and voting have changed. Those changes came about as a result of a democratic voting process (in each state in the republic. So, yes, all those changes allowing all citizens of all races, of all genders, over 18, with no regard to wealth, and registered to vote has caused a massive distortion of the political landscape.

So what? That's democracy at work. You may not like the results. I sometimes don't like the results myself. But that's all part of the democratic process. The majority calls the shots, not just the wealthy, like those who have a "vested interest and land ownership.

Please answer my previous question, which I've repeated at the top of this comment. I'd appreciate that.

 

But I already did, I said 8 years.

 

Whilst it is not necessarily desirable that the most wealthy call the shots, it is even more undesirable that the Lumpenproletariat from various countries around the world call the shots, surely?

[Chomper Higgot]

14 minutes ago, Cameroni said:

But I already did, I said 8 years.

 

Whilst it is not necessarily desirable that the most wealthy call the shots, it is even more undesirable that the Lumpenproletariat from various countries around the world call the shots, surely?

Its obvious that Trump supporters, both foreign and domestic, have a problem with any America citizens voting anything other than for Trump.

 

 

 

 

[WDSmart]

8 minutes ago, Cameroni said:

But I already did, I said 8 years.

 

Whilst it is not necessarily desirable that the most wealthy call the shots, it is even more undesirable that the Lumpenproletariat from various countries around the world call the shots, surely?

Sorry, I didn't see your "8 year" suggestion. That's your opinion and you're entitled to it, but that obviously is not what the majority of voters in the USA want.

I had to look up "Lumpenproletariat." Others who have never heard that term can read about it here: Lumpenproletariat - Wikipedia. That categorization is, of course, not applicable to a true democracy, but I do understand why some who are not lumpenproletariats themselves would like to see people like that restricted from voting. In my book, you either have a democracy or you don't. The more you limit access to voting, the further you move from true democracy and into some other form of government, most likely an aristocracy, oligarch, plutocracy, or, what we (USA) are heading into if Trump gets re-elected, a kakistocracy. Kakistocracy - Wikipedia 

[Cameroni]

2 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Its obvious that Trump supporters, both foreign and domestic, have a problem with any America citizens voting anything other than for Trump.

 

 

 

 

 

It's not that, but I genuinely think a Nicaraguan pig farmer is ill situated to understand the issues facing Americans, and just giving the vote immediately to immigrants would distort the democratic landscape massively since most immigrants vote Democrat.

[Cameroni]

1 minute ago, WDSmart said:

Sorry, I didn't see your "8 year" suggestion. That's your opinion and you're entitled to it, but that obviously is not what the majority of voters in the USA want.

I had to look up "Lumpenproletariat." Others who have never heard that term can read about it here: Lumpenproletariat - Wikipedia. That categorization is, of course, not applicable to a true democracy, but I do understand why some who are not lumpenproletariats themselves would like to see people like that restricted from voting. In my book, you either have a democracy or you don't. The more you limit access to voting, the further you move from true democracy and into some other form of government, most likely an aristocracy, oligarch, plutocracy, or, what we (USA) are heading into if Trump gets re-elected, a kakistocracy. Kakistocracy - Wikipedia 

 

That's allright. I  don't think the American people ever had it put to them for how long an immigrant has to wait to get citizenship. Just as in Germany who recently reduced their 8 years to 5 and possibly 3 years, this was done top down, by the government, not put to the people.

 

But your use of the term "true democracy" is intriguing, I would put it to you that true democracy and true equality means:

 

"The equal for the equal, the unequal for the unequal, and what logically follows, never make the unequal equal"

 

 

“The doctrine of equality! . . . But no poison is more poisonous than this: because it seems as if justice itself is preaching here, while in fact it is the end of justice . . . 'Equality for the equal, inequality for the unequal' - that is what justice would really say: along with its corollary, 'never make the unequal equal'” (Nietzsche, 1889, Twilight of the Idols, 48).

 

https://boris.unibe.ch/145160/2/Koellen - Worshipping equality as organizational idolatry - Accepted version.pdf

[Chomper Higgot]

6 minutes ago, Cameroni said:

 

It's not that, but I genuinely think a Nicaraguan pig farmer is ill situated to understand the issues facing Americans, and just giving the vote immediately to immigrants would distort the democratic landscape massively since most immigrants vote Democrat.

