Luminous Landscape Forum
The Art of Photography => The Coffee Corner => Topic started by: eronald on November 07, 2016, 08:43:32 pm
-
Just write in the way you think it will go.
Let's see if LL has predictive power.
-
There was a recent interview on CNN (in a bar unknown) where , no sooner had the question 'who you're going to vote for on Tuesday ?' been asked of a D voter that an R man goes apoplectic and in no time almost the whole bar erupts into partisan bickering, so the reporter turns to a bystander closest to him, and in turn asks:
> So which way do you go on Tuesday ?
> Which way ?
> Yes.
> Backwards.
Sums it up.
-
I foresee a Clinton victory, followed by seriously unpleasant civil unrest
-
There won't be any "winners" because they are both "losers". If they are the best the US can produce then the US public will be even bigger "losers" :(
-
Here from Portugal, I wish a good election day for the USA. As an outsider, I have no claims of even understanding the differences between the D and R parties... things are more polarized around here.
But in the end, it's like any other election in many countries, in this globalized world: whoever wins will have to do what the guys with real power (money) tell them to.
-
I foresee a Clinton victory, followed by seriously unpleasant civil unrest
Yes, but I guess it could be worse.
-
There's not going to be any civil unrest. You're reading to many biased media.
-
There's not going to be any civil unrest...
Only if Trump wins. Any organized violence typically comes from the left, as already exemplified in this election.
-
Here from Portugal, I wish a good election day for the USA. As an outsider, I have no claims of even understanding the differences between the D and R parties... things are more polarized around here.
But in the end, it's like any other election in many countries, in this globalized world: whoever wins will have to do what the guys with real power (money) tell them to.
Yeah, and I hear they are now going to make folks with a property getting more sunshine that somebody else, pay a higher tax. That's the cynical face of socialism. No, this isn't a joke. It was on tv news.
As far as my memory runs, there was a time some couple or more decades ago when Portugal went communist and took over a lot of villas... I think they discovered that was counterproductive. But once bitten, anyone buying there again deserves what comes. Seems it's coming.
Rob C
-
In the UK a council charged higher rates (property tax) on a flat at the top of the building because they had a good sea view - despite the windows being designed in such a way that it was impossible to look out of them. Sigh.
-
Paying higher taxes on more desirable property happens anyway at the same tax rate because they have a higher sale valuation. Since the property is worth more, then the same percent tax will gain the government more money than property of less worth.
-
Only if Trump wins. Any organized violence typically comes from the left, as already exemplified in this election.
I know. All those liberal militias, just lining up to plant IEDs 'n' shit
-
I know. All those liberal militias, just lining up to plant IEDs 'n' shit
liberal militia = Black Lives Matter
Just ask the cops or anyone in their vicinity
-
I see the usual suspects are lining up to yap.
Good night!
-
A good thing to watch (and think about) this night:
'The West Wing' needed British cynicism (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b3OQIp4lda8)
-
Trump appears to be the first candidate in history to win all 50 states in a tsunami landslide:
-
Trump appears to be the first candidate in history to win all 50 states in a tsunami landslide:
And all of a sudden, there is an industry that is in much, much deeper trouble than photographic: pollsters and predictors of all sorts... I guess I'd rather be Nikon's employee right now than Gallup's ;D ;D ;D ;)
-
And all of a sudden, there is an industry that is in much, much deeper trouble than photographic: pollsters and predictors of all sorts... I guess I'd rather be Nikon's employee right now than Gallup's ;D ;D ;D ;)
They were paid.
Edmund
-
They were paid.
Of course.
But will they be paid [hefty] next time now that they are so discredited?
What's happening now (irrespective of final result) is, from pollsters' reputation standpoint, is much worse than Brexit.
-
I've been saying this all along: polls are rigged by definition - they are not anonymous. Especially important in this election, where one side is so demonized and supporters ostracized.
-
so which state will be a recount battleground one like in 2000, if any ?
-
But in the end, it's like any other election in many countries, in this globalized world: whoever wins will have to do what the guys with real power (money) tell them to.
And that's what the real problem the masses don't see....
So the media gives you sports like stats and highlights...you have D&R polarization to make it a sport so you have sides riled up and take your focus off the real issues. Very simple concept, very complex orchestration of mind manipulation, following Ed Bernays' outlines.
-
Dear America,
WTF are you doing?
Love & kisses
The rest of the world
-
Dear America,
WTF are you doing?
Love & kisses
The rest of the world
+1
I'm shocked.
-
WTF are you doing?
trying if that middle finger still works ... at least I hope Trump will stick to not supporting any NATO member who is not going to pay properly for their defense while pouring money towards their social services... enough !
-
Most of the rest of the world is aghast at the result.
The mood in Australia, and presumably elsewhere, is extremely sombre.
Here is a comment I made on Facebook a short time ago:
… but it’s TWO societies! The well-educated progressive one (often with a higher income, but not invariably—remember the painfully-aspirational nature of the overall Seppo culture) versus the caught-in-the-headlights Rust Belt Bambis who can’t program in iOS if their lives depended on it. Or Android™.
Half–tongue-in-cheek, but nevertheless seriously intended. BTW, ‘Seppo’ is rhyming slang.
-
Paying higher taxes on more desirable property happens anyway at the same tax rate because they have a higher sale valuation. Since the property is worth more, then the same percent tax will gain the government more money than property of less worth.
That's an entirely different matter, as I imagine anyone can see.
Sunlight exposure has never meant the same thing as prime areas. Prime areas being taxed highly is normal practice in the gouging business; sunlight is a new departure, based, no doubt, on Port Out, Starboard Home. Figure it out.
Sunlight charging is just desperate hatred manifest.
Rob C
-
Well there you go! Hats off to Trump: he beat 'em all.
What happens next is anyone's guess, but then it always is. My guess? Economic realities kick back in - if they have ever stopped.
Good luck America.
Rob
-
Well there you go! Hats off to Trump: he beat 'em all.
What happens next is anyone's guess, but then it always is. My guess? Economic realities kick back in - if they have ever stopped.
Good luck America.
Rob
Yup, you got to give it to the guy, he even won against his own party... IMO, it is just another manifestation of the recent trend in elections, where people not connoted with political parties or the system, have been on the rise. For instance, in Spain, only after 3 elections did they manage to get a government...
Of course it is easy to blame the system, and popular slogans are dime a dozen. Brexit was "England for the English", Trump is "America for Americans".
Of course Obama and his family look good on TV, and have a nice speech, etc. But I think that after 8 years, a lot of americans want more than that?
-
...but it’s TWO societies! The well-educated progressive one...
Or, as Nicholas Taleb calls them, IYI.* So well educated, yet unable to see further than their noses.
* (Intellectuals, Yet Idiots) ;)
-
And we're now seeing how useless polls are. People lie, and the ignorant ("educated" leftists) haven't a clue. A "remain" in Brexit was a sure thing. A Hillary victory was a sure thing. The Democrats were going to take back the Senate -- a sure thing. Happily we now have a Republican presidency, senate and house. When Repubs in Congress pass bills they have a serious likelihood that the president won't veto them. It's going to be an interesting two years until the next congressional election. Go Republicans!
-
Well my Canadian brothers guess you had best get ready. Many of America's "cream of the crop" like Al Sharpton, Amy Schumer, and Bryan Cranston to name a few said they will be relocating to Canada if there was a Trump victory. My sympathies to you and best you have plenty of food for Amy.
Kevin in CT
-
Adios, adieu, addio, adeus, aloha, arrivederci, ciao, auf Wiedersehen, au revoir, bon voyage sayonara, sawadee.
-
Well my Canadian brothers guess you had best get ready. Many of America's "cream of the crop" like Al Sharpton, Amy Schumer, and Bryan Cranston to name a few said they will be relocating to Canada if there was a Trump victory. My sympathies to you and best you have plenty of food for Amy.
Well, Kevin, I am sure many voted Trump just so that they can see Lena Dunham leave ;)
-
And, as it turns out, the LuLa gang are no better prognosticators than the professional pollsters.
-
Donald Trump's companies have declared bankrupcy more than four times. (http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2016/jun/21/hillary-clinton/yep-donald-trumps-companies-have-declared-bankrupt/)
Bush's GFC sent me into early retirement. I don't care about US problems but spare me from this idiot's wreckless economic judgement which has worldwide implications.
Cheers,
-
I wonder if he still thinks the election was rigged?
Might be a good time to invest in brick-manufacturing and concrete-making companies, to get ready for the building of that wall. Re-bars too.
-
No question it was rigged, Robert. People in just about every "swing" state were pushing the Trump button and having the ballot show a vote for Hillary. The Dems' problem was that it wasn't rigged enough. Not enough dead people voting and not enough rigged voting machines. At least they can say they tried.
-
And we're now seeing how useless polls are. People lie, and the ignorant ("educated" leftists) haven't a clue. A "remain" in Brexit was a sure thing. A Hillary victory was a sure thing. The Democrats were going to take back the Senate -- a sure thing. Happily we now have a Republican presidency, senate and house. When Repubs in Congress pass bills they have a serious likelihood that the president won't veto them. It's going to be an interesting two years until the next congressional election. Go Republicans!
In several polls, more than half of the people refused to participate. So, they could never be representative. Polls are like sampling, think of drilling one oil well, and missing the reservoir by a few inches; the information is there, it was just not sampled.
Trump's victory is just one more expression of rejection of political elites by the "people", a phenomenon that has already happened in Hungary, Philippines, Brexit, etc. It also happened when the majority of the disenchanted put Hitler in power...
-
It also happened when the majority of the disenchanted put Hitler in power...
actually it was Paul von Hindenburg alone
-
No question it was rigged, Robert. People in just about every "swing" state were pushing the Trump button and having the ballot show a vote for Hillary.
Those newfangled voting machines are hard for old folks to manage - I get.
-
The real winner is "Dictatorship of Money".
And if Hillary had won, the real winner would have been the same !
-
When Obama came in office 8 years ago there was a great hope and expectation for "change", 8 years later the reality is a lot less was achieved then was hoped for.
Now Donald Trump comes into office and again there's high hopes for change (albeit a different kind of change), let's see in 4 and 8 years how it turns out.
I don't think there will be too much disaster and shock despite some negative reactions around the world, even the stock markets and the dollar are picking up, so I think we're pretty soon back to business as usual.
-
We're not quite back to business as usual, Pieter. There'll be a huge fight over the Supreme Court vacancy, and I'd expect at least one more vacancy before long. The future of the Court is far more important than who's president for the next four years. We just saved the US from becoming Europeanized and becoming unable to prop up Europe. That may save Western civilization for a few more years, but unless westerners get into bed and start producing more children the salvation will be short-lived.
-
I agree the supreme court is hugely important, but don't you think the "fight" for the next available seats have become easier? With the republicans having the presidency, the house and the senate it would seem it's easier to get a candidate accepted. Or am I missing something?
And btw, we did our job, we have 3 kids but are currently and in the future unable to produce more ;)
-
I know. All those liberal militias, just lining up to plant IEDs 'n' shit
As I said:
http://www.breitbart.com/california/2016/11/09/anti-trump-protests-break-los-angeles-seattle/?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=social
-
I agree the supreme court is hugely important, but don't you think the "fight" for the next available seats have become easier? With the republicans having the presidency, the house and the senate it would seem it's easier to get a candidate accepted. Or am I missing something?
The problem's going to be the filibuster. The Republicans were able to stop a vote on Obama's Supreme Court pick by refusing to bring the matter up on the Senate floor. But once they bring up Trump's appointee the Democrats probably will filibuster. They have enough votes in the Senate to stop confirmation of an appointee cold. Then the Senate Majority Leader is going to be faced with a dilemma.
He could do what Harry Reid did and change the rules to eliminate the filibuster. Reid eliminated it for confirmation of judges below the Supreme Court, but supposedly left it in place for the Supremes. If McConnell (assuming he's still majority leader) eliminates the filibuster for the Supremes there's going to be a gigantic outcry from the people who were just fine with Harry's change. I doubt McConnell has the guts to do it.
He could punt and wait for a different appointee. That could go on for four years.
Or, he could change the rules so the guy doing a filibuster actually has to stand up and talk. That's the way it used to be, but the Democrats managed to get the rules changed so a vote of three-fifths of the Senate can enforce a filibuster without anybody having to stand up with a motorman's helper strapped on and talk for a couple days.
It's gonna be an interesting two years until the next election for Congress. The Republicans had better hit the floor running.
-
Thanks for the explanation of these filibuster subtleties, although it doesn't seem to be a subtle process.
The problem with changing the rules is that the next time it can be used against you. When the democrats are back in power (one day it will happen) t hey could do the same back.
So it might actually be better to find a candidate that's acceptable for both sides but given the current climate that's not an easy task.
-
You're absolutely right, Pieter. Eliminating the filibuster can come back and bite you. The Democrats are going to find that out during confirmations of lower federal judges now that a Republican is in the White House. On the other hand, it's very clear that had the Democrats been in the majority after Scalia died, Harry Reid would quickly have done away with the filibuster for the Supremes. If I were McConnell at this point I'd have a hard time deciding whether to punt or run. On the other hand, making the change I suggested would cut way down on filibusters. It ain't easy to stand up there and talk for days. And I don't think they're going to be able to find a candidate acceptable to both sides. I'm glad I'm not McConnell.
-
Given that my basic attitude toward politics is one of contempt, I tuned out this whole farrago months ago. In fact I took myself off-continent to get even further away from it. (I can currently see from my hotel room window a pod of dolphins frolicking no more than 70–80 meters off-shore. I'd get up and grab my camera but really I'd rather just keep watching.) Culture warrior circle-jerking is not a pretty sight.
