America

[J Dory]

Never know... I live in California and am very familiar with both Newsom and Harris - I am not impressed with either of them. I have been curious about RFK Jr., though... I cannot lie.

https://www.cbc.ca/listen/cbc-podcasts/ ... ential-bid

[morepork]

It's sad to see an environmental law champion pivot from that admirably altruistic motivation to making a living off anecdotal anti-science. In doing this he has hijacked some horrible racist tropes and he is a cluster fuck of profoundly unconstructive narrative that through social media has influenced the very highest levels of public service. He appears genuinely deluded. Not Ronny Ray-Gun levels of cognitive decline, but nevertheless profoundly unfit for public office. His aggressive support for Andrew Wakefields vested claims of autism resulting from the MMR vaccine is probably the single biggest contribution to anti-science in the history of contemporary medicine. Anyone supporting him suffers from not only scientific illiteracy, but a callous indifference to the public good that rates up there with the Laffer curve.

[Donny osmond]

Apropos of nothing at all... copied from X:

Post
See new posts
Conversation
CALL TO ACTIVISM
@CalltoActivism
A British writer penned the best description of Donald Trump I’ve ever read:

“Why do some British people not like Donald Trump?”

A few things spring to mind. Trump lacks certain qualities which the British traditionally esteem. For instance, he has no class, no charm, no coolness, no credibility, no compassion, no wit, no warmth, no wisdom, no subtlety, no sensitivity, no self-awareness, no humility, no honour and no grace – all qualities, funnily enough, with which his predecessor Mr. Obama was generously blessed. So for us, the stark contrast does rather throw Trump’s limitations into embarrassingly sharp relief.

Plus, we like a laugh. And while Trump may be laughable, he has never once said anything wry, witty or even faintly amusing – not once, ever. I don’t say that rhetorically, I mean it quite literally: not once, not ever. And that fact is particularly disturbing to the British sensibility – for us, to lack humour is almost inhuman. But with Trump, it’s a fact. He doesn’t even seem to understand what a joke is – his idea of a joke is a crass comment, an illiterate insult, a casual act of cruelty.

Trump is a troll. And like all trolls, he is never funny and he never laughs; he only crows or jeers. And scarily, he doesn’t just talk in crude, witless insults – he actually thinks in them. His mind is a simple bot-like algorithm of petty prejudices and knee-jerk nastiness.

There is never any under-layer of irony, complexity, nuance or depth. It’s all surface. Some Americans might see this as refreshingly upfront. Well, we don’t. We see it as having no inner world, no soul. And in Britain we traditionally side with David, not Goliath. All our heroes are plucky underdogs: Robin Hood, Dick Whittington, Oliver Twist. Trump is neither plucky, nor an underdog. He is the exact opposite of that. He’s not even a spoiled rich-boy, or a greedy fat-cat. He’s more a fat white slug. A Jabba the Hutt of privilege.

And worse, he is that most unforgivable of all things to the British: a bully. That is, except when he is among bullies; then he suddenly transforms into a snivelling sidekick instead. There are unspoken rules to this stuff – the Queensberry rules of basic decency – and he breaks them all. He punches downwards – which a gentleman should, would, could never do – and every blow he aims is below the belt. He particularly likes to kick the vulnerable or voiceless – and he kicks them when they are down.

So the fact that a significant minority – perhaps a third – of Americans look at what he does, listen to what he says, and then think ‘Yeah, he seems like my kind of guy’ is a matter of some confusion and no little distress to British people, given that:

• Americans are supposed to be nicer than us, and mostly are.

• You don’t need a particularly keen eye for detail to spot a few flaws in the man.

This last point is what especially confuses and dismays British people, and many other people too; his faults seem pretty bloody hard to miss. After all, it’s impossible to read a single tweet, or hear him speak a sentence or two, without staring deep into the abyss. He turns being artless into an art form; he is a Picasso of pettiness; a Shakespeare of shit. His faults are fractal: even his flaws have flaws, and so on ad infinitum. God knows there have always been stupid people in the world, and plenty of nasty people too. But rarely has stupidity been so nasty, or nastiness so stupid. He makes Nixon look trustworthy and George W look smart. In fact, if Frankenstein decided to make a monster assembled entirely from human flaws – he would make a Trump.

And a remorseful Doctor Frankenstein would clutch out big clumpfuls of hair and scream in anguish: ‘My God… what… have… I… created?' If being a twat was a TV show, Trump would be the boxed set.”