If he’s a citizen then he is an American and I expect he understands the issues facing himself and his family.

[300sd]

Apparently in 14 states one doesn't need an ID to vote. What could possibly go wrong with that? Well nothing much unless one wants an honest election with citizens voting! Not sure who began this legislation but Gavin Newsom also just banned Californians from requiring ID. The lunatics with a plan!

[Cameroni]

Just now, Chomper Higgot said:

If he’s a citizen then he is an American and I expect he understands the issues facing himself and his family.

 

He has lived almost his whole life outside of America, most of his life was spent in Nicaragua. How could he possibly understand the concerns of Americans in the same way Americans can? It's asking too much of him.

[Chomper Higgot]

1 minute ago, Cameroni said:

 

He has lived almost his whole life outside of America, most of his life was spent in Nicaragua. How could he possibly understand the concerns of Americans in the same way Americans can? It's asking too much of him.

Putting aside this imaginary life you are dreaming up, when did I say he understands the concerns of Americans, or even that he needs to?

 

Like any citizen exercising their right to vote, he need only understand his own concerns and perhaps those of his family.

 

 

[Chomper Higgot]

4 minutes ago, 300sd said:

Apparently in 14 states one doesn't need an ID to vote. What could possibly go wrong with that? Well nothing much unless one wants an honest election with citizens voting! Not sure who began this legislation but Gavin Newsom also just banned Californians from requiring ID. The lunatics with a plan!

Do you have evidence of any significant numbers of non citizens voting?

[Cameroni]

2 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Putting aside this imaginary life you are dreaming up, when did I say he understands the concerns of Americans, or even that he needs to?

 

Like any citizen exercising their right to vote, he need only understand his own concerns and perhaps those of his family.

 

 

 

But you see, presidential elections affect all Americans. So if Mr Alvarez decides to vote for Kamala Harris, and there are 2 million Mr Alvarez, then clearly their vote affects all Americans potentially, not just him and his family.

Edited October 2 by Cameroni

[WDSmart]

5 minutes ago, Cameroni said:

 

That's allright. I  don't think the American people ever had it put to them for how long an immigrant has to wait to get citizenship. Just as in Germany who recently reduced their 8 years to 5 and possibly 3 years, this was done top down, by the government, not put to the people.

 

But your use of the term "true democracy" is intriguing, I would put it to you that true democracy and true equality means:

 

"The equal for the equal, the unequal for the unequal, and what logically follows, never make the unequal equal"

 

 

“The doctrine of equality! . . . But no poison is more poisonous than this: because it seems as if justice itself is preaching here, while in fact it is the end of justice . . . 'Equality for the equal, inequality for the unequal' - that is what justice would really say: along with its corollary, 'never make the unequal equal'” (Nietzsche, 1889, Twilight of the Idols, 48).

 

https://boris.unibe.ch/145160/2/Koellen - Worshipping equality as organizational idolatry - Accepted version.pdf

Right now, I think the wait to apply for citizenship in the USA is five years.

By "true democracy," I just mean allowing all citizens to vote (with a minimum age qualification and not felons in prison). So, in that sense, all citizens are "equal." Under the USA's capitalistic economic system, no, they certainly are not "equal." To be truly equal, you'd have to go clear to a communistic economy. Even in socialism, not everyone is "equal" in the sense that they all share everything equally.

Anyway, I think once an immigrant has qualified to become a citizen, he/she should be eligible to register to vote—even former pig farmers from Nicaragua. 

[proton]

He's right, the way the Dems have packed swing states with immigrants who will vote for them is in danger of creating a one party state in the USA where they are unlikely ever to lose an election.

[Chomper Higgot]

5 minutes ago, Cameroni said:

 

But you see, presidential elections affect all Americans. So if Mr Alvarez decides to vote for Kamala Harris, and there are 2 million Mr Alvarez, then clearly their vote affects all Americans potentially, not just him and his family.

Well tough, that’s how democracy works.

 

 

[GammaGlobulin]

13 hours ago, Social Media said:

Musk's comments center around a theory regarding immigration and voting patterns in the U.S. According to Musk, Democrats are hastening the naturalization process for undocumented immigrants to create a new voting bloc that would significantly favor their party in future elections.

 

This should be TOTALLY obvious.

 

Thank God, Elon is a fellow alum of mine.