1. Imagine a President Trump whose policies all accord with your own. Substantively, he's like, perhaps, Barack Obama. He'll appoint the Supreme Court Justice who will give the liberal faction a decisive 5-person majority. He's very accepting of undocumented immigrants, committed to Obamacare, etc. etc. — whatever it is that you like. But he has all the personal characteristics of Donald Trump. He entered politics from a successful business career, funded his own campaign using his private wealth, and figured out how to do politics on the fly, making mistakes and correcting his course. He got knocked around in the press and by party insiders who wanted to stop him, but he kept going, overcoming 16 opponents. He had his own way of talking and he took it straight to the people, with hundreds of rallies, and he especially connected with working class people. They just loved him, as the elite shook their heads, because he didn't have the diplomacy and elegance they'd come to expect from a President. Be honest now. How would you like this man? How would you speak about his personal style?
2. Imagine a President Trump with all of the substantive policies of the real Donald Trump — all of them, exactly the same. But this Donald Trump meets your stylistic ideal. He looks, acts, and speaks the way you picture a perfect President. He never seems at all rude or crude or imprecise in his words. His tone — you know the word 'tone'? — is well-modulated. His sentences are the right length, his vocabulary large without verging into show-offiness. He seems confident, but not arrogant. He's nice looking and the right age, perhaps 58, and his wife, who's only exactly as good-looking as he is, is almost the same age. He's got what everyone regards as a "good temperament." He's on task and organized — his administration is up and running like a fine-tuned machine — and putting through all these policies that you loathe and dread. What would you be saying about this Donald Trump?
February 22, 2017
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
269 comments:
«Oldest ‹Older 201 – 269 of 269Amen, exiled.
Fine. I'll rephrase it. When Mockturtle so proudly exclaimed that "we" would keep it that way, without saying "we Americans", I wanted to remind her that leftists and rightists alike are in that "we" she threw out there. I suspect she was referring to her side only as the "we" she referenced..
Are you saying that leftists would welcome Sharia law? I could have said 'We Americans', as that is what I meant. But I thought it unnecessary.
Mockturtle,
I've never once heard anyone here on the right ever include liberals, leftists, progressives and Democrats in a a "we Americans" comment, so yes, you should be more precise, considering the comments sections here are 90% rightist.
I recall Sarah Palin referring to "real Americans" way back when she was relevant.
Unknown/ said..."I've never once heard anyone here on the right ever include liberals, leftists, progressives and Democrats included in a a "we Americans" comment,..."
You're a loon.
I started a considered reply, but really, what would have been the point?
I want you to name a single case in the United States where a homicide was justified under "Sharia law."
Chuck, I don't watch Hannity. I occasionally read Drudge for links. I do read a lot of foreign press. The upcoming European elections will tell us a lot about how native Europeans feel about what is happening in their countries.
Sharia law does not specifically allow honor killings, as I stated in an addendum, but in several cases here in the US, the Muslim community has made every effort to cover them up rather than to expose them. Now, why would that be?
I don't hate Muslims but I hate their ideology. I dated a Kuwaiti in college, knew his friends and cousins well and have worked with any number of respectable Muslim professionals. But I am not naive. Muslims will admit to your face that Israel must be destroyed, Jews must be killed and that Allah must rule the world some day under Sharia law even if by the sword. They don't see themselves as evil. They see Sharia as the ultimate good. Kind of like socialists feel about Socialism only more enthusiastically. And this is nothing new. This has been an ebbing and flowing theme throughout history.
I know you don't agree Original Mike, but that's been my experience here. You don't need to be insulting, makes you sound like a jerk.
Unknown/ said..."I've never once heard anyone here on the right ever include liberals, leftists, progressives and Democrats included in a a "we Americans" comment,..."
Seems to me we both sound like jerks.
The beheading of 37-year-old Aasiya Hassan has all the markings of an honor killing, psychologists and Islamic experts tell FOXNews.com, as the upstate New York woman's husband awaits a preliminary hearing on murder charges.