IMO the one thing the US right gets that the left does not is Islamism. That is, fundamentalist political Islam. Takes one to know one. Mind you, I have little confidence in their capability to develop a rational strategy for dealing with it. But maybe there are some cooler, more analytical heads there that I'm unaware of. We shall see…
And that concludes my comments on US politics. Off to the beach! :D
-Dave-
-
I agree the supreme court is hugely important, but don't you think the "fight" for the next available seats have become easier? With the republicans having the presidency, the house and the senate it would seem it's easier to get a candidate accepted. Or am I missing something?
And btw, we did our job, we have 3 kids but are currently and in the future unable to produce more ;)
Fortunately, only filibusters in the Senate are what the President has to deal with when appointing Supreme Court justices. Constitutionally, only the the Senate provides "advice and consent." Like international treaties, the House of Representatives is not involved.
-
I can currently see from my hotel room window a pod of dolphins frolicking no more than 70–80 meters off-shore.
...
Off to the beach! :D
Lucky you! Looking from my window in Moscow, I almost expect to see frolicking penguins.
Come on, weather, it's not even winter, goddamnit!
Maybe Trump bailing our of Paris Agreement will help things a bit... He's our last hope ;)
-
Fortunately, only filibusters in the Senate are what the President has to deal with when appointing Supreme Court justices. Constitutionally, only the the Senate provides "advice and consent." Like international treaties, the House of Representatives is not involved.
Thanks, Alan, for pointing that out. I sometimes forget that most people, especially outside the US don't know the ins and outs of the Constitution. I think Pieter is more informed than most, and I forgot to point out that the whole thing hinges on the Senate.
-
I'm a conservative. Very very conservative. And pretty well versed in the political history and political science of conservatism in the US. I have developed my views over many years of reading, studying and observing. I'm not going to claim that I'm right about everything, but I have done my homework in regard to my world view.
Having said that, I did not and would not ever vote for Trump. I think he is a 'deplorable' person. I think he has a measurable lack of character. Most people who voted for him will agree. But we seem to be missing the implication here............he was more attractive as a candidate than Hillary Clinton. This speaks volumes about her character and the people she has surrounded herself with for decades. Her's is a sordid history of corruption, cover ups, unbridled pragmatism, unbridled nepotism and self interest..............and she was beaten by this petty little liar of a man. THAT is an indictment of HER.
But the real big story here is one of two parties who did not recognize their constituencies. The middle/working class was forgotten by the Democrats who spent so much time focusing on the fringes like transgender bathroom issues and extremes (at least for the US ) of socialism. The Old Republicans never even knew these same people were feeling disenfranchised and ignored by the Democrats who historically fought for them. Trump appealed to them even as the GOP was rejecting Trump. Unbelievable. Well, that is the group that spoke the loudest last night. Their mandate is change. The liberal left ignored them too long, the blinkered rank and file right only got them because of Trump brought them with him.
The other referendum: Obamacare. America has spoken. It was ineffective and steeped in socialist agenda. It is failing on its own accord (I've witnessed it first hand as a physician and how it has harmed whole communities. Feel free to email if you're interested in a first hand example.) The ACA polarized Americans and they have now rejected it. Can the Republicans get rid of it? Probably not. Can they hobble it indefinitely? Probably. But even that may be too little too late for the harm the ACA has done to medicine in the US. (You would be shocked to know the extent to which Clinton cronies have inserted themselves into the bureaucracy of the ACA and have made millions of dollars in personal wealth in doing so. Again, P.M. me if you are interested in this sordid chapter in the history of US medicine.)
-
Given that my basic attitude toward politics is one of contempt. . .
-Dave-
Hi Dave, Here's some advice I gave my kids and grandkids. I won't charge you for it: ". . .though you may not be interested in politics, politics is always interested in you." It's worth keeping that in mind.
-
When Obama came in office 8 years ago there was a great hope and expectation for "change", 8 years later the reality is a lot less was achieved then was hoped for.
Now Donald Trump comes into office and again there's high hopes for change (albeit a different kind of change), let's see in 4 and 8 years how it turns out.
I don't think there will be too much disaster and shock despite some negative reactions around the world, even the stock markets and the dollar are picking up, so I think we're pretty soon back to business as usual.
Good point. Four years can pass in a flash for any of us: unexpected events take over, your opponents wear you down, snafus have to be rectified, etc, etc. It's hard to get much done in such a short time. Perhaps one can't do much more than pick the very best people one can to run the key policy areas and let them get in with it. That was Reagan's secret, I think. Remember his election all those years ago? I do. Same wailing and moaning but it all worked out OK and no one crashed the economy or the world. Nothing repeats in exactly the same way but let's look on the brighter side of life. Talking of which I going to spend all day tomorrow doing what I love which is taking photographs.
-
I'm a conservative. Very very conservative. And pretty well versed in the political history and political science of conservatism in the US. I have developed my views over many years of reading, studying and observing. I'm not going to claim that I'm right about everything, but I have done my homework in regard to my world view.
Having said that, I did not and would not ever vote for Trump. I think he is a 'deplorable' person. I think he has a measurable lack of character. Most people who voted for him will agree. But we seem to be missing the implication here............he was more attractive as a candidate than Hillary Clinton. This speaks volumes about her character and the people she has surrounded herself with for decades. Her's is a sordid history of corruption, cover ups, unbridled pragmatism, unbridled nepotism and self interest..............and she was beaten by this petty little liar of a man. THAT is an indictment of HER.
But the real big story here is one of two parties who did not recognize their constituencies. The middle/working class was forgotten by the Democrats who spent so much time focusing on the fringes like transgender bathroom issues and extremes (at least for the US ) of socialism. The Old Republicans never even knew these same people were feeling disenfranchised and ignored by the Democrats who historically fought for them. Trump appealed to them even as the GOP was rejecting Trump. Unbelievable. Well, that is the group that spoke the loudest last night. Their mandate is change. The liberal left ignored them too long, the blinkered rank and file right only got them because of Trump brought them with him.
The other referendum: Obamacare. America has spoken. It was ineffective and steeped in socialist agenda. It is failing on its own accord (I've witnessed it first hand as a physician and how it has harmed whole communities. Feel free to email if you're interested in a first hand example.) The ACA polarized Americans and they have now rejected it. Can the Republicans get rid of it? Probably not. Can they hobble it indefinitely? Probably. But even that may be too little too late for the harm the ACA has done to medicine in the US. (You would be shocked to know the extent to which Clinton cronies have inserted themselves into the bureaucracy of the ACA and have made millions of dollars in personal wealth in doing so. Again, P.M. me if you are interested in this sordid chapter in the history of US medicine.)
I'd be careful about assuming a conservative mandate when the popular vote isn't reflective of the electoral outcome.
Besides, on things like Obamacare, people are pretty fond of things like having their preexisting conditions covered and a lack of lifetime benefit caps, not to mention extend coverage for their sons and daughters. (While I'm not a physician, I am an employer and have dealt with this stuff for over 15 years now, so I have a decent perspective on the way plans have transitioned and what people like/want.)
I'll concede that the implementation has been somewhat borked, and no doubt there have been winners and losers, but the law has done a lot of good for a lot of people that would otherwise lack insurance, and let's not ignore the fact that at least some portion of the lack of success has been due to deliberate efforts to undermine the uptake.
Ideally, now that they pretty much have carte blanche, hopefully they're smart enough not to gut it altogether, but to replace it with a market-driven solution that still has allowances for the aforementioned protections that actually help people.
All that said, I think your analysis of what happened is pretty spot-on, with the exception that you're excusing the fact that HRC's shortcomings as a candidate were grossly amplified by the right wing sound machine (which isn't to excuse in turn the very real shortcomings she does have). And I'd list "unbridled pragmatism" as an asset, not a shortcoming :)
-
". . .though you may not be interested in politics, politics is always interested in you."
Sounds to me more like a threat than anything helpful. You can tell politics to keep its interest to itself.
Edit: this brings up a broader issue I've been thinking about for over 30 years now. Namely that I see us as living in a time of decadence, moral and cultural. Trump and Clinton both are current expressions of this. By "decadence" I mean that the values we claim to respect & live by and those we do respect & live by are not the same. "Political correctness" is another expression of it: the overconcern with what people say and underconcern with what they do. And another example: if Trump, essentially pagan in his outlook and conduct, has done anything good thus far in his political life it's been to expose the Christian right, via its enthusiastic support for him, as a collective of spiritually hollow nationalists fronted by a veneer of religiosity. That is to say, decadent.
IMO this goes back at least as far as the Vietnam War, with its vast disconnect between stated goals and actual conduct.
When I say I'm contemptuous of politics, it's politics played on this particular debased field I'm talking about. A more honest politics with a recovered moral compass, one less driven by rhetoric & emotion and more informed by data & rational analysis…I'd be down with that.
I could write much more, but for here this is plenty. Over and out.
-Dave-
-
I disagree Trump does not have a mandate. A win is a win. The people have given the Republicans control of the Presidency, the Senate and the House of Representatives just like they gave the Democrats the same in 2008. Obama and a democrat Congress ran with it and created Obamacare with only the votes of the Democrats. They wrote the whole thing and passed the legislation unilaterally so you cannot blame the Republicans for obstruction. The Republicans were not even invited to help construct it or even sit in meetings when the law was discussed. They were locked out of the meeting rooms. Not one republican vote was given. The democrats own it completely. If it a mess, and it is, it's the Democrats fault.
So now the Republicans have the ability to correct Obamacare or do whatever. Let's hope they do the right thing for the people. Obamacare is a mess and has to be eliminated or corrected. Single payer will break the bank. Market forces have to be a big part of it. Until the user of the service is paying for most of it directly, there will be no slow down on the use of services as long as the user feels it's being passed along to someone else.
-
The problem with the insurers having a stake in the policy decision making is the same issue we've had with them for years. They have a single-directed end goal: to make as much money as they possibly can. The idea that Trump can force them to lower their costs as people cross state lines is absolutely ludicrous. If he repeals Obamacare without a SOUND plan in place, 20 million people are going to be suddenly uninsured. Then, our hospital emergency rooms become family doctors. Who pays for this? Trump...oh Hell no, the taxpayer covers that burden, hospital costs rise, and we're back to square one. I'm on Medicare and a supplement so it doesn't really affect me, but my son depends on his Obamacare package. Sucks for him.
-
Medical problems used be a theory for me; at the age of sixty-five they came home to roost.
For years we paid for private insurance in Spain, and eventually it saved my life. It also saved that of my wife on several occasions, but one such time she was rushed to a state hospital because it was closer to us - and we were eligible - and the treatment she discovered there was every bit as good as that we'd been paying through the nose to get. So we cancelled the private policy.
My opinion? I think that the private system kept me in hospital far longer than I needed to be so as to milk the insurance company. I also remember the time when my wife was taken down to the operating theatre and a while later I was called from her room, where I was waiting, to the reception office. When I got there, they told me there was a problem with the insurance, and that they couldn't get clearance for the operation... Eventually they sorted it out and the op went ahead. Afterwards, my wife told me she lay there on the table, listening to a verbal fight about her going down in the anteroom where the medics were. Wonderful stuff. So much for money and medicine, insurance companies and doctors and private hospitals.
I have come to believe that a state-funded (meaning paid for by taxation) system, is the only one with any sense of morality attached. Most things cost so much money in medicine that only the well off can hope to pay what it takes. That can't be right where health is concerned. Having said which, I most certainly would prevent health tourism from happening. I would also exclude people who indulge in self-harm, which in my book, covers smoking, alcohol abuse and the cola products. A start could be made by putting bloody high taxes on the latter pair, and banning tobacco altogether, as it has absolutely nothing going for it that's positive.
It's so easy to be clinical and harsh about people and rights, but just wait if you ever happen to be in life-or-death need yourself. Sweet theory flies off to hide somewhere else.
Rob
-
The problem with the insurers having a stake in the policy decision making is the same issue we've had with them for years. They have a single-directed end goal: to make as much money as they possibly can...
Insurers, like other enterprises, maximize profit in two ways: by increasing revenue or by lowering cost (and, obviously, any combination of the two). Their revenues are consumer premiums and their cost are charges by medical providers. In other words, even as they keep rising our premiums, they are simultaneously our defense against sky-rocketing medical costs, as it is equally in their interest to pay less to hospitals etc.
-
The other referendum: Obamacare. America has spoken.
I (white, male, legal immigrant, college degree, registered Democrat, never was unemployed in USA, etc) voted for Trump and I have nothing against "ObamaCare" in principle (I actually pro such kind of program with much more legal enforcement for people to sign up instead of taking their good chances w/o insurance) and I voted for Trump for other reasons (but I do understand that voting such might end up as well in ending "ObamaCare" instead of making it better)... there are certainly people who voted for the Crooked H and who are against "ObamaCare", but "America has spoken" lacks any logic...
-
America farted in a closed room and now they are forced to live with the stench for four years.
-
America farted in a closed room and now they are forced to live with the stench for four years.
As Buddy Bolden sang: "Open up the windows, let the bad air out!"
Rob C
-
I'd be careful about assuming a conservative mandate when the popular vote isn't reflective of the electoral outcome...
Well, we do not really know what that popular vote is. Or, to be precise, what it could have been had the campaigns fought for the popular vote, instead of the electoral college one. The current statistic on the popular vote is simply a byproduct of the current game rules.
-
The popular vote thing is the sour grapes of every loser and given the tenets of the electoral college it is utterly irrelevant. Last I saw the delta was about 200k. Mighty slim. The mandate occurred elsewhere. The House and the Senate come to mind. The bigger mandate is evidenced by Hillary's defeat despite the enormous political machinery at her disposal through the liberal media. Prior to the election a study done by the mainstream media showed a 91% media bias for her. The mandate is also evidenced by who beat her: a dirty little egomaniac.