[Son of Mathonwy]

Apropos of nothing at all... copied from X:

Post
See new posts
Conversation
CALL TO ACTIVISM
@CalltoActivism
A British writer penned the best description of Donald Trump I’ve ever read:

“Why do some British people not like Donald Trump?”

A few things spring to mind. Trump lacks certain qualities which the British traditionally esteem. For instance, he has no class, no charm, no coolness, no credibility, no compassion, no wit, no warmth, no wisdom, no subtlety, no sensitivity, no self-awareness, no humility, no honour and no grace – all qualities, funnily enough, with which his predecessor Mr. Obama was generously blessed. So for us, the stark contrast does rather throw Trump’s limitations into embarrassingly sharp relief.

Plus, we like a laugh. And while Trump may be laughable, he has never once said anything wry, witty or even faintly amusing – not once, ever. I don’t say that rhetorically, I mean it quite literally: not once, not ever. And that fact is particularly disturbing to the British sensibility – for us, to lack humour is almost inhuman. But with Trump, it’s a fact. He doesn’t even seem to understand what a joke is – his idea of a joke is a crass comment, an illiterate insult, a casual act of cruelty.

Trump is a troll. And like all trolls, he is never funny and he never laughs; he only crows or jeers. And scarily, he doesn’t just talk in crude, witless insults – he actually thinks in them. His mind is a simple bot-like algorithm of petty prejudices and knee-jerk nastiness.

There is never any under-layer of irony, complexity, nuance or depth. It’s all surface. Some Americans might see this as refreshingly upfront. Well, we don’t. We see it as having no inner world, no soul. And in Britain we traditionally side with David, not Goliath. All our heroes are plucky underdogs: Robin Hood, Dick Whittington, Oliver Twist. Trump is neither plucky, nor an underdog. He is the exact opposite of that. He’s not even a spoiled rich-boy, or a greedy fat-cat. He’s more a fat white slug. A Jabba the Hutt of privilege.

And worse, he is that most unforgivable of all things to the British: a bully. That is, except when he is among bullies; then he suddenly transforms into a snivelling sidekick instead. There are unspoken rules to this stuff – the Queensberry rules of basic decency – and he breaks them all. He punches downwards – which a gentleman should, would, could never do – and every blow he aims is below the belt. He particularly likes to kick the vulnerable or voiceless – and he kicks them when they are down.

So the fact that a significant minority – perhaps a third – of Americans look at what he does, listen to what he says, and then think ‘Yeah, he seems like my kind of guy’ is a matter of some confusion and no little distress to British people, given that:

• Americans are supposed to be nicer than us, and mostly are.

• You don’t need a particularly keen eye for detail to spot a few flaws in the man.

This last point is what especially confuses and dismays British people, and many other people too; his faults seem pretty bloody hard to miss. After all, it’s impossible to read a single tweet, or hear him speak a sentence or two, without staring deep into the abyss. He turns being artless into an art form; he is a Picasso of pettiness; a Shakespeare of shit. His faults are fractal: even his flaws have flaws, and so on ad infinitum. God knows there have always been stupid people in the world, and plenty of nasty people too. But rarely has stupidity been so nasty, or nastiness so stupid. He makes Nixon look trustworthy and George W look smart. In fact, if Frankenstein decided to make a monster assembled entirely from human flaws – he would make a Trump.

And a remorseful Doctor Frankenstein would clutch out big clumpfuls of hair and scream in anguish: ‘My God… what… have… I… created?' If being a twat was a TV show, Trump would be the boxed set.”

There's a lot of truth in that. Or a lot that I agree with, anyway.

It does seem mysterious that so many like Trump. Even on one of his stronger image points - ie that he acts tough all the time (which must appeal to some people) - he seems to me to just be acting tough, not genuinely a tough guy at all.

But look at Boris Johnson. Why was he so popular? It's all image - almost a caricature of a certain kind of Britishness - and most importantly, a highly recognisable one. Switch those British features for American ones and you'd almost get Trump ( and the Brits would suddenly hate him). Trump was already highly recognisable from TV. He just threw in a whole lot of dumb populist, nationalist things and captured a lot of those usually missed by politics. People who don't know much about how things work, but who knew Trump. That's the populist's appeal (just as it was for Johnson) - it requires no prior knowledge.

As for the Americans, yeah it's kind of shocking that any human being likes Trump, but I expect a whole lot of Americans think exactly that and are embarrassed that their fellow countrymen support him (as I do re my countrymen and Johnson).

It does seem particularly weird that religious people get behind such an obvious sinner as Trump. But I guess their skill at believing in invisible things is handy when it comes to finding Trump's positive features.