Muzzammil Hassan, 44, remains jailed after being charged with the second-degree murder of his wife, whose body was found Thursday at the office of Bridges TV, their television station in Orchard Park, near Buffalo.
But psychologists and some American Muslims said the slaying has all the markings of an honor killing.
"The fierce and gruesome nature of this murder signals it's an honor killing," said Dr. Phyllis Chesler, an author and professor of psychology at the Richmond College of the City University of New York. "What she did was worthy of capital punishment in his eyes."
http://www.foxnews.com/story/2009/02/17/beheading-in-new-york-appears-to-be-honor-killing-experts-say.html
Of course, that's just one case. We have to wait until there are more until we can make a judgement.
"Yes. Robert Cook, your ideal system would work well if the 'hirelings' were saints. Human beings are not saintly and the more power you give them, the more they will inevitably abuse it. That is true of any politician of any party and of the bureaucrats as well. So it is best to limit their power."
Of course...and their power is limited by the people. At the same time, the power we choose to give them must to turned to our benefit. Those we select to represent us do not have to be saints; they simply have to fear the consequences when they betray us. However, when the people abdicate our responsibility to oversee and reign in those we hire to represent us, or when we blindly believe the fear-mongering and lies we are told to induce our compliance, we are responsible for the usurpation of our power by others. This is why they strive to keep us ignorant and afraid...the better to bamboozle us. Trump is no less a con-man than any who have come before him. What has changed is only the segment of the population allowing themselves to be conned.
OM,
Fair enough.
"M. Zuhdi Jasser, founder and chairman of the American Islamic Forum for Democracy, agreed with Chesler.
"It certainly has all the markings of [an honor killing]," Jasser told FOXNews.com. "She expressed through the legal system that she was being abused, and at the moment she asked for divorce, she's not only murdered — she's decapitated."
Muzzammil and Aasiya Hassan founded Bridges TV in November 2004 to counter anti-Islam stereotypes, touting the network as the "first-ever full-time home for American Muslims," according to a 2004 press release.
Jasser said he was concerned that Aasiya Hassan suffered such a barbaric death after she and her husband were seen as a couple focused on bettering the "Islamic image" in the United States.
"The most dangerous aspect of this case is to simply say it's domestic violence," Jasser told FOXNews.com."
Blogger Unknown said...
"Yes, we do. That includes Democrats. Don't forget it."
"Depends on the Democrat, unfortunately. Those decrying any restrictions on immigration have already self-identified as having no principles other than opposing the Republicans."
Nonsense. Partisan claptrap.
I assume Uknown/Inga is unfamiliar with a certain Muslim state rep in Minnesota who probably (we cant get the other party who is in UK) married her brother in a visa fraud and who is in a "religious marriage" with the father of her children.
Sidewalk surveys of "young men" in that area show they are prefer Sharia to US law.
"'I have called only for existing state power--our power, handed over voluntarily by us to be used by our hirelings for our purposes--'
"Good luck with that."
That's the basis for our representational republic. If you think it is unworkable or a pipe dream, what do you propose in its place?
"Those we select to represent us do not have to be saints; they simply have to fear the consequences when they betray us. "
That would require a nonpolitical Dept. of Justice.
"That's the basis for our representational republic. If you think it is unworkable or a pipe dream, what do you propose in its place?"
You know what I propose. I believe we can only achieve what you seek with a government of reduced powers. I further believe we actually have that stucture in place, our Constitution, if we would only follow it.
Here's one from Michigan chuck:
http://www.twincities.com/2011/05/02/coon-rapids-man-accused-of-killing-stepdaughter-in-michigan-for-leaving-home-not-following-islam/
Teen sisters victims of honor killing in Texas
More Cases of Honor Killings in US
It is estimated that there are 27 cases per year in the US.
