Once again you completely dismiss a well reasoned

Once again you completely dismiss a well reasoned and historically supported argument, because it doesn't suit your prejudices.

'Protecting rural from urban' is simplistic nonsense that overlooks needs that are common to both.

'Majority rule and minority rights'. Note, the words 'majority rule'.

And no, the criteria for a demagogue do NOT apply more to Clinton than to Trump. The article stands on its merit, and is not rebutted by YOUR spin.

Quote:

---

Consider what Alexander Hamilton wrote in Federalist Paper Number 68. The Electors were supposed to stop a candidate with “Talents for low intrigue, and the little arts of popularity” from becoming President. The Electors were supposed to be “men most capable of analyzing the qualities adapted to the station, and acting under circumstances favorable to deliberation, and to a judicious combination of all the reasons and inducements which were proper to govern their choice.”

They were to “possess the information and discernment requisite to such complicated investigations” as the selection of the President, and they were supposed to “afford as little opportunity as possible to tumult and disorder.” They were even supposed to prevent “the desire in foreign powers to gain an improper ascendant in our councils.”

Hamilton was talking about demagogues. The word “demagogue” appears in both the first and last Federalist Papers; in Federalist Paper Number 1, for instance, Hamilton worried about the “military despotism of a victorious demagogue.”

In my book Demagogue: The Fight to Save Democracy from Its Worst Enemies, I define demagogues as meeting four criteria: first, they posture as a mirror of the masses, attacking elites. Second, they trigger great waves of emotion. Third, they use that emotion for political benefit. Fourth, they threaten or break established rules of governance.

Quote:

---

That would be Trump, to a T.

---

Read More: http://investorshangout.com/post/view?id=4194...z4RQE8gyGZ

---