Too many people are still drinking the Obamacare kool-aid. No matter how you feel about it, it is not and never was sustainable. It was shriveling up after just a few years. This ridiculous mantra about 20 million people being insured is a joke. I see these people in my office every day since I accept all of the ACA exchanges. Their deductibles are huge and they are already poor. They can't afford anything outside of a simple office visit and most of them are unhappy since Obama lied about them being able to keep their doctor. Most other physicians in the area do not take the exchanges (because they pay poorly).And none of them have this mythical $75 dollar a month plans. They are paying at a level nearly as high as just getting regular high deductible plans. What will happen to these 20 million if Obamacare goes away? Well, the obvious think is to allow catastrophic care plans again. Duh. The other issue with the ACA is that it burdened physicians with MOUNTAINS of meanigless bureaucratic paperwork. Net result? Our ability to see patients went down by 20%. That means that there are 20% fewer appointments available. The burden became such that we quit working on nights and weekends. It does not matter what kind of insurance you have if you lose access to your physician. All as a direct result of the ACA.
Now, if you feel that what we need is a single payer system then say so. Demand it. Straight up. Quit hiding behind hybrid bureaucratization and just socialize the system. But, it did not work for Hillary the first time and after the ACA Americans will not stomach it. And here's a hint: They shouldn't. you want to know what socialized medicine will look like in the US? The Veterans Administration. It is THE model for how the US does socialized medicine and it is quite simply a nightmare and a disgrace. And it has been for 40 years! Need another vision of socialized medicine in the US? Just think about your typical experience at the DMV or the Social Security Office. That's all you need to know. But, if that's how liberals think we can solve our health care issues, by all means, go for it.
Frankly, it is so bad, it needs to go regardless whether we have a plan to replace it or not. And that is no less insane than saying "pass the bill, then read it", right?
-
The popular vote thing is the sour grapes of every loser and given the tenets of the electoral college it is utterly irrelevant. Last I saw the delta was about 200k. Mighty slim. The mandate occurred elsewhere. The House and the Senate come to mind. The bigger mandate is evidenced by Hillary's defeat despite the enormous political machinery at her disposal through the liberal media. Prior to the election a study done by the mainstream media showed a 91% media bias for her. The mandate is also evidenced by who beat her: a dirty little egomaniac.
Too many people are still drinking the Obamacare kool-aid. No matter how you feel about it, it is not and never was sustainable. It was shriveling up after just a few years. This ridiculous mantra about 20 million people being insured is a joke. I see these people in my office every day since I accept all of the ACA exchanges. Their deductibles are huge and they are already poor. They can't afford anything outside of a simple office visit and most of them are unhappy since Obama lied about them being able to keep their doctor. Most other physicians in the area do not take the exchanges (because they pay poorly).And none of them have this mythical $75 dollar a month plans. They are paying at a level nearly as high as just getting regular high deductible plans. What will happen to these 20 million if Obamacare goes away? Well, the obvious think is to allow catastrophic care plans again. Duh. The other issue with the ACA is that it burdened physicians with MOUNTAINS of meanigless bureaucratic paperwork. Net result? Our ability to see patients went down by 20%. That means that there are 20% fewer appointments available. The burden became such that we quit working on nights and weekends. It does not matter what kind of insurance you have if you lose access to your physician. All as a direct result of the ACA.
Now, if you feel that what we need is a single payer system then say so. Demand it. Straight up. Quit hiding behind hybrid bureaucratization and just socialize the system. But, it did not work for Hillary the first time and after the ACA Americans will not stomach it. And here's a hint: They shouldn't. you want to know what socialized medicine will look like in the US? The Veterans Administration. It is THE model for how the US does socialized medicine and it is quite simply a nightmare and a disgrace. And it has been for 40 years! Need another vision of socialized medicine in the US? Just think about your typical experience at the DMV or the Social Security Office. That's all you need to know. But, if that's how liberals think we can solve our health care issues, by all means, go for it.
Frankly, it is so bad, it needs to go regardless whether we have a plan to replace it or not. And that is no less insane than saying "pass the bill, then read it", right?
Hillary's defeat does not have Obamacare as a primary reason likewise Trump's victory does not have whatever he said about Obamacare as a primary reason...
-
Sounds to me more like a threat . . .
-Dave-
You'd better believe it's a threat, Dave.
-
Hillary's defeat does not have Obamacare as a primary reason...
Here is a chart that might explain her defeat better. Relative to Obama, she lost women's vote (!!!), young vote, the poor vote, rural vote and Hispanic vote.
While Trump, relative to Romney, gained the poor, rural and Hispanic vote (!)
-
Hillary's defeat does not have Obamacare as a primary reason likewise Trump's victory does not have whatever he said about Obamacare as a primary reason...
Getting rid of Obamacare was one of Trump's main arguments for people to vote for him. So Yes, is has to be assume it was a primary reason. Other main reasons were trade, immigration and getting the economy going by reducing regulation and taxes. Did I miss anything?
-
Getting rid of Obamacare was one of Trump's main arguments for people to vote for him...
Nope. Not even remotely.
And you missed getting rid of PC lunacy.
-
Too good not to share... reactions to Trump's win across the world: :D
-
However, my sense is that the overall reason Trump won is something less tangible, not from any specific policies. Enough people were fed up with the elite classes in business. the media and politics who have conspired with each other to feather their own nest at the expense of the general public. The general public has been lied too and sold a bill of goods. Fortunately enough people were smart enough to see through the bias and smoke and mirrors. The vote for Trump, the Outsider, loudmouth, bull-in-the-china shop, was what his voters wanted to shake up the entrenched classes and both the Democrat and Republican establishments. Sometimes you have to tear things down and start fresh.
Think about it. A single individual, with no real support from his own party beat first the Bush dynasty then the Clinton dynasty and 16 other people of various political stripes along the way. He beat the media and all those lined up against him. He did it spending very little money. To argue that he got free media exposure just shows how smart he is. The people were ready after years of being lied too and used by all these forces aligned against them. Even the many people who voted for Hillary knew she was part of the problem of the establishment. Of course they bought into the name calling against Trump supported by a biased media. But I think once Trump takes over, they're gong to see him as a generally reasonable man that's going to help the country. The way he thanked Hillary for her service to the country in his acceptance speech and his other calm statements show that much of his bravura speech during the campaign was done for effect, just to show the world and the voters that he can shake things up and get things done. In any case, let's all be patient and see how it all develops.
-
Hillary's defeat does not have Obamacare as a primary reason likewise Trump's victory does not have whatever he said about Obamacare as a primary reason...
That is patently absurd. Trump campaigned constantly citing repeal of Obamacare. That is simply undeniable. Further, most of the House and Senate Republican victories were based, in part, on repeal of Obamacare. Hillary was silent on the issue. To deny Obamacare as 1) a divisive issue in the nation AND 2) a major part of this campaign is beyond bizarre.
But take a look here if you are still confused. This is from that right wing rag the Huffington Post:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/john-geyman/affordable-care-act-implo_b_12894720.html
Of course, the conclusion is that because the ACA was a huge unmitigated disaster that we should socialize the system the way Europe has. Again, Americans will not buy that. At least not in the face of the ACA snafu. And the reporter above continues the foolish comparison with Europe's socialized medicine as if it was all peaches and cream in Europe. It is not. Recently younger physicians in England threatened to strike because of pay differentials. India has a huge, growing industry of cash only medicine designed for Europeans, mainly Brits, who could not get desired care at home. Many, if not most, European economies are buckling under the weight of their social programs. And then there is the elephant in the room so many people overlook: Europe has the money to fund socialized medicine only because they do not have huge fiscal needs for the large standing armies that would be required to keep Russia out of their back yards. The US foots that bill. This was pointed out by a BBC journalist about a year ago. If the US was not there keeping the Russian's in check, Germany and France would need very large, very expensive militarys that would put huge constraints on their economies.
But if its socialized medicine the US public wants, well, let's go for it. It will be the last great governmental power grab. What else is left? But don't forget, the same folks that brought you the ACA, your elected government, will be in charge of your only source for healthcare. Have fun with that.
-
Too good not to share... reactions to Trump's win across the world: :D
Love it.
-
America farted in a closed room and now they are forced to live with the stench for four years.
Nah, after the last 8 years most Americans are nose blind. We can't smell a thing anymore.
-
I'd list "unbridled pragmatism" as an asset, not a shortcoming :)
You have hit on what is probably THE most divisive issue in US politics that no one knows about or understands.
As Americans we are generally pragmatic. We want things to get done. Pragmatism connotes sleeves rolled up, full steam ahead. It sounds like a character asset.
But pragmatism has another side. For most liberal leaders pragmatism trumps principle. For most conservatives principle trumps pragmatism. Principle is often times less effective and less efficient. Pragmatism often steps on constitutional freedoms and pushes ethical limits to get the job done.
Conservatives will tolerate great risk to preserve freedom. Liberals will concede freedoms for security.
So the way we look at pragmatism is, to me, incredibly important and always telling.
-
The popular vote thing is the sour grapes of every loser and given the tenets of the electoral college it is utterly irrelevant. Last I saw the delta was about 200k. Mighty slim. The mandate occurred elsewhere. The House and the Senate come to mind. The bigger mandate is evidenced by Hillary's defeat despite the enormous political machinery at her disposal through the liberal media. Prior to the election a study done by the mainstream media showed a 91% media bias for her. The mandate is also evidenced by who beat her: a dirty little egomaniac.
Not sour grapes at all - I'm not denying the legitimacy of the election. I'm making the point that, on the whole, more Americans voted for HRC than Donald Trump. Assigining arbitrary state line boundaries around certain grouping so people doesn't change that fact. As for the House and Senate, Democrats picked up seats in both chambers. Note that I'm certainly not claiming that this is an overwhelming mandate in the other direction - it's not. But it's fundamentally incorrect to assume that the American people as a whole (or even as a majority) are behind the Trump agenda.
Too many people are still drinking the Obamacare kool-aid. No matter how you feel about it, it is not and never was sustainable. It was shriveling up after just a few years. This ridiculous mantra about 20 million people being insured is a joke. I see these people in my office every day since I accept all of the ACA exchanges. Their deductibles are huge and they are already poor. They can't afford anything outside of a simple office visit and most of them are unhappy since Obama lied about them being able to keep their doctor. Most other physicians in the area do not take the exchanges (because they pay poorly).And none of them have this mythical $75 dollar a month plans. They are paying at a level nearly as high as just getting regular high deductible plans. What will happen to these 20 million if Obamacare goes away? Well, the obvious think is to allow catastrophic care plans again. Duh. The other issue with the ACA is that it burdened physicians with MOUNTAINS of meanigless bureaucratic paperwork. Net result? Our ability to see patients went down by 20%. That means that there are 20% fewer appointments available. The burden became such that we quit working on nights and weekends. It does not matter what kind of insurance you have if you lose access to your physician. All as a direct result of the ACA.
Now, if you feel that what we need is a single payer system then say so. Demand it. Straight up. Quit hiding behind hybrid bureaucratization and just socialize the system. But, it did not work for Hillary the first time and after the ACA Americans will not stomach it. And here's a hint: They shouldn't. you want to know what socialized medicine will look like in the US? The Veterans Administration. It is THE model for how the US does socialized medicine and it is quite simply a nightmare and a disgrace. And it has been for 40 years! Need another vision of socialized medicine in the US? Just think about your typical experience at the DMV or the Social Security Office. That's all you need to know. But, if that's how liberals think we can solve our health care issues, by all means, go for it.
Frankly, it is so bad, it needs to go regardless whether we have a plan to replace it or not. And that is no less insane than saying "pass the bill, then read it", right?
We concur - saying "pass the bill, then read it" would be insane if that's what was said in chambers. Of course, that's not accurate. Here's what was actually said (to a nonprofit association, not to Congressional lawmakers, by the way).
“You’ve heard about the controversies, the process about the bill…but I don’t know if you’ve heard that it is legislation for the future – not just about health care for America, but about a healthier America,” she told the National Association of Counties annual legislative conference, which has drawn about 2,000 local officials to Washington. “But we have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it – away from the fog of the controversy.”
As to your other contentions, I defer to your expertise and first-hand experience regarding the effects you've seen. For what it's worth, and I believe I conceded this before, I believe implementation has been poor. I believe that fault falls on both sides of the isle - on the Democrats for promising things that could not reasonably be delivered, and on Republicans for trying to hamstring and impede the deliverables that actually were possible. That said, I hope you will accept that from my position (again, as an employer, multiple business owner, and annual group plan administrator) that there are fundamental aspects of the ACA that people do appreciate, and will be problematic to eliminate.
So here's my takeaway. First, I by and large disagree with many typical conservative positions. Second, that said, my disagreements fall heavily on the social side of issues, not necessarily the fiscal or administrative side. My sincere hope is that, freed of being the "opposition party" who is forced to oppose ideas simply because they come from Democrats, the Republican congress can do a better job of actually governing, rather than impeding, and that they will prioritize things that can, and should benefit most Americans, and not waste time pushing a social agenda that frankly, most of America disagrees with. If they are really for small government, and efficient government, let's see it.
-
You'd better believe it's a threat, Dave.
I have always been amazed that Americans cannot conceive of their government ever becoming their enemy. We have a great government now and have had for a long time. But there are very few examples of large national governments that never turned on their citizens in some catastrophic way. To deny the possibility and fail to see the signs is short sighted, historically blinded, foolish and dangerous. Our forefathers knew this and said so, explicitly.
-
You have hit on what is probably THE most divisive issue in US politics that no one knows about or understands.
As Americans we are generally pragmatic. We want things to get done. Pragmatism connotes sleeves rolled up, full steam ahead. It sounds like a character asset.
But pragmatism has another side. For most liberal leaders pragmatism trumps principle. For most conservatives principle trumps pragmatism. Principle is often times less effective and less efficient. Pragmatism often steps on constitutional freedoms and pushes ethical limits to get the job done.
Conservatives will tolerate great risk to preserve freedom. Liberals will concede freedoms for security.
So the way we look at pragmatism is, to me, incredibly important and always telling.