And "a reported 11,000 cases of honor violence recorded in the United Kingdom in the last five years while incidents also have been documented in Canada, Germany, France and Sweden."
re: Mockturtle. I listed "traits" rather than achievements for two reasons:
1. we've got a good handle, I think, on Trump's traits so we can compare apples with apples. Trump's a rake, so were JFK and LBJ. Trump's a bully, so was LBJ. Trump's a liar, so was Nixon. Trump's reality-challenged, so was Reagan (but not nearly so bad).
2. "achievements" or "policies" are time-specific,we can judge GWB and Obama on dealing with the economic crisis, but not Trump. We can judge LBJ and JFK on dealing with Congress over civil rights, but not Trump. I'm prejudiced, of course, but I doubt anyone who knows what policies Trump will actually implement during his term. He's changed his positions so much over his life and brags about being a transactional leader, not an ideological one. All we really firmly know is that his accomplishments will be GREAT, and exceed those of all previous presidents.
"That's the basis for our representational republic. If you think it is unworkable or a pipe dream, what do you propose in its place?"
This is perfectly workable and has worked, in situations where the servants have very limited powers and not too much outside the government, the general economy, depends on their decisions. And it is workable when the systems they operate in are simple enough for legislators to understand and reform as needed.
Like everything human its a matter of scale and proportion.
#1 - I’m trying to picture Obama with Trump personality. It would still be awful. It’s the constant lying, TV watching and the in-your-face-attack to just about everyone and everything he disagrees with or doesn’t like. He’s too childish, too much ego. There are democrats that I don’t particularly like to hear so switching policies wouldn’t really do it for me. I would be embarrassed if Obama were like this.
#2 - I was expecting Trump to be more serious and a bit humbled once he became president. That didn’t happen. I think if he were to calm down and act a bit more respectful, he would get more respect. He’s creating the drama. He is the star of the show! So if he were to be more of a Mitt Romney type, I think we could all sleep a little better at night, and focus on the policies and not him. But Trump has made it all about him. So instead of discussing health care we’re talking about the fact that crime is not at an all time high, or that 4 million people did not commit voter fraud or whatever lie du jour he decides to tweet. I’ll take Mitt Romney! Please!
"You know what I propose. I believe we can only achieve what you seek with a government of reduced powers."
What does that mean? How would that manifest in the real world?
Oh, come on Robert. You act like this is a new idea.
I don't hate Trump but he angers and frightens me.
Of course the fact that I disagree with Trump's policies is part of why I feel that way. And the fact that his personal style may limit his effectiveness in pursuing those policies is sometimes a comfort, although more often, for reasons noted below, it's not.
That said, I don't think your hypos really capture what's disturbing about Trump. Put aside that some stated elements aren't accurate. For example, we don't really know how successful he was in business, and most of the cost of his campaign was paid by others. The important point is that this is not just about policies and style as you define them. It's about non disclosures and massive conflicts of interest. It's about repeated use of falsehoods and "alternative facts," and about threatening the careers of public servants who refuse to go along. It's about sexism and probable sexual misconduct, frequent appeals to racial, religious and national stereotypes, belittling and demonization of opponents, encouraging the worst characteristics of supporters,and characterizations of mainstream media as the enemy of the people. It's about ignorance that is often reckless, rather than innocent. It's about narcissism, paranoia, volatility and lack of self control in an extremely powerful position where those are dangerous qualities. And that's a non-exhaustive list.
I think these issues go beyond policies and style and are in some measure unprecedented. Also unprecedented, and frightening, is the fact that so many fellow citizens seemed prepared to overlook them, I can't know for sure, but I'd like to think that these issues would provide grounds for feeling as I do even if I supported his policy agenda. I'm encouraged in that view by the number of moderates and conservatives who have said in writing that they feel as I do about him.
So if we modify the thought experiment to include the additional things I've listed above, how would you feel?
"It’s the constant lying, TV watching and the in-your-face-attack to just about everyone and everything he disagrees with or doesn’t like. He’s too childish, too much ego."