One thing I disagree with in the article is the suggesting that being a bully is the 'most unforgivable of all things' to the British sensibility. Boris Johnson, anyone? Piers Morgan? Gordon Ramsey? The writing style of The Sun? Sorry, bullies are pretty popular here too.

[Mikey Brown]

He did say a load of the right stuff though. It should have been obvious he never had any real intention (or probably didn’t give a shit either way) of following through on any of it, but the whole “drain the swamp” thing was pretty valid. He knew he could exploit the position for his own gain (like everyone else does) and doing the rallies made him feel like a rock star.

That interview from the 90s where he talked about running as a republican because he thought it would be easier said it all really. Pitting the poors against eachother, under the guise of liberty/freedom etc, whilst giving the nod to those with wealth that they can buy his support is pretty basic stuff but it did the job for a while.

For what it’s worth I thought he said a whole lot of funny stuff, it’s just a shame he was also such a huge cunt. He did such a fantastic job of highlighting what a fucking clown show the whole setup is that I’m sort of amazed everything just went back to normal after being exposed like that.

Much like Johnson he seemed to know his image was all wrong for a politician but he could play off of that. I’m not saying he’s some 4D chess genius, but it was entertaining to see you can wing it to that degree. Johnson seems much more malevolent. Both awful cunts who duped their voter base in the end though.

[Sandydragon]

He did say a load of the right stuff though. It should have been obvious he never had any real intention (or probably didn’t give a shit either way) of following through on any of it, but the whole “drain the swamp” thing was pretty valid. He knew he could exploit the position for his own gain (like everyone else does) and doing the rallies made him feel like a rock star.

That interview from the 90s where he talked about running as a republican because he thought it would be easier said it all really. Pitting the poors against eachother, under the guise of liberty/freedom etc, whilst giving the nod to those with wealth that they can buy his support is pretty basic stuff but it did the job for a while.

For what it’s worth I thought he said a whole lot of funny stuff, it’s just a shame he was also such a huge cunt. He did such a fantastic job of highlighting what a fucking clown show the whole setup is that I’m sort of amazed everything just went back to normal after being exposed like that.

Much like Johnson he seemed to know his image was all wrong for a politician but he could play off of that. I’m not saying he’s some 4D chess genius, but it was entertaining to see you can wing it to that degree. Johnson seems much more malevolent. Both awful cunts who duped their voter base in the end though.

Trump has cunning I think. He was riled into running for president allegedly because Obama insulted him, and then thought the best way was not to be like other politicians. I don’t like Steve Bannon but I wouldn’t claim he was thick and with him in trumps ear he was able to whistle the right notes for the left behind in the US

[morepork]

The fuck he is. He is privileged, not cunning. He is an actor slightly worse than Arnold Schwarzenegger. He is as thick as pig shit and when not acting/whining proves his profound intellectual incuriosity. It's not cunning to suggest washing out you lungs with bleach or UV light in a public address. It's not cunning to blurt out national security intelligence in front of Russian diplomats or give the big two thumbs up and grin while taking a photo with an infant whose parents were killed in a mass shooting two days before. Watch him give an interview where he isn't able to talk himself up (the Aussie guy during COVID, or the man-woman-camera-TV beauty), or better still a deposition where he has to answer questions....he is developmentally disabled. No, he appeals to bigots, the white Christian Taliban, and psychotic libertarians that believe the wealthy should give nothing and get everything (Peter Thiel and such), with the latter hijacking the former two for some grand eugenics master plan. He is a fucking puppet.

[Stom]

The fuck he is. He is privileged, not cunning. He is an actor slightly worse than Arnold Schwarzenegger. He is as thick as pig shit and when not acting/whining proves his profound intellectual incuriosity. It's not cunning to suggest washing out you lungs with bleach or UV light in a public address. It's not cunning to blurt out national security intelligence in front of Russian diplomats or give the big two thumbs up and grin while taking a photo with an infant whose parents were killed in a mass shooting two days before. Watch him give an interview where he isn't able to talk himself up (the Aussie guy during COVID, or the man-woman-camera-TV beauty), or better still a deposition where he has to answer questions....he is developmentally disabled. No, he appeals to bigots, the white Christian Taliban, and psychotic libertarians that believe the wealthy should give nothing and get everything (Peter Thiel and such), with the latter hijacking the former two for some grand eugenics master plan. He is a fucking puppet.

To disregard everything he's managed in terms of following because he comes across as stupid, and has lost a lot of money, is a bit foolish.