I believe you are incorrectly defining liberal pragmatism, and romanticizing conservative pragmatism. I suspect we could compromise somewhere in the area of "meddle in American's lives as little as possible" if you could convince conservatives that some Americans will have lifestyles and make choices you may not like, and I could convince liberals that equality of opportunity is no guarantee of equality of outcome. Of course, we'd probably still disagree on was "as little as possible" means, but greater minds than mine have managed to bridge that issue before.
-
Well, we do not really know what that popular vote is. Or, to be precise, what it could have been had the campaigns fought for the popular vote, instead of the electoral college one. The current statistic on the popular vote is simply a byproduct of the current game rules.
I've honestly never heard that particular rationalization before. As I said above, I don't dispute the legitimacy of our electoral methodology - it is what it is, and for the most part it's worked as intended with a few wrinkles along the way. But people, attitudes, needs, wants and values spread across all borders, real and those that are just drawn on a map. I could easily move some arbitrary lines a few miles one direction or another and come up with a wholly different outcome - that's basically gerrymandering, and it happens all the time. But as a cohesive whole, the raw vote says what the raw vote says, and that message is that you should not assume that Trump's ideas are favored by most Americans.
-
... I could easily move some arbitrary lines a few miles one direction or another...
The argument that I put forward is not about doodling, but about federalism. This is the United States of America, a federal organism, with 50 individual states, that have certain elements of sovereignty. Hence the electoral college. You want a popular vote? Get rid of the states first.
Election campaigns concentrate time, money and resources toward winning the electoral college. Has the game been to win the popular vote, time, effort, money, and resources would have been deployed differently. Therefore, we do not really know what the popular vote would be in such a case. Simple, no?
-
Recently younger physicians in England threatened to strike because of pay differentials.
Wrong. It was a far more complicated issue than that.
In fact they did go on strike. No one died and a few people were inconvenienced on a few days.
India has a huge, growing industry of cash only medicine designed for Europeans, mainly Brits, who could not get desired care at home.
I really don't know where you get your information from, but this is pretty much insignificant.
The only significant amount of Brits going overseas for 'treatment' are those seeking cosmetic and dental surgery which is cheaper overseas. It's hardly critical healthcare and only a tiny minority of the total amount of healthcare done on Brits.
The National Health Service is not perfect, but most of it's issues are due to underfunding. The vast majority of us would happily pay more tax to help fund the NHS, but successive governments are too scared to put taxes up and the problem of underfunding continues.
-
I've honestly never heard that particular rationalization before. As I said above, I don't dispute the legitimacy of our electoral methodology - it is what it is, and for the most part it's worked as intended with a few wrinkles along the way. But people, attitudes, needs, wants and values spread across all borders, real and those that are just drawn on a map. I could easily move some arbitrary lines a few miles one direction or another and come up with a wholly different outcome - that's basically gerrymandering, and it happens all the time. But as a cohesive whole, the raw vote says what the raw vote says, and that message is that you should not assume that Trump's ideas are favored by most Americans.
It's not a rationalization because you never heard of it. I learned about it decades ago when I was a kid. The reason you shouldn't put too much faith in measuring the popular vote against the electoral vote is because as was said the candidates don't campaign the same way they do as with an Electoral system. With Electoral, they spend most of their time in swing states like Ohio and Florida. For example, take states like California, Oregon and Washington. Everyone knew they were going electorally Democrat. So Trump spent no time there trying to change voters minds. However, if the President was elected by popular vote, Trump would have campaigned there and there could have been more people going Republicans raising his popular vote. So with an electoral system, raw popular vote is distorted and does not equate necessarily to Electoral vote. although most of the time it does.
Also, keep in mind that if you go only with the popular vote, then you could argue that since neither candidate had more than 50% or a majority, then neither candidate actually got a majority. Both Hillary and Trump got less than 50%. That would create an argument for even less of a mandate for the winner. The Constitution using the Electoral system is set up so that it takes a majority percent to win. You have to get more than 50% so there's actually a public view that a majority did elect the President. Of course the losers always point to the popular vote when these things happen. But popular has its problems too.
Background: The US is a Federal system of sovereign states. So there is some bias built into the Electoral system to equal out the strength of each state despite population. That's similar to the Senate where each state has two senators regardless of how many people live in the state. That's where the House of representative work as it's based on population of each state. So small states have more electoral votes than their population would dictate. There would have to be a change in the Constitution to amend it. Small states won't vote for changing the Constitution and lose come of their power so it's not going to happen.
In any case, there's no way to now switch the vote to the popular.
-
Hi George, The reason Trump did so well in this election is that the establishment, Democrats and Republicans, had turned on its people. Oh, not with military attacks and citizen roundups, but in what they thought were subtle ways. Turns out people were smart enough to penetrate the "subtlety."
-
I've honestly never heard that particular rationalization before. As I said above, I don't dispute the legitimacy of our electoral methodology - it is what it is, and for the most part it's worked as intended with a few wrinkles along the way. But people, attitudes, needs, wants and values spread across all borders, real and those that are just drawn on a map. I could easily move some arbitrary lines a few miles one direction or another and come up with a wholly different outcome - that's basically gerrymandering, and it happens all the time. But as a cohesive whole, the raw vote says what the raw vote says, and that message is that you should not assume that Trump's ideas are favored by most Americans.
Well actually since we have a winner take all situation in places like California or New York where the proportion of democrats is prohibitively high, many republicans will fail to vote because it is futile. That is how the current electoral college system would make it impossible to say whether any particular national vote total is definitive.
-
One more note about Electoral. . Electors making up the "college" were voted for as decided by each state. In the beginning many state had the legislators in their state elect the electors. There was no popular vote. States have changed that now allow electors by popular vote. Although interesting, Maine split the elector vote. Not sure about other states. But this i another major effect of the final vote since almost all state electors for their state vote the same way even though only one side has one more vote than the other. If we had a popular vote nationally, the power of large state like California would be diminished as the votes would go to each candidate as the popular votes went.
-
Well actually since we have a winner take all situation in places like California or New York where the proportion of democrats is prohibitively high, many republicans will fail to vote because it is futile. That is how the current electoral college system would make it impossible to say whether any particular national vote total is definitive.
That's a great point that I forgot about. Thanks for reminding me. As a New Yorker who votes Republican, I've been voting for years for no point. But there are plenty of NY Republicans who just don't vote because they know their vote isn't going to matter. If we went to a popular vote, they would vote changing the final popular count.
-
But it's fundamentally incorrect to assume that the American people as a whole (or even as a majority) are behind the Trump agenda.
Agreed. America was not voting for Trump as much as they were voting against Obama and HRC and the status quo. You can debate this all day but right or wrong that is the way that the left and the right are reading this election. Again, I voted for neither of them so I'm not defending a position.
We concur - saying "pass the bill, then read it" would be insane if that's what was said in chambers. Of course, that's not accurate. Here's what was actually said (to a nonprofit association, not to Congressional lawmakers, by the way).
Irrelevant. It is not so much that a sound bite is taken out of context. The truth is that most lawmakers who passed this bill had little or no idea what was in there and most still do not. I spoke, one-on-one, sit down, in person with a powerful House Democrat prior to the bill passing. He was stumping all over the state in support of the bill. He knew very little about the nuts and bolts of it and admitted it. He knew far less about it than I did. (He lost his seat that year, by the way. He'd held it for several decades)
That said, I hope you will accept that from my position (again, as an employer, multiple business owner, and annual group plan administrator) that there are fundamental aspects of the ACA that people do appreciate, and will be problematic to eliminate.
I certainly cannot deny that. But at what cost? How many others were hurt? Just look at the stats quoted by the Huffington Post in the article I cited.
So here's my takeaway. First, I by and large disagree with many typical conservative positions. Second, that said, my disagreements fall heavily on the social side of issues, not necessarily the fiscal or administrative side. My sincere hope is that, freed of being the "opposition party" who is forced to oppose ideas simply because they come from Democrats, the Republican congress can do a better job of actually governing, rather than impeding, and that they will prioritize things that can, and should benefit most Americans, and not waste time pushing a social agenda that frankly, most of America disagrees with. If they are really for small government, and efficient government, let's see it.
That is a noble hope. I am not optimistic. I too view most if not all politicians with contempt and much of our current government with apprehension. I expect Trump to be a terrible leader. I expect the elected Republicans to continue to profiteer just as their Democrat counterparts do and to take the easy road on most matters of principle. My hope is mostly to be left alone. (And to defer any thought that I'm not civic minded, I've served in the military, have been involved with local government and donate a large chunk of my income to church and charities). Like most conservatives I just want the government out of my house, off my property and out of my work place. That cannot be, of course, but it is all a matter of degree.
-
Wrong. It was a far more complicated issue than that.
Just because there was an actually strike and that it was more complicated than I stated hardly makes me wrong. Beside the point anyway. It happened.
The only significant amount of Brits going overseas for 'treatment' are those seeking cosmetic and dental surgery which is cheaper overseas. It's hardly critical healthcare and only a tiny minority of the total amount of healthcare done on Brits.
Incorrect. Heart transplants, aneurysm repairs, cholecystectomies, reconstructive breast surgery after mastectomy, just to name a few.
The National Health Service is not perfect, but most of it's issues are due to underfunding.
That is the mantra of all government shortcoming.
-
Hi George, The reason Trump did so well in this election is that the establishment, Democrats and Republicans, had turned on its people. Oh, not with military attacks and citizen roundups, but in what they thought were subtle ways. Turns out people were smart enough to penetrate the "subtlety."
Agreed.
-
Background: The US is a Federal system of sovereign states.
the last time some of them tried to actually exercise some sovereignty it ended up with a bloody mess... so whom you are kidding ?
-
The argument that I put forward is not about doodling, but about federalism. This is the United States of America, a federal organism, with 50 individual states, that have certain elements of sovereignty. Hence the electoral college. You want a popular vote? Get rid of the states first.
"elements of sovereignty" does not preclude a popular vote for the federal president for as long as there will be a simple change in constitution ...
-
... a simple change in constitution ...
Yes, easy-peasy! But it should be real simple, so that every time one side is unhappy about the current rules of the game, they should be able to change it back and forth real simple and quick.
-
That's a great point that I forgot about. Thanks for reminding me. As a New Yorker who votes Republican, I've been voting for years for no point. But there are plenty of NY Republicans who just don't vote because they know their vote isn't going to matter. If we went to a popular vote, they would vote changing the final popular count.
and you forgot that at the same time many people who 'd otherwise vote Dem in a federal popular vote are not going to vote in NY or CA because they think it will be their candidate anyways... it goes both ways
-
Yes, easy-peasy!
not easy in the sense of actually passing that change using the current system how US constitution is amended of course ...
-
and you forgot that at the same time many people who 'd otherwise vote Dem in a federal popular vote are not going to vote in NY or CA because they think it will be their candidate anyways... it goes both ways
And it also applies to democrats not voting in iron-clad republican states. How motivated do you think a democratic Texan is to cast his vote for the democratic presidential candidate?
But, I agree with what others said here, popular vote is an unimportant byproduct in this election because the campaigns and results would be totally different when the rules would be that the president is elected by popular vote. It's just another indication that the US is a divided country with two camps who can't stand each other and as long as that remains about half the people will feel frustrated and not represented, but without looking at popular vote that is clear as well.
-
Just because there was an actually strike and that it was more complicated than I stated hardly makes me wrong.
It does because you stated that it was about pay differentials, it wasn't at all.
Incorrect. Heart transplants, aneurysm repairs, cholecystectomies, reconstructive breast surgery after mastectomy, just to name a few.
Yes, some of this does happen in isolated cases, but it's such a tiny percentage of the overall numbers of those procedures performed to UK residents it's insignificant.
-
This is how my vote didn't count:
As I moved from Illinois to Indiana, I had the option to register to vote in IN. I didn't for this election, as it would not matter. Regardless who I voted for, my vote didn't matter (note: IL votes predominantly Democrats, and IN predominantly Republican).
If I wanted to vote for Hillary, she would win in IL and lose in IN anyway
If I wanted to vote for Trump, he would lose in IL and win in IN anyway
I did vote in IL as a matter of principle, as it was my first vote in the States.
-
Yesterday I learnt from Paul Krugman that I, a Trump voter, am really an uneducated, racist, rural white male with a deep rage. Only the "deep rage" part was right. This infantile labeling of people as racists is standard operating procedure for Leftwing ideologues but it is sad to see a brilliant man like Krugman decline like this. To paraphrase Sir Peter Medawar (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Medawar), he can be "excused only on the grounds that before deceiving others he must have taken pains to deceive himself."
Unfortunately for Kruggie, NYT's own data expert Nate Cohn has a different story (https://mobile.twitter.com/Nate_Cohn/status/796243185739632640) to tell. And this. (https://mobile.twitter.com/Nate_Cohn/status/796789043040239616)
-
Yes, easy-peasy! But it should be real simple, so that every time one side is unhappy about the current rules of the game, they should be able to change it back and forth real simple and quick.
You get that that's neither my suggestion nor my belief, right? Have I not been crystal clear in expressing my belief that the electoral system is legitimate? My contention is simply that an electoral win for Trump should not be equated with a national endorsement of his stated policies, and the overall popular vote is one piece of evidence that bears this out.
Other examples, not subject to the vagaries of campaigning (all from Pew Research, here. (http://www.people-press.org/2016/03/31/2-views-on-immigration-diversity-social-issues/#same-sex-marriage-divides-gop-supporters-more-than-democrats)):
57% of the overall population feel that immigration strengthens the nation - 69% of Trump supporters believe immigration burdens our country.
74% of the overall population thinks that undocumented immigrants that meet certain requirements should be allowed to remain, vs. 47% of Trump supporters (surprisingly high for both groups, especially in light of the above figure)
57% of the overall population supports same-sex marriage - 38% of Trump supporters support it.