True. I felt the same way about President "I Won" Obama. Gee, remember when he not so subtly gave the finger to Paul Ryan? Talk about childish behavior.
The opposition always finds something to attack. If they cannot attack his policies, they attack his character and vice versa. With Trump, the opposition dislikes both his policies and his character, o they hv gone ballistic.
Mary asserts: I was expecting Trump to be more serious and a bit humbled once he became president. That didn’t happen. I think if he were to calm down and act a bit more respectful, he would get more respect. He’s creating the drama. He is the star of the show!
Teddy Roosevelt's eldest daughter, Alice, quipped that her father was "The bride at every wedding and the corpse at every funeral". Not unlike Trump is self-aggrandizing speech, he was also a man of action, as is Trump. T.R. was my favorite US President. And if Trump doesn't have your respect, he probably doesn't need it.
Robert Cook said...
Here's a good article today at Counterpunch by an honest leftist.
Holy shit. You just gave me hope for this country Robert.
I am not joking either.
Still disagree with the rest of that article. One of these years you guys will figure out you can have a Welfare State or Open Borders, not both for obvious reasons.
But first things first DC needs to be reduced.
Robert Cook said...
That's the basis for our representational republic. If you think it is unworkable or a pipe dream, what do you propose in its place?
A constitutionally limited federal government that focused on defense, foreign policy, interstate trade, and protecting individual liberties and other specifically denominated roles that accounted for 10% of GDP with the states free to be as high tax/low tax welfare statey as they want.
Imagine a President Trump whose policies all accord with your own. But he has all the personal characteristics of Donald Trump.
Imagine a President Trump with all of the substantive policies of the real Donald Trump — all of them, exactly the same. But this Donald Trump meets your stylistic ideal. He looks, acts, and speaks the way you picture a perfect President.
Imagination is for children and daydreaming is difficult for those who have experienced life's difficulties. There are no heroes from the Marvel Comics to save us from ourselves - but there was a Republican candidate who already had the leadership and morality you would wish upon The Donald.
Trump sought out the underdogs who play Lotto every week. He sold fifty cent tickets to buy entry into the Freak Tent and he gave away tiny balloons, claiming there were prizes inside. But when the sun sets and the tent is empty and the freaks have been exposed, the cheated feeling will set-in. So how many visits to the daily Freak Show will it take - complete with carny barker lies, bad decisions and adolescent thinking - to overcome these ongoing confidence scams. I actually thought that folks would be more wary of the "emails from Nigeria," um, Trump Tweets.
So cheer up sleepy Jean, what can it mean to a daydream believer?
T.R. was my favorite US President. And if Trump doesn't have your respect, he probably doesn't need it.
I agree.
Trump sought out the underdogs who play Lotto every week.
I can't tell if you are a looney lefty or just a rather dull NeverTrumper.
Talking about the people who voted for Trump that way is a good way to see that no one you support ever gets elected to anything outside of San Francisco or NYC.
From the article Robert Cook links to:
Frankly, it’s an idea that I find attractive, mainly because I think Trump’s views on immigration, the environment, human rights, civil liberties and deregulation are so uniformly horrible, they could destroy the country.
http://www.counterpunch.org/2017/02/22/90663/
Yet Trump won a democratic election to implement these policies. Even if you give Hillary the popular vote by 2%, the author (Mike Whitney) believes that 46% of the voters want to see policies that Whitney believes are "uniformly horrible."
You literally cannot be a democrat (small d) and believe that this is true. Being a democrat means that you believe that the people possess the ability to be self-ruling, and that their self-rule will be better than the alternatives, all things considered.
Original Mike wrote:
"I believe we can only achieve what you seek with a government of reduced powers."
AKA subsidiarity, political decisions devolved to smallest unit that is practical.
The idea that we should have a nationally directed educational establishment is the opposite of subsidiarity. As a result you have education policy directed towards achieving the goals of the people who run a federal bureaucracy, and do not care at all what happens to the individual children that it is educating.