His speech patterns in his speeches are incredible. The verbal gymnastics he goes through to put the stresses in the perfect places for his audience are incredible.

Just to put it in perspective: I've used Trump style writing for various products and it has outperformed any other style I'd used, no matter the audience. The guy has that innate ability to structure his insane utterings perfectly for impact.

[Mikey Brown]

The fuck he is. He is privileged, not cunning. He is an actor slightly worse than Arnold Schwarzenegger. He is as thick as pig shit and when not acting/whining proves his profound intellectual incuriosity. It's not cunning to suggest washing out you lungs with bleach or UV light in a public address. It's not cunning to blurt out national security intelligence in front of Russian diplomats or give the big two thumbs up and grin while taking a photo with an infant whose parents were killed in a mass shooting two days before. Watch him give an interview where he isn't able to talk himself up (the Aussie guy during COVID, or the man-woman-camera-TV beauty), or better still a deposition where he has to answer questions....he is developmentally disabled. No, he appeals to bigots, the white Christian Taliban, and psychotic libertarians that believe the wealthy should give nothing and get everything (Peter Thiel and such), with the latter hijacking the former two for some grand eugenics master plan. He is a fucking puppet.

To disregard everything he's managed in terms of following because he comes across as stupid, and has lost a lot of money, is a bit foolish.

His speech patterns in his speeches are incredible. The verbal gymnastics he goes through to put the stresses in the perfect places for his audience are incredible.

Just to put it in perspective: I've used Trump style writing for various products and it has outperformed any other style I'd used, no matter the audience. The guy has that innate ability to structure his insane utterings perfectly for impact.

Exactly. It shows just how far you can go with a financial leg up, innate car-salesman skills and being slightly too dumb/privileged to recognise your own limitations.

Maybe that's the dream after all.

[morepork]

Bear in mind that he has been trained during his years in "reality" TV. Nothing innate about it.

[Mikey Brown]

Nah. Nobody learns that.

It’s not particularly complimentary. He just knows how to bullshit. Being able to make his reality tv star routine work as a presidential candidate is quite revealing though.

[Son of Mathonwy]

Unfortunately for us, and democracy, and the chance of improvement in global quality of life, Trump and Johnson have shown how weak the controls are in the political system. They've shown the next generation of populists how to do it.

[Sandydragon]

The fuck he is. He is privileged, not cunning. He is an actor slightly worse than Arnold Schwarzenegger. He is as thick as pig shit and when not acting/whining proves his profound intellectual incuriosity. It's not cunning to suggest washing out you lungs with bleach or UV light in a public address. It's not cunning to blurt out national security intelligence in front of Russian diplomats or give the big two thumbs up and grin while taking a photo with an infant whose parents were killed in a mass shooting two days before. Watch him give an interview where he isn't able to talk himself up (the Aussie guy during COVID, or the man-woman-camera-TV beauty), or better still a deposition where he has to answer questions....he is developmentally disabled. No, he appeals to bigots, the white Christian Taliban, and psychotic libertarians that believe the wealthy should give nothing and get everything (Peter Thiel and such), with the latter hijacking the former two for some grand eugenics master plan. He is a fucking puppet.

Yes he’s privileged. But he knows how to spot weakness and to exploit people. I’ll mock him as much as anyone but it’s dangerous to assume people you detest are just thick.

[Sandydragon]

Unfortunately for us, and democracy, and the chance of improvement in global quality of life, Trump and Johnson have shown how weak the controls are in the political system. They've shown the next generation of populists how to do it.

I disagree. The controls have held up fairly well. Trump couldn’t stay as president and Johnson couldn’t remain PM when his cabinet walked out.

[Donny osmond]

It's always an interesting discussion about the relative intelligence of leaders. Johnston could, apparently, read and write in both Greek and Latin, which by any measure would make him a very intelligent man... however, someone who publicly announces a set of rules and then within hours breaks those same rules and then pretends he didn't know what he was doing is clearly thick as shit. Braverman has law degrees, undergrad and postgrad, coming out of her fundament, which needs a high degree of intelligence, however someone who makes the public utterances that she does is clearly thick as shit.

Even if we might consider characters such as these to be blinded by their own arrogance and privilege, the way they've carried on is still a display of a profound absence of 'intelligence' even if they're academic backgrounds might suggest they are in fact highly intelligent.

I don't know enough about Trump to say the same for him but I would say simply dismissing him as thick is both missing the point and kinda playing into his hands.