In short - even on Trump's signature campaign issues like immigration, people aren't really behind what he's proposing in many cases, and though social issues weren't a huge part of the campaign, he'd be wise not to let the newly unopposed Republican government go nuts on those issues either. Incidentally, I voted (D) in Texas, as I usually do (though not always), despite the fact that the state is solidly and hopelessly (R). For now.
By the way - congratulations on your first time as an eligible voter!
-
These questions in these polls are often framed to shape a narrative by offering a false choice (especially in questions about immigration, legal pathway etc). Brings to mind a classic. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G0ZZJXw4MTA)
-
These questions in these polls are often framed to shape a narrative by offering a false choice (especially in questions about immigration, legal pathway etc). Brings to mind a classic. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G0ZZJXw4MTA)
Sure, that can happen, but the answers given in the particular research I cited aren't particularly unique, nor are they particularly nuanced. Of course a poll can be construed to lead. Most respectable ones try not to. And even if they did, the margins in these answers are dramatically disparate - well above what one might expect from weasely leading phrasing.
By the way, Krugman didn't call you an uneducated rural white guy with deep rage any more than HRC called all Trump supporters "deplorables." But to deny that some faction of Trump's support (a larger percentage that comprises HRC's support) comes from those who do fit that description would be to deny reality.
All that said - I do love your photography. And Slobodan's too :)
-
I was talking about the exit poll question calculated to frame argument for amnesty. See this (https://twitter.com/kausmickey/status/796493834163097601) and this. (https://twitter.com/kausmickey/status/796494782944002048)
-
You get that that's neither my suggestion nor my belief, right? Have I not been crystal clear in expressing my belief that the electoral system is legitimate?...
... congratulations on your first time as an eligible voter!
A quick note that I was quoting and replying to scyth, not you.
And thanks :)
-
... Of course a poll can be construed to lead..
I've seen way too many questionnaires in my life not to be aware that they may not only lead, subtly or not, but also leave a lot to interpretation, and thus erroneous conclusions. It is hard also not to be aware that humans behind designing those questions and humans behind analyzing them are...well, humans, with all the biases that come with it. As for "respectable" pollsters, we just saw how it went in Brexit and this election. More like wishful thinking and confirmation bias than science, I am afraid.
For instance, the question about immigration. If asked as "does immigration burdens the nation or strengthens it?" I, as a recent immigrant, would probably answer "burdens," because in my mind "immigration" = legal + illegal, and I happen to believe that illegal immigration does burden. Another person might interpret the same word as legal immigration only. Now, it is entirely possible that Trump supporters are more likely to interpret "immigration = legal + illegal," but it is quite different to conclude that they think that immigration burdens the nation.
And thanks again on the photography compliment :)
-
It does because you stated that it was about pay differentials, it wasn't at all.
Then Lancet and the BBC got it wrong too.
-
the last time some of them tried to actually exercise some sovereignty it ended up with a bloody mess... so whom you are kidding ?
Correct. People forget that the constitutional congress was all about convincing states to come together as a nation. It was a tenuous and ify situation that was only resolved with granting those states significant authority (including the right to own slaves) and restricting federal authority significantly. Lincoln, the great pragmatist, did not see it that way. His interpretation of the history and the Constitution cost well over 400,000 American lives. And the winners write the history books.
-
Then Lancet and the BBC got it wrong too.
Maybe you should talk to the doctors that actually took action. I did.
-
There are some truly amazing ironies going on here. The greatest of these is the now utterly discredited liberal press' response to the whole thing. It has deteriorated into far worse bigotry, personal attacks and hate speech than Trump ever put out.
The other is the huge and hypocritical about-face. On election day the wheels of democracy were at work and the voice of the people was to be heard and all claims of rigging and deceit were labeled as absurd. Twelve hours later nothing but whining and moaning about the electoral college.
And then the protests. The collective temper tantrum currently being thrown by Hollywood elites, the majority of the media, the millennials and the socialists is a national disgrace. They love democracy until it doesn't go their way. They love tolerance, as long as you agree with them. When they don't get their way tolerance is abandoned and they destroy other people's property.
Don't get me wrong. I know that these groups don't actually represent the left by-in-large. But 1) the media is giving them enough air time to make you think it does and 2) the media certainly does not have the decency to admit that the KKK doesn't represent the majority on the right.
One of the millennials interviewed at a protest in L.A had a sign that said "Calexit" referring to California leaving the union (who would stop them). Above that was written "Succession". Her friend blurted out that California was tired of supporting the rest of the nation which was like an unemployed friend who comes to dinner and criticizes your life-style. I assume she was unaware of California's current economic woes. And yet, its the Trump supporters who are the "knuckle dragging", "mouth-breathing" "idiots" who just "crawled out from under stumps".
Irony | adjective| of or like iron
-
Maybe you should talk to the doctors that actually took action. I did.
Good for you. That changes nothing about my point. And if Lancet and the BBC don't have the insight that was available to you, you might understand why someone on the other side of the pond might not get those nuances either. The point is, still and despite your nuancing, that the system is not all that liberal Americans claim that it is.
-
57% of the overall population feel that immigration strengthens the nation - 69% of Trump supporters believe immigration burdens our country.
which immigration though ? legal, skilled - please by all means... illegal, low skilled ? nope - __BUT__ make a cheap working visa for those workers (just enough cost to cover fingerprinting, blood, DNA sample, some basic medical tests for HIV, etc - it is pretty much the same as legal immigrants have to do and did before, except DNA sampling) w/o the right to change that visa status to a different non-immigrant visa status within USA and w/o the ability to apply for GC while on that visa status ...
also (amend constitution) eliminate citizenship by birth on US territory unless one of the parents is already a US citizen (test DNA @ parents cost to prove that he/she is) and (amend constitution) remove the right to social security/medicare contributions unless you end up as citizen (you have to pay those taxes, but will be able to get them back only if you will become a citizen)...
that simple.
-
It's just another indication that the US is a divided country with two camps who can't stand each other
but those camps are totally not static - I crossed the "party line" for example voting for Trump w/o hesitation (and I voted Obama twice) ... I bet there Reps voting for Hillary too ... and not few...
-
Yesterday I learnt from Paul Krugman that I, a Trump voter, am really an uneducated, racist, rural white male with a deep rage. Only the "deep rage" part was right. This infantile labeling of people as racists is standard operating procedure for Leftwing ideologues but it is sad to see a brilliant man like Krugman decline like this. To paraphrase Sir Peter Medawar (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Medawar), he can be "excused only on the grounds that before deceiving others he must have taken pains to deceive himself."
Unfortunately for Kruggie, NYT's own data expert Nate Cohn has a different story (https://mobile.twitter.com/Nate_Cohn/status/796243185739632640) to tell. And this. (https://mobile.twitter.com/Nate_Cohn/status/796789043040239616)
Rajan:
The labeling is just their way of maintaining a narrative that they hope will hide the real reason they lost PA, MI and WI. "It's not because we allowed globalism to shut down the heartland's jobs, it's because those no-good racists don't like sweet innocent Hillary and Bill!" Note to the Dems; if you're trying to attract votes, calling half the population deplorable might be a mistake.
-
which immigration though ? legal, skilled - please by all means... illegal, low skilled ?
Exactly. And a perfect example of how pollsters and pundits design questions to get the results they want.
The question: Is immigration good for America? is very different from the question: Is illegal immigration good for America.
The current context of the issue of immigration is illegal immigration.
And whether we like it or not, things have changed a great deal since most of us learned in grade school the national benefits of the "Melting Pot". This country is no longer in need of workers. This country also no longer integrates its immigrants, particularly illegal ones....for obvious reasons. This country is already staggering under its social programs and entitlements. So we are no longer a nation that needs immigrants nor are we one that melts them together with the rest of us and we can no longer support those who do not contribute. There are certainly many other good and legitimate reasons for immigration but they are not the ones that forms the older view of immigration.
-
Rajan:
The labeling is just their way of maintaining a narrative that they hope will hide the real reason they lost PA, MI and WI. "It's not because we allowed globalism to shut down the heartland's jobs, it's because those no-good racists don't like sweet innocent Hillary and Bill!" Note to the Dems; if you're trying to attract votes, calling half the population deplorable might be a mistake.
There were two things that cost her the election: the Deplorables comment was likely the biggest FUBAR (f**ked up beyond all repair) and then the very untimely Coomey email bombshell. I am a bit in the minority in this thinking, but I have this nagging thought that won't go away that says he was quite pissed he didn't have the evidence to indict her for her email server, but he knew he could pretty much derail her run for the White House by releasing the "new" information. Up until that letter, she was virtually a shoo-in. Telling the US electorate two days before the election she was in the clear was like pissing on a forest fire in its effect.
I voted for Hillary not because I loved her, but because I saw Trump as a buffoon. He is a clinical example (still is) of Narcissism with a Borderline Personality Disorder. His plan and strategy was too well aligned with that of Hitler and Mussolini not that I think he was bright enough to have read either manifesto but he did know that to control the media into free attention was free ride #1 and to put the blame of all the blue collar worker's plight on someone else. He blamed the Mexicans and the Islamic's and ranted over and over and over as to how they would ruin America and how they had to go. This, quite effectively took the onus off him to actually show any real plans.
Frankly, I do not think he ever expected to get elected. From the look on his face when he faced the victory crowd, it was evidence he was as stunned as Clinton who felt she had it in the bag...as did I. The Republican party will win the next four years if they can manage to curb him but as with almost all Manic Depressive's, when he goes on a roll, he's as predictable as a drunk in a China shop. He's made promises that will never come to fruition. The wall, at the cost between 40 and 60 billion dollars underestimated by my accounting as I've hiked the hills that follow the Rio Grande and know them to be mostly impenetrable for the purposes of building said wall just isn't financially or constructional feasible. The Mexicans with a GDP of about $7 per capita do not have the funds to pay for it. Remember, despite what Trump told his followers - "they loved me in Mexico, and the President of Mexico loves me," what the President of Mexico actually said, and on public TV was go F**K yourself.
The second which he promises on his first day in office to dismantle Obamacare, has more than just a few problems. One it was a congressional act and only the congress can totally dismantle it, but two, he has no workable plan that will keep 20 million Americans with equitable healthcare. His plan to allow those needing insurance to reach across state lines is being met with much disdain by the insurers across the nation because they realize that huge influxes of new members will just drive their administrative cost so high, no gain and perhaps even loss will occur. In the end, he is going to have to do what Hillary was going to have to do and that is tweak the system to lower costs without throwing out the baby with the bathwater.
Banning all Muslims coming into the country is going to also have to be modified because of the horrid loss of respect from our overseas neighbors. You can only piss off the rest of the world so much before you start losing allies. The last initial concern for him will come when he puts out large forces of immigration "enforcers" to take people out of their homes and bus them back to Mexico. He thinks they will just hop on that bus willingly and he's as wrong as Hell. They're going to fight and a lot of people are going to get killed on both sides and like the Viet Nam war, this doesn't play well on TV. So, here we have a President who knows doodley squat about foreign policy, really running a military operation, who has very doubtfully ever read, much less comprehend the US Constitution, who is frightfully too cozy with the Russians, potentially deciding the fate of most of the world so perhaps you can understand my quivering fear of the big Buffoon.
Some of you may have felt disenfranchised, but had you taken the time to analyze Donald Trump, even a little, you would have understood why I fear him like no previous President we've ever had. The vast majority of Trump's followers were indeed uneducated, and if they lived in NW FL, I can assure you, to quote a Trumpism, many many many of these beautiful people drove over-sized pickup trucks displaying large Confederate flags, went "mudding' on the weekends and followed the Trump like lemming doing their pilgrimage to the sea, were very much racists and preferred their "wimmen" barefoot and stupid. All I can say to you disenfranchised voters...might want to look both ways before crossing the street next time around. The chicken got lucky.
LMAO "This country is no longer in need of workers." Ha, you get Americans to pick the lettuce, tomatoes, or grapes, etc. They won't do it. Americans are very rarely hired by Cruise Ship lines because they won't work the hours. They feel far to entitled and take great affront at the suggestion they must work to eat. You live in fantasy land, my friend. Without these workers a head of lettuce will cost $6.00. And, to the educated voter who put the Buffoon into office, go online and take a real hard look at his tax plan. You think Hillary was going to stick it to you.....hahahahaha, Trump is going to pretend you are a choirboy. There isn't anything about his Presidency that is going to be pretty and we haven't even touched on the Middle East. "I know more than anyone else including all the generals, how to fix the Middle East," he said repeatedly. I suggest if you really believe this, to make your cliff side reservations early as you follow the rest to the sea. How long can you tread water?
-
Why trust exit polls from the same people who gave us the polls on who was going to win?
-
Chris, all the arguments you made were made by your side over the last year. They weren't enough to defeat Trump. The election is over. Next time, in 2020, pick a better Democrat to run against him. You have 4 years to find him or her.
-
Exactly. And a perfect example of how pollsters and pundits design questions to get the results they want.
The question: Is immigration good for America? is very different from the question: Is illegal immigration good for America.
The current context of the issue of immigration is illegal immigration.
And whether we like it or not, things have changed a great deal since most of us learned in grade school the national benefits of the "Melting Pot". This country is no longer in need of workers. This country also no longer integrates its immigrants, particularly illegal ones....for obvious reasons. This country is already staggering under its social programs and entitlements. So we are no longer a nation that needs immigrants nor are we one that melts them together with the rest of us and we can no longer support those who do not contribute. There are certainly many other good and legitimate reasons for immigration but they are not the ones that forms the older view of immigration.
Except the both of you are ignoring the corollary - that 74% of respondents affirmed that *Undocumented* immigrants should have a path to stay. You also seem to have this idea that random people stream across the border, do nothing but use our services and hang out. I don't think that really how it works.