In no sane world would Bill Ayres be allowed to determine education policy.
Blogger Robert Cook said..."It's hardly a conspiracy theory, but America's obvious intentions. Acquisition of the world's resources and political domination of the world has long been America's goal, particularly after WWII. "
I submit that this has been the goal of EVERY nation on Earth since the beginning of time. Certainly now by China, Russia, Iran, and the EU. England and France went to the middle east post war to rule Oil. Japan invaded the East Asia co prosperity sphere for the same reason. The difference is that the US is the only country that I think has done it with general peace and freedom, the glint of domination is too strong in the others. US wants free trade and free seas and will pay for what it needs. The Romans certainly did not care about the folks that supplied them.
The best exercise I've seen is to write a piece about the positives of Trump. Supporters should write pieces on the negatives.
I'm particularly interested in the first one, because I think all the supposedly loathsome things about Trump would be spun into good. I think it would be very similar to how Bernie Sanders was perceived plus amazement at the political genius and the victory against all odds.
He'd be Ted Kennedy. Ted wasn't exactly great about women, seemed constantly to be unable to make a cogent point, could eviscerate his enemies as he wished, was friendly with Russia...
Robert Cook [and I do like Cookie!] is an idealist. It seems never to occur to him that there will always be superpowers and maybe it's best that the US is one of them. Can he think of any country he would prefer to see dominating the planet? China? Saudi Arabia? Russia? Yes, equity would be nice but it's not going to happen. Neither is world peace. Get over it.
exiledonmainstreet said...
Here's one from Michigan chuck:
http://www.twincities.com/2011/05/02/coon-rapids-man-accused-of-killing-stepdaughter-in-michigan-for-leaving-home-not-following-islam/
Good lord, what a stupid comment. Even from you, this is an unusually -- distressingly -- ignorant comment.
So you supplied us with a link, wherein some Muslim dirtbag killed somebody, and the thought is that it was related to some form of Islam-related social pathology.
Guess what; people get killed all the time, and the murders are pretty much always committed for insane, dumb, illegitimate, corrupt or evil reasons. Kids get killed on the Southside of Chicago, for being on the wrong playground. Drug dealers get murdered, for encroaching on some other dealer's turf. Husbands and wives get murdered during enraged arguments. Store clerks get murdered for resisting robbers. Or not resisting. People get murdered en masse in rare cases wherein a deranged person has a fascination with guns and perhaps wants to die himself. Carlo had to die in The Godfather, because "somebody has to answer for Santino."
NONE OF THOSE MURDERS ARE EXCUSED. AND YOUR "MICHIGAN" CASE ISN'T BEING EXCUSED, BECAUSE IT MAY BE AN ISLAMIC-IDEOLOGY KILLING. IT'S NOT A DEFENSE TO A MURDER CHARGE IN MICHIGAN; "MY RELIGION MADE ME DO IT." THERE ARE NO LEGAL HONOR KILLINGS IN MICHIGAN. THE LEGAL NAME FOR AN ISLAMIC "HONOR KILLING" IN MICHIGAN IS "MURDER IN THE FIRST DEGREE."
You have proven my point. You cannot cite a case wherein "Sharia law" ever legally excused a homicide. Your mention of a case in which a murder charge was laid for a homicide in which "Islamic honor killing" was THE MOTIVE, proves my point, not yours. If you kill someone in the United States under circumstances of an Islamic "honor killing," you should be and will be charged with murder.
God damn it I hate having to berate such stupid posts. Do better next time, Mr. Exile.
Do better criticizing women, so called Chuck.
Excellent point Chuck. As I said upstream, Sharia Law will never replace our form of criminal justice. The hand wringing and overblown fears of Muslims forcing Sharia Law on us in the US is bordering on hysteria.
