Governing via Social Media

[#1]

I'm just reading tweets by Donald Trump and thinking is this the modern way of governing a country.

To me it just doesn't feel right.

[#2]

The original tweet?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FO725Hbzfls

That was rubbish as well, and a hard act for Trump to follow!

[#3]

Trump ,, Is just a total PLONKA

[#4]

He can afford to be 

[#5]

No worse than government by the front page of the Daily Mail which seems to be where we are going.

It appears, at the moment, that whatever is on today's front page becomes the top item on this government's agenda for the day. Then onto a new issue tomorrow.

At least Trump was elected (somehow!). Theresa May and the editorial team of the Daily Mail weren't and have much in common with the "Unelected Brussels bureaucrats" they complain about.

[#6]

Presidents are elected, party leaders are not..... at least not by the general public.

[#7]

They are (to a great extent) in the labour party, and they don't like it one bit.  Not sure what part of democracy labour don't understand.

[#8]

---

wisty wrote:

At least Trump was elected (somehow!). Theresa May and the editorial team of the Daily Mail weren't and have much in common with the "Unelected Brussels bureaucrats" they complain about.

---

You are aware that Drumpf got 2.5 million less votes than Clinton and of the deeply undemocratic Electoral College system used in the US i presume?

[#9]

And we are also aware of the deeply undemocratic constituency system used in mainland UK.  You know the one where UKIP in 2010 got over 900,000 votes (3.1% of the total) and got no MPs while someone in Northern Ireland got about 45,000 votes and got a seat Parliament.  (And before you ask, I'm not a Kipper.)

I don't remember Mrs Clinton or the Democrats at large advocating a reform of the electoral college system before the election.

[#10]

What about threatening Armageddon via Twitter?

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/dec/26/fake-news-story-prompts-pakistan-to-issue-nuclear-warn...

[#11]

How so @Jonpe?

You had to either be a Labour party member or whatever and a total final turnout of less than half a million can hardly be called a democracy so in part I take your point but, they were voting for a party leader not a party.

As the famous man once said, 'it's the worse form of government, except for everything that has been tried' - and ain't that the truth. 

[#12]

You can't expect people who are not a member of an organisation to be able to decide who leads it, although you could, in the last two Labour leadership elections, pay a small fee to be allowed to vote.  I thought Labour was against the poll tax.

[#13]

Well only the guided or misguided Labour pseudo activist were going to pay that  £25, nobody else was. I liked the guy, but twenty five smackers from this pensioner for that one? No thanks. 

[#14]

---

Minivanman wrote:

The original tweet?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FO725Hbzfls

That was rubbish as well, and a hard act for Trump to follow!

---

But is it fair to say that ?

Think of the number of people killed in WW1, no sane person would want to enbark on a second world war knowing the cost in terms of lost lives or suffering.

It's easy to say Chamberlin was wrong with hindsight  but perhaps he thought Hitler would go no further.

It's interesting to note why we went to war with Germany, it was the invasion of Poland whom we had guaranteed to protect but what happened to Poland after the war ?

It was still not free, coming under russia's control, I note we didn't go to war with Russia.

I accept we had no alternative but to go to war but I can understand why NC made the decision he did.

[#15]

Well his intention whilst naive might have been honourable, but it was that piece of paper that was rubbish. Yes?