By the way, N80, the Constitutional Convention was specifically addressing the fact that the previous charter - The Articles of Confederation - allowed too little federal control to be effective in binding the nation together. I'm on an iPad, so I'll save you a history lecture, but the idea that the founders were bending over backwards to preserve state autonomy in the 1789 document is incorrect.
-
In the meanwhile, let's give the man a chance. He may surprise all of us and turn out to be a good President.
-
In the meanwhile, let's give the man a chance. He may surprise all of us and turn out to be a good President.
Alan, I sincerely hope that's the case.
-
Chris, I like your photography.
-
Chris, I like your photography.
:D
-
If there has ever been a proof in the history of democracy that democracy works, this must be it. The whole weight of the System, Da Man, establishment, elite, pundits, media, Hollywood, CIA, generals, economists, Nobel prize winners, diplomats, former presidents, even his own party, everyone and his mother-in-law, a kitchen sink too, united against one man. And yet, the people spoke otherwise. If anyone thinks money buys votes...Bush outspent him 10:1 in the primary, and Hillary 10:1 in the election...and yet, the people spoke otherwise. Think about it.
-
Chris, all the arguments you made were made by your side over the last year. They weren't enough to defeat Trump. The election is over. Next time, in 2020, pick a better Democrat to run against him. You have 4 years to find him or her.
The election may be over but the fight has just begun. Though slight (200,000 +/- 10K) she won the majority and it tells you that over half the country has no faith or trust in the President elect. This is going to be a highly contentious four years and frankly, I am not sure we will survive it in the fashion we've survived other bad Presidents. I have to give him a chance, because while I do not like, nor trust him, the office of the President is to be honored; to be anything else for me is to be un-American.
-
:D
Thanks, James and Slobodan.
-
Chris How do I see your photos? Can't find the link in your profile.
-
Only if Trump wins. Any organized violence typically comes from the left, as already exemplified in this election.
For our friend Bill:
Man reportedly beaten over Trump vote; Chicago police seek attackers in video
http://via.wgntv.com/qt35D
-
The Big Lie. The Republicans and conservatives are always being accused of violence that is really the trademark of the Democrats and liberals. Oregon declared protests against Trump a riot..
https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/the-latest-los-angeles-mayor-condemns-destructive-protest/2016/11/10/3a468c14-a7a4-11e6-ba46-53db57f0e351_story.html
-
There are several groups protesting in Portland tonight. The anti-Trump protesters have been peaceful and the chief of police acknowledges this. He just stated a few minutes ago that the group causing damage (apoears to be about a dozen masked individuals armed with baseball bats) are a group of anarchists who are well-known to the police. Basically these are hoodlums that get their jollies from spraying graffiti and smashing windows. The same group routinely shows up at any large protest in Portland because it is easy for them to insert themselves into a large crowd and not be identified or caught. Police have asked the anti-Trump protesters to move to Pioneer Square (and they are) so that they can isolate and arrest those who are damaging businesses in a trendy neighborhood several blocks away. The anti-Trump protesters are not rioting. I am not an anti-Trump protester, nor do I sympathize with them.
-
The Big Lie. The Republicans and conservatives are always being accused of violence that is really the trademark of the Democrats and liberals ...
Yes, yes of course it is ..
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-elections/donald-trump-president-supporters-attack-muslims-hijab-hispanics-lgbt-hate-crime-wave-us-election-a7410166.html?utm_content=buffer35dcb&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=buffer
.. and we're absolutely not to believe the motion clips being shown on CNN and other press sites of children in school shouting 'build-the-wall, build-the-wall..' and attacking other 'immigrant' classmates.
The truth is that this violence is the hallmark of the ' great unwashed' - whether they be far right ultra-nationalists, neo-cons or far left extremists, anarchists and wannabe-communists. And anyone who condones it or excuses it is as repugnant as the perpetrators themselves - (not saying or implying that you are, Alan).
-
And yet, the people spoke otherwise.
The flaw with this, is that more people voted for Clinton than Trump!!
So the "people" wanted Clinton, and the system gave them Trump.
Just an observation, not a criticism of the system.
We have the same thing in the UK, where fewer people have sometimes voted for the elected government than voted for the opposition. So we don't get the government the majority want, we get the the government that the sytem gives us.
Cheers
-
That changes nothing about my point.
Well it should because you're factually wrong.
-
Yes, yes of course it is ..
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-elections/donald-trump-president-supporters-attack-muslims-hijab-hispanics-lgbt-hate-crime-wave-us-election-a7410166.html?utm_content=buffer35dcb&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=buffer
.. and we're absolutely not to believe the motion clips being shown on CNN and other press sites of children in school shouting 'build-the-wall, build-the-wall..' and attacking other 'immigrant' classmates.
The truth is that this violence is the hallmark of the ' great unwashed' - whether they be far right ultra-nationalists, neo-cons or far left extremists, anarchists and wannabe-communists. And anyone who condones it or excuses it is as repugnant as the perpetrators themselves - (not saying or implying that you are, Alan).
+ 100%. It's their only language.
Rob C
-
The American Electoral system where a majority (over 50% of the electoral votes) is required to become president is the reason we have a two-party system ( mainly except this time where some votes went to third party candidates but who didn't get any of the electoral votes anyway). If votes are spread out to more than two main candidates and parties, as in a Parliamentary system, you wind up with no one who has over 50%. Then no one could be elected as President and it would go to the House of Representatives to decide..
So the Electoral system creates the two party effect. Yet for most times, this also creates a result where there popular vote is also above or at least near the 50% mark, much greater and more often than in a Parliamentary system where the candidates also have to form alliances in Parliament to become a majority. The Founders of our Republic didn't want that because they wanted to have an adversarial division between Congress and the President to prevent too much Presidential power or legislative power.
In any case the people did want Clinton because the campaign only focused on the swing states, around 12 of them. The other 38 were already baked in a republican or Democrat. So there was no campaigning where minds could have been changed. Also many people don't vote in those states because they know there vote isn't necessary or will count for anything anyway. So the popular is very distorted. You don't really know what it would have been if we were actually a true popular vote system and not an Elector system.
-
Yesterday I learnt from Paul Krugman that I, a Trump voter, am really an uneducated, racist, rural white male with a deep rage.
Congratulations, Rajan! You are, it seems, as perverse in your views as everyone in the UK who voted to leave the EU. Apart from the "rural" bit.
Jeremy
-
Then Lancet and the BBC got it wrong too.
It was presented as an argument about working times, career progression, pension entitlements, whether women's time on maternity leave should count towards routine seniority increments and so on. In reality, it became an argument over money; but "pay differentials" has never been suggested as relevant in any respect.
Medical training in the NHS has changed hugely over the past few years, in part as a result of the European Working Time Directive, which severely restricted the house junior doctors could work, and in part because the profession itself has demoralised its own juniors. I spoke at length in September to Professor Sir Simon Wessley, president of the Royal College of Psychiatrists, who expressed precisely those concerns. Training is certainly vastly different to the training I underwent for a decade in the 80's/90's.
The matter is hugely complicated. The British Medical Association postures but is no more than a trade union, and one run by those very firmly on the left of the political spectrum. The BBC is a pretty unreliable source of any information which requires understanding in its presentation.
Anyway, according to a report in today's Times, even the BMA has now admitted defeat (that is, accepted reality).
I'm not sure how relevant any of this is to the actual topic under discussion, but facile misrepresentations of a complex issue are invariably unhelpful.
Jeremy
-
I will share my predictions about Trump. My simuliar predictions about past presidents has been absolutely correct. ;D
He will do things that some may not like
He will do things that some may like
He will make decisions that some will disagree with
He will make decisions that some will agree with
He will take credit for stuff that he had very little influence.
He will take the blame for stuff that he had very little influence.
There will be people who will dislike him no matter what
There will be people who will like him no matter what
There will be a bunch of people who will be neutral about him
We will have plenty of time to like/hate him in the next four years. Let's wait until he does something before praising/condemning him.
-
Yes, yes of course it is ..
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-elections/donald-trump-president-supporters-attack-muslims-hijab-hispanics-lgbt-hate-crime-wave-us-election-a7410166.html?utm_content=buffer35dcb&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=buffer
.. and we're absolutely not to believe the motion clips being shown on CNN and other press sites of children in school shouting 'build-the-wall, build-the-wall..' and attacking other 'immigrant' classmates.
The truth is that this violence is the hallmark of the ' great unwashed' - whether they be far right ultra-nationalists, neo-cons or far left extremists, anarchists and wannabe-communists. And anyone who condones it or excuses it is as repugnant as the perpetrators themselves...
From the same article you quoted:
Btw, the above is a false equivalence. I this country, left and right violence are far from being the same. In my posts, I carefully worded the difference: the vast majority of mass and organized violence comes from the left. And historically, across the world (feel free to tally the victims of cummunist regimes). The right wing violence is currently, here, individual and sporadic. And if observing this difference and making this statement makes me repugnant in your eyes, so be it. I do not, however, condone any type of violence, organized or individual, left or right.
-
The flaw with this, is that more people voted for Clinton than Trump!!
So the "people" wanted Clinton, and the system gave them Trump.
Just an observation, not a criticism of the system...
The problem with long threads is that newcomers do not read previous posts. I and several others have posted on several occasions why the above assertion is false. But I'll repeat it here:
We don't really know what the popular was. Or, to be precise, what it could have been had the campaigns fought for the popular vote, instead of the electoral college one. The current statistic on the popular vote is simply a byproduct of the current game rules.
Election campaigns concentrate time, money and resources toward winning the electoral college. Has the game been to win the popular vote, time, effort, money, and resources would have been deployed differently. Therefore, we do not really know what the popular vote would be in such a case.
It is the same electoral system that served America well for 200+ years. And the same system that delivered Obama's victory, delivered it for Trump too. The same system, the same rules.
And ultimately, it was a majority of the popular vote for Trump, just segmented state by state. It is a United States of America, after all. Federal system, you know.
-
Alan Klein: Try this link: Chris' Photos (https://www.flickr.com/photos/54965930@N07/?)
If that doesn't work, go to www.flickr.com login name is: chrisc_photo, password is: meme60
-
There were two things that cost her the election: the Deplorables comment was likely the biggest FUBAR (f**ked up beyond all repair) and then the very untimely Coomey email bombshell. I am a bit in the minority in this thinking, but I have this nagging thought that won't go away that says he was quite pissed he didn't have the evidence to indict her for her email server, but he knew he could pretty much derail her run for the White House by releasing the "new" information. Up until that letter, she was virtually a shoo-in. Telling the US electorate two days before the election she was in the clear was like pissing on a forest fire in its effect.
I voted for Hillary not because I loved her, but because I saw Trump as a buffoon. He is a clinical example (still is) of Narcissism with a Borderline Personality Disorder. His plan and strategy was too well aligned with that of Hitler and Mussolini not that I think he was bright enough to have read either manifesto but he did know that to control the media into free attention was free ride #1 and to put the blame of all the blue collar worker's plight on someone else. He blamed the Mexicans and the Islamic's and ranted over and over and over as to how they would ruin America and how they had to go. This, quite effectively took the onus off him to actually show any real plans.
Frankly, I do not think he ever expected to get elected. From the look on his face when he faced the victory crowd, it was evidence he was as stunned as Clinton who felt she had it in the bag...as did I. The Republican party will win the next four years if they can manage to curb him but as with almost all Manic Depressive's, when he goes on a roll, he's as predictable as a drunk in a China shop. He's made promises that will never come to fruition. The wall, at the cost between 40 and 60 billion dollars underestimated by my accounting as I've hiked the hills that follow the Rio Grande and know them to be mostly impenetrable for the purposes of building said wall just isn't financially or constructional feasible. The Mexicans with a GDP of about $7 per capita do not have the funds to pay for it. Remember, despite what Trump told his followers - "they loved me in Mexico, and the President of Mexico loves me," what the President of Mexico actually said, and on public TV was go F**K yourself.
The second which he promises on his first day in office to dismantle Obamacare, has more than just a few problems. One it was a congressional act and only the congress can totally dismantle it, but two, he has no workable plan that will keep 20 million Americans with equitable healthcare. His plan to allow those needing insurance to reach across state lines is being met with much disdain by the insurers across the nation because they realize that huge influxes of new members will just drive their administrative cost so high, no gain and perhaps even loss will occur. In the end, he is going to have to do what Hillary was going to have to do and that is tweak the system to lower costs without throwing out the baby with the bathwater.
Banning all Muslims coming into the country is going to also have to be modified because of the horrid loss of respect from our overseas neighbors. You can only piss off the rest of the world so much before you start losing allies. The last initial concern for him will come when he puts out large forces of immigration "enforcers" to take people out of their homes and bus them back to Mexico. He thinks they will just hop on that bus willingly and he's as wrong as Hell. They're going to fight and a lot of people are going to get killed on both sides and like the Viet Nam war, this doesn't play well on TV. So, here we have a President who knows doodley squat about foreign policy, really running a military operation, who has very doubtfully ever read, much less comprehend the US Constitution, who is frightfully too cozy with the Russians, potentially deciding the fate of most of the world so perhaps you can understand my quivering fear of the big Buffoon.
Some of you may have felt disenfranchised, but had you taken the time to analyze Donald Trump, even a little, you would have understood why I fear him like no previous President we've ever had. The vast majority of Trump's followers were indeed uneducated, and if they lived in NW FL, I can assure you, to quote a Trumpism, many many many of these beautiful people drove over-sized pickup trucks displaying large Confederate flags, went "mudding' on the weekends and followed the Trump like lemming doing their pilgrimage to the sea, were very much racists and preferred their "wimmen" barefoot and stupid. All I can say to you disenfranchised voters...might want to look both ways before crossing the street next time around. The chicken got lucky.