Unknown and Chuck are the hysterical ones, both suffering from TDS. Muslims wouldn't have to 'force' Sharia law on the US. It would be a gradual process as it is in Europe, by sheer numbers, legal maneuvering of civil rights laws and intimidation. Look at the relative birth rates in Europe between natives and Muslims in addition to the large numbers of immigrants. Mark Steyn laid it out succinctly in America Alone. If either Chuck or Unknown believes that Muslims share our love of democracy they are ignorant of Muslims. Period.
What utter nonsense. You're going to say that Americans who are of the Muslim faith don't share a love for democracy? Seriously? What ignorance. Tell that to Americans of Muslim faith who died for this country while serving in the military.
The history of Muslims in the US military.
Muslim Cops
I'd say fie on both of them.
" 'The fierce and gruesome nature of this murder signals it's an honor killing,' "
Lots of men kill their wives in a fierce and gruesome manner. My guess is we would only refer to ti as an honor killing when it is a Muslim.
Blogger Unknown said...
What utter nonsense. You're going to say that Americans who are of the Muslim faith don't share a love for democracy? Seriously? What ignorance. Tell that to Americans of Muslim faith who died for this country while serving in the military.
The reality based community sees things a little . . . diferently than "Unknown."
Nidal Hasan sentenced to death for Fort Hood shooting rampage
"Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan was sentenced to death Wednesday for killing 13 people and wounding 32 others in a 2009 shooting rampage at Fort Hood, Tex., the worst mass murder at a military installation in U.S. history.
Dressed in Army fatigues, Hasan, who turns 43 next month, listened impassively as the death sentence was handed down by a panel of 13 senior military officers in a unanimous decision after less than two hours of deliberations. If even a single panel member had objected, Hasan would instead have been sentenced to life in prison. He also was stripped of pay and other financial benefits, which he continued to receive while in custody.
. . .
Hasan, who was scheduled to deploy to Afghanistan a few weeks later, shouted “Allahu akbar!” meaning “God is great,” before targeting soldiers with a high-powered, high-capacity handgun he had fitted with laser sights. He was apprehended by military police officers after firing more than 200 shots.
. . .
The father of a pregnant 21-year-old private from Chicago, Francheska Velez, who was fatally shot as she pleaded for the life of her baby, testified in Spanish that Hasan had “killed me slowly.” Velez was one of three women killed in the shooting.
. . .
Hasan, an American-born Muslim, had exchanged e-mails with a leading al-Qaeda figure in which he asked whether those attacking fellow soldiers were martyrs. The e-mails were seen by the FBI. Hasan also once gave a presentation to Army doctors discussing Islam and suicide bombers and said Muslims should be allowed to leave the armed forces as conscientious objectors to avoid “adverse events.”"
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/nidal-hasan-sentenced-to-death-for-fort-hood-shooting-rampage/2013/08/28/aad28de2-0ffa-11e3-bdf6-e4fc677d94a1_story.html
damikesc said...
The best exercise I've seen is to write a piece about the positives of Trump. Supporters should write pieces on the negatives.
I'm particularly interested in the first one, because I think all the supposedly loathsome things about Trump would be spun into good. I think it would be very similar to how Bernie Sanders was perceived plus amazement at the political genius and the victory against all odds.
He'd be Ted Kennedy. Ted wasn't exactly great about women, seemed constantly to be unable to make a cogent point, could eviscerate his enemies as he wished, was friendly with Russia...
2/22/17, 8:02 PM
NO. Ted Turner.
Imagine if Ted Turner had managed to parlay his power wealth and celebrity into a bid for the Democratic nomination say in 1984-I mean who hell was Walter Mondale? Really?-or he could have certainly could have run against Bush later.
Married to Jane Fonda? Wild, man! They stuck a fork in the GIs and then they twisted it, dig? Radical! But so well-tailored and barbered and creased, no doubt. Or charmingly rumpled and informal. But either way you would be a style icon, department stores would compete to have his endorsement.