[Donny osmond]

Unfortunately for us, and democracy, and the chance of improvement in global quality of life, Trump and Johnson have shown how weak the controls are in the political system. They've shown the next generation of populists how to do it.

I disagree. The controls have held up fairly well. Trump couldn’t stay as president and Johnson couldn’t remain PM when his cabinet walked out.

Have had this conversation with nationalists in Scotland who look askance at Johnston and sneer that we could do better. The system took too long to work, and humiliated the UK on the international stage but the reality is that Johnson was eventually forced out as both PM and MP.

That contrasts starkly with Scottish domestic politics where the leader who lied in the chamber and under oath to a parliamentary inquiry was feted until her last day as leader and retains a huge popularity as a backbencher.

[Stom]

Bear in mind that he has been trained during his years in "reality" TV. Nothing innate about it.

So you'd rather think he's bright enough to take on teaching from someone who isn't himself, and execute it to a world class level?

Nah, I'm not buying that.

It's a talent. A useful one for him.

[morepork]

Bear in mind that he has been trained during his years in "reality" TV. Nothing innate about it.

So you'd rather think he's bright enough to take on teaching from someone who isn't himself, and execute it to a world class level?

Nah, I'm not buying that.

It's a talent. A useful one for him.

No. I think he believes the character he plays is real.

[Son of Mathonwy]

Unfortunately for us, and democracy, and the chance of improvement in global quality of life, Trump and Johnson have shown how weak the controls are in the political system. They've shown the next generation of populists how to do it.

I disagree. The controls have held up fairly well. Trump couldn’t stay as president and Johnson couldn’t remain PM when his cabinet walked out.

Neither is fit for office but both became rulers of their country. (And Trump may well get a second term.) That doesn't look like functional controls to me.

[Donny osmond]

Unfortunately for us, and democracy, and the chance of improvement in global quality of life, Trump and Johnson have shown how weak the controls are in the political system. They've shown the next generation of populists how to do it.

I disagree. The controls have held up fairly well. Trump couldn’t stay as president and Johnson couldn’t remain PM when his cabinet walked out.

Neither is fit for office but both became rulers of their country. (And Trump may well get a second term.) That doesn't look like functional controls to me.

How do you control who's running for office? Surely the point of democracy is that anyone can run and it's up to the voters to separate the wheat from the chaff?

[Stom]

I disagree. The controls have held up fairly well. Trump couldn’t stay as president and Johnson couldn’t remain PM when his cabinet walked out.

Neither is fit for office but both became rulers of their country. (And Trump may well get a second term.) That doesn't look like functional controls to me.

How do you control who's running for office? Surely the point of democracy is that anyone can run and it's up to the voters to separate the wheat from the chaff?

Democracy has never worked like that. Even back in classical times, you could be disqualified from holding office. But that rarely happens in the modern world, and usually only for crimes that do not impact the political process and are just heinous.

Better checks would probably see most of the Tory party disqualified anyway...

[Son of Mathonwy]

I disagree. The controls have held up fairly well. Trump couldn’t stay as president and Johnson couldn’t remain PM when his cabinet walked out.

Neither is fit for office but both became rulers of their country. (And Trump may well get a second term.) That doesn't look like functional controls to me.

How do you control who's running for office? Surely the point of democracy is that anyone can run and it's up to the voters to separate the wheat from the chaff?

Neither is competent or morally fit for office, so a functional system would prevent them from getting to that position.

The voters can't possibly discern the wheat from the chaff if they are constantly being lied to. Having a trustworthy news service (papers and TV) would make a huge difference - ie with impartiality standards, with no majority ownership. Strict control over political advertising is important (more of a problem in the states).

A test for basic competence and psychological stability wouldn't go amiss either - not necessarily to bar them from running but so the voters could see the results and factor them in.

[Stom]

Neither is fit for office but both became rulers of their country. (And Trump may well get a second term.) That doesn't look like functional controls to me.

How do you control who's running for office? Surely the point of democracy is that anyone can run and it's up to the voters to separate the wheat from the chaff?

Democracy has never worked like that. Even back in classical times, you could be disqualified from holding office. But that rarely happens in the modern world, and usually only for crimes that do not impact the political process and are just heinous.

Better checks would probably see most of the Tory party disqualified anyway...

To expand on this, and I know it's Wikipedia but it's the easiest and most digestible form of information easily available, here is how Roman Senators were disqualified or impeached...