LMAO "This country is no longer in need of workers." Ha, you get Americans to pick the lettuce, tomatoes, or grapes, etc. They won't do it. Americans are very rarely hired by Cruise Ship lines because they won't work the hours. They feel far to entitled and take great affront at the suggestion they must work to eat. You live in fantasy land, my friend. Without these workers a head of lettuce will cost $6.00. And, to the educated voter who put the Buffoon into office, go online and take a real hard look at his tax plan. You think Hillary was going to stick it to you.....hahahahaha, Trump is going to pretend you are a choirboy. There isn't anything about his Presidency that is going to be pretty and we haven't even touched on the Middle East. "I know more than anyone else including all the generals, how to fix the Middle East," he said repeatedly. I suggest if you really believe this, to make your cliff side reservations early as you follow the rest to the sea. How long can you tread water?
Chris, You need to read this morning's Wall Street Journal. The editorial page explains exactly why the Dems lost and Trump won. The interesting thing is how the Rebubs held the Senate and picked up a bunch of state legislatures on the way. Hillary didn't have much to do with that. Trump's biggest help was Obama. I'm talking about the Friday, November 11th WSJ.
-
The problem with long threads is that newcomers do not read previous posts. I and several others have posted on several occasions why the above assertion is false. But I'll repeat it here:
We don't really know what the popular was. Or, to be precise, what it could have been had the campaigns fought for the popular vote, instead of the electoral college one. The current statistic on the popular vote is simply a byproduct of the current game rules.
Election campaigns concentrate time, money and resources toward winning the electoral college. Has the game been to win the popular vote, time, effort, money, and resources would have been deployed differently. Therefore, we do not really know what the popular vote would be in such a case.
It is the same electoral system that served America well for 200+ years. And the same system that delivered Obama's victory, delivered it for Trump too. The same system, the same rules.
And ultimately, it was a majority of the popular vote for Trump, just segmented state by state. It is a United States of America, after all. Federal system, you know.
Yes, you and several others have posted your OPINION on why it's wrong. But as a matter of statistical fact, it's just not, no matter how much you try to play with "what ifs" That said, you ARE 100% right that it's irrelevant with regard to who was properly and duly elected. To say that in the it it was a majority of the popular vote for Trump is just factually and blatantly wrong. It's positively Trumpian in its bald-faced denial of reality, in fact ;)
The point was, and remains, that Trump's promised policies do not align with the ideals of most Americans in many cases. If he's smart he will recognize that.
-
Hi James, This is exactly why we have a republic instead of a democracy. The French democracy overwhelmingly voted for the guillotine too.
-
Russ, for God's sake, why did you feel the need to repost that lengthy diatribe, which is nothing more than regurgitated talking points of the losing side?
-
Yes, you and several others have posted your OPINION on why it's wrong. But as a matter of statistical fact, it's just not, no matter how much you try to play with "what ifs" That said, you ARE 100% right that it's irrelevant with regard to who was properly and duly elected. To say that in the it it was a majority of the popular vote for Trump is just factually and blatantly wrong. It's positively Trumpian in its bald-faced denial of reality, in fact ;)...
You want a statistical fact? The one that is not coincidental and not a byproduct? How about this: Trump won the majority of the popular vote in the majority of states.
As for facts... facts are almost useless without context and interpretation. Both facts and opinions are needed. Whether you agree with my opinion is a different matter, but I'll keep posting it for others, the open-minded ones, and let them decide if what I pointed out makes sense.
-
Russ, for God's sake, why did you feel the need to repost that lengthy diatribe, which is nothing more than regurgitated talking points of the losing side?
The problem with your analysis and Russ's WSJ article, each has many good points, is that in the not too distant future when these guys will awaken knowing they get to keep their guns, they're going to discover they don't have health care nor will they have food stamps, and the disenfranchised are going to start using those precious guns. Talking points of the losing side have a far better than 50/50 chance of coming to fruition while the Trump campaign promises stand very little chance of emerging as the end result. Even "deplorables" have memories.
And so once again, the right side and the wrong side have beaten an already dead horse to a unrecognizable pulp, neither side ever really agreeing and the world goes on,,,,hopefully.
-
Love to keep going with this delightful post-election exchange, but I'm off to St. Augustine for a few days. Maybe I'll come back with some street shots.
Don't despair, Chris or James. If you look around you might be able to find a "safe space" with a comfort dog and some crayons.
-
LMAO "This country is no longer in need of workers." Ha, you get Americans to pick the lettuce, tomatoes, or grapes, etc. They won't do it.
Americans being unwilling to work is a whole other problem. Lots of Americans remain unemployed. The fact that they will not do the available work is an indictment of the entitlement system. It is also a humanitarian issue that we will allow illegals to work without the benefits we otherwise feel all humans should be entitled to.
-
By the way, N80, the Constitutional Convention was specifically addressing the fact that the previous charter - The Articles of Confederation - allowed too little federal control to be effective in binding the nation together. I'm on an iPad, so I'll save you a history lecture, but the idea that the founders were bending over backwards to preserve state autonomy in the 1789 document is incorrect.
Please do spare me the lecture and the patronizing. The concession to the institution of slavery is the perfect example. Had it not been codified as legal the southern states would not have joined the union. The story of the Constitution IS the story of the preservation of state's autonomy and limitations of the federal government. You don't have to dig into the history to see this. Just read the Constitution. It is right there in black and white.
-
Yes, you and several others have posted your OPINION on why it's wrong. But as a matter of statistical fact, it's just not, no matter how much you try to play with "what ifs" That said, you ARE 100% right that it's irrelevant with regard to who was properly and duly elected. To say that in the it it was a majority of the popular vote for Trump is just factually and blatantly wrong. It's positively Trumpian in its bald-faced denial of reality, in fact ;)
The point was, and remains, that Trump's promised policies do not align with the ideals of most Americans in many cases. If he's smart he will recognize that.
It is so funny how you trot out statistics, criticize opinion and then trot out your own opinion (the last sentence) that is not only statistically unsupportable but riddled with qualifiers like "most" and "many".
As we speak the vote tallies continue to roll in and the last I saw it was a virtual tie in regard to the popular vote. Which means you are no more entitled to use "many" and "most" than are those claiming a Trump mandate.
But again, it is not relevant. the mandate is not just in the electoral vote or the popular vote. The mandate is that this nasty little troll of an outsider (plus all the other lies and baggage the liberal media have attached to him) beat the Washington insider along with her huge political machinery which includes the vast majority of the 'free' press in the country (and this is not even a point of debate according to Pew Trust studies right up until election day). Not to mention the Senate and House elections.
This was a mandate against HRC. No doubt. It was a rejection of Obama administration. No doubt. It was NOT a rejection of liberalism or the left. In fact, I feel certain that Bernie Sanders would have beaten Trump had HRC and the Democrat Party machinery rejected him under the table. When you look at a lot of these protests, there is a great deal of anger against HRC and her machinery for railroading Sanders.
It is almost comical (if it wasn't so shocking) to see the reeling, seething, violent and hateful response to this election from the liberals. The headlines now are full of attacks, hate and spin. The liberal media has not taken this opportunity to gain insight into their own ideology driven mistakes. Just like the Democrat party the backed the wrong candidate. Again, Bernie would have won. Hell, anyone other than HRC could have and should have beaten Trump. THAT is how bad she was on all levels.
-
Trump election and Brexit are often compared. So, let's look at the popular vote role in both. In Brexit, the popular vote won with a 4% difference. Here, it "won" (coincidentally and as a byproduct) with a 0.2% difference. In Brexit, the left is crying foul, claiming the popular vote is dangerous and should be ignored. Here, the left is glorifying it and wants the election results overturned. Go figure. In other words, this system or that system, whatever system, who cares, as long as it delivers what I like. And if it doesn't, then we will change the system or vote again and again until it does. News flash: you can surely vote again...in four years.
-
Love to keep going with this delightful post-election exchange, but I'm off to St. Augustine for a few days. Maybe I'll come back with some street shots.
Don't despair, Chris or James. If you look around you might be able to find a "safe spot" with a comfort dog and some crayons.
I have a small casita in San Filipe, Baja and plan to spend far more time there than here for the next four years. Besides, I can live there for about 42 cents on the dollar. I'd kick the dog to the curb and melt the crayons on the hood of Trump's limousine. LOLOLOL
-
The problem with your analysis and Russ's WSJ article, each has many good points, is that in the not too distant future when these guys will awaken knowing they get to keep their guns, they're going to discover they don't have health care nor will they have food stamps, and the disenfranchised are going to start using those precious guns.
You clearly have no idea about who owns guns in this country. It is NOT the uninsured disenfranchised food stamp crowd. And those in that segment who do own guns are already using them, daily, and often. Witness Chicago and every other large city in the US. But the majority of guns are owned by working, middle and upper class people. They live predominantly in the south, west and rural areas. They also have superior guns. Lots of ammo. Know how to use them. And don't. These are not the folks who are going to revolt over lack of healthcare and food stamps. They will use them for a far, far different reason. As a collective. As the Constitution envisioned. And only as a last resort.
-
We don't really know what the popular was. Or, to be precise, what it could have been had the campaigns fought for the popular vote, instead of the electoral college one. The current statistic on the popular vote is simply a byproduct of the current game rules.
Actually, I have read through the thread, and i fully understand the point you make, about how if it had been one person one vote (as in the Brexit Referendum) and the campaigning targeted towards this kind of vote, the vote could well have been different.
BUT, its still difficult to ignore how close the vote was, and I am conscious that even allowing for what you say, that it still sends the message that just as many people wanted Clinton as wanted Trump. Suggesting the American people are very divided in what they think and want.
Cheers,
Graham
-
Here's a good explanation and discussion on the Electoral system.
http://www.cnsnews.com/commentary/jarrett-stepman/why-america-uses-electoral-college-not-popular-vote-presidential-election
-
Alan Klein: Try this link: Chris' Photos (https://www.flickr.com/photos/54965930@N07/?)
If that doesn't work, go to www.flickr.com login name is: chrisc_photo, password is: meme60
Nice shots. But was there a link in this forum? How did others know where it was?
-
... How did others know where it was?
We don't. Chris often posts in the Critique or Landscape sections of the forum. You might try to venture beyond the Coffee Corner from time to time, you know ;)
P.S. The other forums is where you make friends. The Coffee Corner is where you come to lose them ;)
-
Actually, I have read through the thread, and i fully understand the point you make, about how if it had been one person one vote (as in the Brexit Referendum) and the campaigning targeted towards this kind of vote, the vote could well have been different.
BUT, its still difficult to ignore how close the vote was, and I am conscious that even allowing for what you say, that it still sends the message that just as many people wanted Clinton as wanted Trump. Suggesting the American people are very divided in what they think and want.
Cheers,
Graham
This same argument goes on every four years even if the popular vote comports with the electoral vote. Let's say the popular vote was 51% and 49%. The losers always say that the winner does not have a mandate because they 49% is so close to half. Therefore the winner should consider what the losers want. Of course the winner says, a win is a win, and we intend to push the winner's agenda. Well that's how it works.
Keep in mind that the Electoral percentage has not been talked about. It will probably come out roughly 55% for Trump vs. 45% Clinton. (300 Trump to 240 Clinton Electoral votes). So if you consider the electoral vote, you may actually get more comfort in knowing that a larger majority did select Trump from a Federal, constitutional and electoral perspective. Does 55% to 45% make you feel better?
-
...BUT, its still difficult to ignore how close the vote was...
Perhaps. But look at it how close it was from this angle: the whole weight of the System, Da Man, establishment, elite, pundits, media, Hollywood, CIA, generals, economists, Nobel prize winners, diplomats, former presidents, even his own party, everyone and his mother-in-law, a kitchen sink too, ganged up against one candidate. The newspapers which in 100 years never endorsed a Democratic candidate, changed sides. Published naked pictures of the candidate's wife. Pulled out and dusted off 15-20 year old tapes and tax returns. Whipped the public into a frenzy by demonizing him via grossly twisted interpretations of what he said. And yet he came as close as 0.2% of the popular vote. Never mind that he got the majority of the popular vote in the majority of states.
-
We don't. Chris often posts in the Critique or Landscape sections of the forum. You might try to venture beyond the Coffee Corner from time to time, you know ;)
P.S. The other forums is where you make friends. The Coffee Corner is where you come to lose them ;)
That's true. I was nervous I might be losing you and had to pull back at one point. :)
-
P.S. The other forums is where you make friends. The Coffee Corner is where you come to lose them ;)
I enjoy discourse with my flesh and blood liberal friends as well as my virtual liberal acquaintances (I'm new here) even when I go home licking a few wounds or rarely inflicting a wound or two on them. I think even heated discourse with those who think differently from us is far more valuable than cordial discourse with those with whom we always agree.
-
Trump election and Brexit are often compared. So, let's look at the popular vote role in both. In Brexit, the popular vote won with a 4% difference. Here, it "won" (coincidentally and as a byproduct) with a 0.2% difference. In Brexit, the left is crying foul, claiming the popular vote is dangerous and should be ignored. Here, the left is glorifying it and wants the election results overturned. Go figure. In other words, this system or that system, whatever system, who cares, as long as it delivers what I like. And if it doesn't, then we will change the system or vote again and again until it does. News flash: you can surely vote again...in four years.
Woah! Your nags are running wild.
In Brexit, both left and right were split in both directions: leave or remain.
The leave victory came because both gullible left and right plus the rabid head-in-sand-ukippers believed those confessed lies that their leave proponents told.
If there's anything more unedifying than the movement to leave, it's the sight of the current leavers in office now pretending to be absolutely convinced that they must continue to fib (but now in the other direction) and embrace and climb aboard the quit machine. The honorable thing for the govt. to do would have been to resign. Then, on a ticket of 'stay' they could have faced the electorate with or without a true mandate depending on the result of the election.
They are, I'm afraid, all chickenshit.
Rob C
-
Rob, you of course know putting honorable and politician in the same sentence is folly.
Question. How do you when a politician is lying?
Answer: When their lips are moving.