Did Ted Turner have compelling issues to run as a candidate for president for this country? Did he have solutions competitive with the major candidates' alternatives?
But I mean him as a type who would go over well, a lovable rogue, not like President Cheeto, hurr durr! Everybody would be down with him and he would be down with everybody. A real life Bulworth, no doubt. And the squeals would be such sweet music to certain ears.
But now the ears are on the other foot and they just can't stand it.
Blogger Josephbleau said...
Blogger Robert Cook said..."It's hardly a conspiracy theory, but America's obvious intentions. Acquisition of the world's resources and political domination of the world has long been America's goal, particularly after WWII. "
I submit that this has been the goal of EVERY nation on Earth since the beginning of time. Certainly now by China, Russia, Iran, and the EU. England and France went to the middle east post war to rule Oil. Japan invaded the East Asia co prosperity sphere for the same reason. The difference is that the US is the only country that I think has done it with general peace and freedom, the glint of domination is too strong in the others. US wants free trade and free seas and will pay for what it needs. The Romans certainly did not care about the folks that supplied them.
2/22/17, 7:48 PM
I agree perfectly that the example of the United States has been one of incomparable benevolence. The fact is that we do control all the resources on the globe that we want. We pay for it. We generally pay top dollar. Very often we find it or make it or make it possible for such and such a place to sell it.
You know, Robert Cook, I honestly don't know what you would want sometimes. Let's say that Afghanistan did have a trillion or two trillion dollars of untapped natural wealth they could theoretically use to enrich themselves and their lives. I assume you would have no objection to them doing that. Right?
1. In the first scenario, the author is - in my opinion - very generous in her assessment of Trump's character, neglecting to mention his frequent untruths and blanket condemnation of any unflattering facts or opinions as FAKE NEWS (TM). But if we are to imagine a warts-and-all Trump with liberal policies I would still find his leadership extremely worrying, perhaps in the same way that I always had enormous doubts about Chavez' leadership of Venezuela, even though I was sympathetic to some of his ideas. It is Trump's character, not his policies, that really worries me.
2. I could live with this. As Louis CK brilliantly put it, (I'm paraphrasing), even though I'm a liberal I understand that a healthy democracy should give each of the major factions "a go" at running the country, that the Republican half should have their turns to implement their policies as well as the Democrats. This chopping & changing helps to keep the nation "in balance".
"...Trump won a democratic election to implement these policies. Even if you give Hillary the popular vote by 2%, the author (Mike Whitney) believes that 46% of the voters want to see policies that Whitney believes are 'uniformly horrible.'
You literally cannot be a democrat (small d) and believe that this is true. Being a democrat means that you believe that the people possess the ability to be self-ruling, and that their self-rule will be better than the alternatives, all things considered."
The people can possess the ability to be self-ruling, and it may be better than the alternatives, but this requires an informed, participatory electorate. The people can also make terrible choices. (It's always "better" in that the people made the choice rather than having it imposed, but it may be objectively worse in practical outcome if the government the people choose is worse than one that might have been imposed.)
If you hadn't noticed, more people did not vote than did. So, really, most Americans chose "none of the above" when offered the candidates in the recent election. Of the minority who voted, my guess is only a small sub-set of them were truly well-informed on the issues of the day, and the larger number of them voted on the basis of personality...that is, they either liked one candidate better than the other as a personality, or they disliked both but hated one of the candidates badly enough to vote for the other, less-objectionable candidate.
This is not a way to obtain good government.
If you hadn't also noticed, we do not actually have a functional representational republic, as shown by the Princeton Study of a couple of years ago that shows that the politicians in Washington act according to the prerogatives of the financial elites, and virtually never in response to the concerns of the people. In short, we're an oligarchy. Don't think it will be any different with an oligarch as president.
Jesus, of course Sharia Law is not on the books offically in the US, and I was not trying to say that it was.
The point of the cases I posted here was the men who committed those honor killings certainly believed they were answering to a "higher law" - Sharia law- than the secular US one. Sharia law says it's just fine to kill your wife or sister or daughter if she does something to "dishonor" you.