The ethical requirements of senators were significant. Senators could not engage in banking or any form of public contract without legal approval. They could not own a ship that was large enough to participate in foreign commerce without legal approval,[1] and they could not leave Italy without permission from the Senate. In addition, since they were not paid, individuals usually sought to become a senator only if they were independently wealthy.[4]

The censors were the magistrates who enforced the ethical standards of the Senate. Whenever a censor punished a senator, they had to allege some specific failing. Possible reasons for punishing a member included corruption, abuse of capital punishment, or the disregard of a colleague's veto, constitutional precedent, or the auspices. Senators who failed to obey various laws could also be punished. While punishment could include impeachment (expulsion) from the Senate, often a punishment was less severe than outright expulsion.[5] While the standard was high for expelling a member from the Senate, it was easier to deny a citizen the right to join the Senate. Various moral failings could result in one not being allowed to join the Senate, including bankruptcy, prostitution, or a prior history of having been a gladiator. One law (the Lex repetundarum of 123 BC) made it illegal for a citizen to become a senator if they had been convicted of a criminal offense.[5] Many of these laws were enacted in the last century of the Republic, as public corruption began reaching unprecedented levels.[5]

[Donny osmond]

Neither is fit for office but both became rulers of their country. (And Trump may well get a second term.) That doesn't look like functional controls to me.

How do you control who's running for office? Surely the point of democracy is that anyone can run and it's up to the voters to separate the wheat from the chaff?

Neither is competent or morally fit for office, so a functional system would prevent them from getting to that position.

The voters can't possibly discern the wheat from the chaff if they are constantly being lied to. Having a trustworthy news service (papers and TV) would make a huge difference - ie with impartiality standards, with no majority ownership. Strict control over political advertising is important (more of a problem in the states).

A test for basic competence and psychological stability wouldn't go amiss either - not necessarily to bar them from running but so the voters could see the results and factor them in.

To work backwards...

A test for competency and whatever can be studied for or worked around, it wouldn't stop someone like Trump and certainly not Johnson.

The bit about the press I agree with to an extent but even that comes with its own problems... one person's truth is another person's lie, trying to impose on a population what they are and aren't allowed to accept as truth is a fools errand and anyway wouldn't stop the likes of Trump or Johnson. See previous conversation about Trump's speeches.

I also agree that neither DT not BJ were fit for office but the controls Sandy was talking about were controls to remove from office, not prevent from taking office. Removing BJ from office took too long but those controls did - eventually - work.

[Sandydragon]

How do you control who's running for office? Surely the point of democracy is that anyone can run and it's up to the voters to separate the wheat from the chaff?

Democracy has never worked like that. Even back in classical times, you could be disqualified from holding office. But that rarely happens in the modern world, and usually only for crimes that do not impact the political process and are just heinous.

Better checks would probably see most of the Tory party disqualified anyway...

To expand on this, and I know it's Wikipedia but it's the easiest and most digestible form of information easily available, here is how Roman Senators were disqualified or impeached...

The ethical requirements of senators were significant. Senators could not engage in banking or any form of public contract without legal approval. They could not own a ship that was large enough to participate in foreign commerce without legal approval,[1] and they could not leave Italy without permission from the Senate. In addition, since they were not paid, individuals usually sought to become a senator only if they were independently wealthy.[4]

The censors were the magistrates who enforced the ethical standards of the Senate. Whenever a censor punished a senator, they had to allege some specific failing. Possible reasons for punishing a member included corruption, abuse of capital punishment, or the disregard of a colleague's veto, constitutional precedent, or the auspices. Senators who failed to obey various laws could also be punished. While punishment could include impeachment (expulsion) from the Senate, often a punishment was less severe than outright expulsion.[5] While the standard was high for expelling a member from the Senate, it was easier to deny a citizen the right to join the Senate. Various moral failings could result in one not being allowed to join the Senate, including bankruptcy, prostitution, or a prior history of having been a gladiator. One law (the Lex repetundarum of 123 BC) made it illegal for a citizen to become a senator if they had been convicted of a criminal offense.[5] Many of these laws were enacted in the last century of the Republic, as public corruption began reaching unprecedented levels.[5]

There is definitely an improvement needed to reduce the influence that can be bought in British and American politics. And most other democracies I expect to some degree. Yes government should listen to the views of big business, but not to the exclusion of other voices.

In terms of banning candidates it’s difficult. Trump is a twat, but how would you ban him? In 2016 he had never been convicted of anything, he was a businessman. And millions voted for him based on his message and tribalism.

Ideally the views he exposed would be seen as marginal. So for me the issue isn’t the candidate but the mainstreamism of views that should be marginal.