Chuck's increasing hysteria plays well with Inga of course. Inga apparently doesn't know that the Marine Corp was founded to fight the Barbary pirates - Islamic slave traders who would board US and European ships and sell the crews and passengers into slavery. Hence "to the shores of Tripoli." That's the start of the American relationship with Islam. But of course, Inga is a poorly read liar who prefers to live in her ridiculous cotton candy delusions.
Islam and Sharia Law are antithetical to democracy.
"The people can possess the ability to be self-ruling, and it may be better than the alternatives, but this requires an informed, participatory electorate."
Good luck with that.
Robert, you are hopelessly naive. You're good government master plan requires a non-political justice department and an informed electorate. Because they knew this was pie in the sky, the founder's good government strategy was to limit government's power.
I'm hardly naive. I perceive the public at large as largely ignorant of the issues of the day...largely because they're kept ignorant on purpose, to more easily manipulate them through appeals to fear and self-interest. The public is in thrall to the lies offered them by self-interested parties in government and the private sphere, with the result that the oligarchs get fat as parasites on the people, the people's servants in Washington get fat serving the oligarchs, and the people are mis-led as to who is raping them. (Hint: it's not immigrants or the poor.)
Of course I speak in terms of the ideal when I speak of government, and I know the ideal will never exist. However, I think it should be obvious I'm speaking rhetorically, (at those times that I am).
Robert, I'll agree with your first paragraph (except for "I'm hardly naive.") and note you offer no solution. A lot of smart guys thought about this 200 years ago and did offer one. In fact, they handed it to us on a platter.
The people can possess the ability to be self-ruling, and it may be better than the alternatives, but this requires an informed, participatory electorate.
I am not certain that you understand American democracy, Robert Cook. Most of the reasoning behind the American form of democracy is in the Federalist Papers. The goal of our Democracy is expressed in the preamble to the constitution:
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
That's it. If democracy serves the goals stated in the preamble, democracy is working.
@Lewis Wetzel: "If democracy serves the goals stated in the preamble, democracy is working."
Democracy is not only not working, it's effectively dead. We are a nation in turmoil, a nation that inflicts great injustice (and violence) on its own citizens and on people around the world. The "general welfare" has been redefined to mean the already rich, while the masses of working or non-working or barely working Americans must make do on their own. We do not spend money or expend our military efforts on "the common defence," but on global offense in service of claiming possession or control of the natural resources around the world that we want or need. We subvert or topple or otherwise interfere in in political processes or governments as need be to insure we are the boss of the world.
The Illusion of Freedom
I would not entirely like either one, but I agree alternative 2 is much better than alternative 1. But how about pushing for a 3rd alternative, a Trump whose actions are conservative, who also supports other conservative repubs to win as much as he supports just himself, but who I dont have to constantly worry is going to come out with something that sounds nutty or statist, and whose trumpie supporters are far worse.
Democracy is not only not working, it's effectively dead. We are a nation in turmoil, a nation that inflicts great injustice (and violence) on its own citizens and on people around the world.
I agree, Robert Cook -- at the federal level. At the state and local level democracy is alive and well. The lack of democracy at the federal level is a fairly new phenomenon. It began in earnest with Wilson and World War One, though it is more of a 20th century idea than a Democrat idea (Teddy Roosevelt was championed the federalization of local issues).
That road has come to a dead end.
The Roman Empire, according to Gibbon, was a feeding utility for the Roman army, meaning that the purpose of Roman governance was to provide the funds and people to support the Roman army. Everything else the Roman Empire did was intended to further this goal. In the US, in the early 21st century, has become a nation whose purpose is to feed the federal government.
Robert Cook is not naive. He is evil
No Birkel, you have it wrong: I'm not "evil," I'm "Eeeeeeeeevvvilllllllllll!!!"
tomato
tomahto
Post a Comment