-
Perhaps. But look at it how close it was from this angle: the whole weight of the System, Da Man, establishment, elite, pundits, media, Hollywood, CIA, generals, economists, Nobel prize winners, diplomats, former presidents, even his own party, everyone and his mother-in-law, a kitchen sink too, ganged up against one candidate. The newspapers which in 100 years never endorsed a Democratic candidate, changed sides. Published naked pictures of the candidate's wife. Pulled out and dusted off 15-20 year old tapes and tax returns. Whipped the public into a frenzy by demonizing him via grossly twisted interpretations of what he said. And yet he came as close as 0.2% of the popular vote. Never mind that he got the majority of the popular vote in the majority of states.
Correct. THAT is the take home message.
That and the ironies I have mentioned before. "Trump is a hateful bigot" vs " Trump supporters (nearly half a nation) are gun toting, bible thumping, mouth breathing, incestuous misogynistic racists."
I often don't think the left understands how RACIST playing the race card is. It is inherently racist. It is deeply hurtful. It is potential life altering in a harmful way. And still, it is the Trump crowd that is still portrayed as hateful, racist and dangerous even as leftists riot and destroy private property.
The left, with the aid of the media and the elites always claim the high ground. All of it. But they don't live there. Any more than the right does.
Pay attention to the epic, national irony. Hypocrisy might be the more accurate word. But irony says it better.
-
The leave victory came because both gullible left and right plus the rabid head-in-sand-ukippers believed those confessed lies that their leave proponents told.
The truth is elusive, no? But here is one truth. Trump lies a lot. Clinton lies a lot. Here is another truth: The liberal media gave HRC a perpetual get-out-of-jail-free card in regard to her lying. They nailed Trump to the wall for his.
I watched a 20 minute montage of HRC lying in public about NAFTA, gay marriage and many other topics. No fact checkes refutes her claims. She refuted them all herself in clear, context appropriate statements she made about herself and her positions on these issues through the years, often denying she'd said these things even as she was quoted on them.
HRC was NEVER a good candidate for president. Her only asset was that she was not DJT. Bernie Sanders would have killed Trump in the election. The Dems have only themselves to blame. The GOP has only Trump to thank.
(Again, to clarify, I despise both Trump and the GOP.)
-
Perhaps. But look at it how close it was from this angle: the whole weight of the System, Da Man, establishment, elite, pundits, media, Hollywood, CIA, generals, economists, Nobel prize winners, diplomats, former presidents, even his own party, everyone and his mother-in-law, a kitchen sink too, ganged up against one candidate. The newspapers which in 100 years never endorsed a Democratic candidate, changed sides. Published naked pictures of the candidate's wife. Pulled out and dusted off 15-20 year old tapes and tax returns. Whipped the public into a frenzy by demonizing him via grossly twisted interpretations of what he said. And yet he came as close as 0.2% of the popular vote. Never mind that he got the majority of the popular vote in the majority of states.
It was actually simple in a way. The American people are smarter than most people thought. They read through all the BS they've been handed for years from all sides and warmed up to the only guy who heard their concerns and wanted to help them. It really doesn't matter exactly what he does as long as whatever it is is done with concern for these people. If he does that, he will get their support again in 2020. Unless the Democrats get away from their elite views, their race baiting and wedge issues, and other parochial viewpoints and get a candidate that can show honest concern to the average American who is suffering, they don't have a chance.
-
P.S. The other forums is where you make friends. The Coffee Corner is where you come to lose them ;)
Come on, Slobodan. Many of us are sufficiently skilled to lose friends in other parts of the forum too.
Jeremy
-
This same argument goes on every four years even if the popular vote comports with the electoral vote. Let's say the popular vote was 51% and 49%. The losers always say that the winner does not have a mandate because they 49% is so close to half. Therefore the winner should consider what the losers want. Of course the winner says, a win is a win, and we intend to push the winner's agenda. Well that's how it works.
Keep in mind that the Electoral percentage has not been talked about. It will probably come out roughly 55% for Trump vs. 45% Clinton. (300 Trump to 240 Clinton Electoral votes). So if you consider the electoral vote, you may actually get more comfort in knowing that a larger majority did select Trump from a Federal, constitutional and electoral perspective. Does 55% to 45% make you feel better?
I don't think anyone can argue they don't have a mandate, because that is how the system works, you can argue for changing the system, but not that there is no mandate. So I have no issue at all with Trump being elected.
I just have a problem with the idea that this necessarily reflects the will of the people when more people preferred someone other than Trump (not just those that voted Clinton, but also those that voted for other candidates and those who didn't vote), but this is more widespread an issue than this election e.g. about a quarter of the UK population voted for Brexit.
The issue just seems more obvious, when you have a close result, as it adds even more uncertainty over what "the people" want.
As to the 55% to 45%, making me feel better, well not really as I don't need to feel better about Trump being elected, that wasn't the point of my post.
But I suspect I am being over sensitive about this.
Cheers,
Graham
-
I enjoy discourse with my flesh and blood liberal friends as well as my virtual liberal acquaintances (I'm new here) even when I go home licking a few wounds or rarely inflicting a wound or two on them. I think even heated discourse with those who think differently from us is far more valuable than cordial discourse with those with whom we always agree.
Traveling today so I sadly can't contribute much to the conversion, but wanted to acknowledge and agree with this 100%. Y'all have fun ;)
-
... inflicting a wound or two on them..
Careful with that...we have friends here who take things quite literally, so don't be surprised if you are soon labeled as a "dangerous, violent predator." :D
-
Perhaps. But look at it how close it was from this angle: the whole weight of the System, Da Man, establishment, elite, pundits, media, Hollywood, CIA, generals, economists, Nobel prize winners, diplomats, former presidents, even his own party, everyone and his mother-in-law, a kitchen sink too, ganged up against one candidate. The newspapers which in 100 years never endorsed a Democratic candidate, changed sides. Published naked pictures of the candidate's wife. Pulled out and dusted off 15-20 year old tapes and tax returns. Whipped the public into a frenzy by demonizing him via grossly twisted interpretations of what he said. And yet he came as close as 0.2% of the popular vote. Never mind that he got the majority of the popular vote in the majority of states.
I'm not sure of the relevance of this as I'm not questioning his mandate to become President. I think he did incredibly well to win, and given the things against him it's not surprising the vote was close.
Cheers,
Graham
-
I'm curious about those who live in a Parliamentary country. The Prime Ministers get a much smaller percent of the total popular vote than in the US but becomes leader with the support of people who voted for someone else. Yet don't you accept your leader regardless of his or her tiny popular vote?
As an aside, do you know that Bill Clinton became President in 1992 with only 43% of the popular vote (There was a major third party candidates then.) Yet he ruled as if he had a mandate. Well he did. He had a majority of the electoral vote.
-
The best title ever:
Classes Being Canceled Because Trump Won Is Why Trump Won
Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/442083/donald-trump-school-closing-2016
-
I've just seen a video clip of Mike Pence explaining how evolution is 'just a theory'. So much weapons grade willful ignorance & stupidity is breathtaking. This is a man who is allowed out on his own, without a nurse to hold his hand. Utterly amazing. Suddenly Donald Trump doesn't seem so bad, and you'd better all hope that he survives the next four years, because if Pence gets to the top job, you're really screwed.
-
I'm curious about those who live in a Parliamentary country. The Prime Ministers get a much smaller percent of the total popular vote than in the US but becomes leader with the support of people who voted for someone else. Yet don't you accept your leader regardless of his or her tiny popular vote?
I think most prime ministers in a parliamentary country have much less power then the president of the US.
Also if there are more then 2 parties he needs to make a coalition with other parties and develop a government program in which something of all these parties comes back (otherwise they won't join his coalition). So it's more a matter of accepting a complete (multi party) government vs. just accepting one man in charge. Examples I'm thinking of here are Belgium and the Netherlands (two countries I have lived in).
I'm not saying this is better or worse then the US system, but I'm trying to answer your question of how the people accept the outcome of the elections and selection of the Prime Minister and his government, despite the fact that the PM (or his party) has a popular vote significantly below 50%
-
I've just seen a video clip of Mike Pence explaining how evolution is 'just a theory'. So much weapons grade willful ignorance & stupidity is breathtaking. This is a man who is allowed out on his own, without a nurse to hold his hand. Utterly amazing. Suddenly Donald Trump doesn't seem so bad, and you'd better all hope that he survives the next four years, because if Pence gets to the top job, you're really screwed.
This kind of thinking is why Trump won. You laugh at people's core beliefs. You don't get it. Oh well.
-
I've just seen a video clip of Mike Pence explaining how evolution is 'just a theory'. So much weapons grade willful ignorance & stupidity is breathtaking. This is a man who is allowed out on his own, without a nurse to hold his hand. Utterly amazing. Suddenly Donald Trump doesn't seem so bad, and you'd better all hope that he survives the next four years, because if Pence gets to the top job, you're really screwed.
I have no problem with Pence stating this as his belief, the first amendment makes sure he can and for me that's even more important then the second amendment. I'm free to disagree with him (which I do) and that's enough for me.
However I hope that Trump/Pence will fight as hard to uphold this first amendment (and article 6) as forcefully as they hold up the second amendment and not let these religious beliefs penetrate in the public schooling and governmental policy.
-
Come on, Slobodan. Many of us are sufficiently skilled to lose friends in other parts of the forum too.
Jeremy
You see? There we go again: underestimating the voter! But as PTB said, and I quote:
“Nobody ever lost a dollar by underestimating the taste of the American public.”
― P.T. Barnum
That Mr Barnum is so handy: he covers almost everything, including things he doesn't cover at all.
Were I an American and a voter, I'd think this:
Mrs Clinton walks about with her mouth wide open, and has this nervous twitch that makes her raise her arm and point at nothing in particular. As if that were not enough, she has this messianic arm-spreading complex too, where she thinks she's standing on the top of a hill in Rio. She might, instead, have seen Titanic. Either way, she signals anything but a healthy state of mind. There's every chance that she may not be allowed out there in public for much longer, so perhaps better to choose somebody else.
Mr Trump has this interesting habit of, allegedly, creating situations that will aid his wife during her divorce. Obviously, then, this man does not learn from experience. As bad, for him, will he still have his thatch at the end of his tenure (of office, of course)? Clearly, there's not actually much more that I can think to say about him, so I guess I'd better just not vote at all. There goes another lost opportunity.
How much more simple life as a self-exiled Brit!
Rob
-
I think most prime ministers in a parliamentary country have much less power then the president of the US.
Also if there are more then 2 parties he needs to make a coalition with other parties and develop a government program in which something of all these parties comes back (otherwise they won't join his coalition). So it's more a matter of accepting a complete (multi party) government vs. just accepting one man in charge. Examples I'm thinking of here are Belgium and the Netherlands (two countries I have lived in).
I'm not saying this is better or worse then the US system, but I'm trying to answer your question of how the people accept the outcome of the elections and selection of the Prime Minister and his government, despite the fact that the PM (or his party) has a popular vote significantly below 50%
I'm not saying our system is better either. I'm just pointing out to those who complain that Trump got less than Hillary but almost 50% of the popular vote, that in parliamentary countries the eventual Prime Minister's popular vote is substantially less. Having Parliamentarians from other parties make back room deals to get certain things from the leading party is not about the popular vote directly. It's like making a sausage. So complaints about the Electoral system being archaic is misplaced. I guess there's no perfect system.
-
I'm not saying our system is better either. I'm just pointing out to those who complain that Trump got less than Hillary but almost 50% of the popular vote, that in parliamentary countries the eventual Prime Minister's popular vote is substantially less. Having Parliamentarians from other parties make back room deals to get certain things from the leading party is not about the popular vote directly. It's like making a sausage. So complaints about the Electoral system being archaic is misplaced. I guess there's no perfect system.
Well, at least in the Netherlands and Belgium it's not a "back room deal", the full government program is published and publicly debated. But I agree it's a sausage ;)
-
I'm not saying our system is better either. I'm just pointing out to those who complain that Trump got less than Hillary but almost 50% of the popular vote, that in parliamentary countries the eventual Prime Minister's popular vote is substantially less. Having Parliamentarians from other parties make back room deals to get certain things from the leading party is not about the popular vote directly. It's like making a sausage. So complaints about the Electoral system being archaic is misplaced. I guess there's no perfect system.
Absolutely not if you wish to include some sort of liberty in it. But wait, there are interesting things going down in Turkey, press freedom being one of them. Perfection may be close! Hasn't that been tried before, though?
Rob
-
I'm curious about those who live in a Parliamentary country. The Prime Ministers get a much smaller percent of the total popular vote than in the US but becomes leader with the support of people who voted for someone else. Yet don't you accept your leader regardless of his or her tiny popular vote?
In the UK, we have no say in who the Prime Minister is. We vote for a local member of parliament (MP). The party with the most MPs becomes the Government and the party decides who leads it and hence becomes Prime Minister. Having said that, you do know before you vote who 'current" the leader of each party is, so you could allow that to influence your vote, but I suspect most people vote for the party and just accept who the party leader is. The party can also change the leader whenever they want, even when in power.
The winning party often only gets around 1/3rd of the votes, but that is just how the system works, and you need some sort of system.
Minority parties can do very badly e.g. Nigel Farage's UKIP party got 12.6 % of the votes, but only 1 (out of 650) parliamentary seats, with this system, and there is some pressure from some quarters for proportional representation, raher than first past the post, but there doesn't seem to much enthusiasm for it.
But it does mean that in the UK we are nearly always run by a Government that the majority don't want to be there !!
Cheers,
Graham
-
I'm not saying our system is better either. I'm just pointing out to those who complain that Trump got less than Hillary but almost 50% of the popular vote, that in parliamentary countries the eventual Prime Minister's popular vote is substantially less.
In terms of who is elected in a specific election there is no purpose in complaining, as that is just how the system works. You could however complain about the system, and propose a change to proportional representation, but I think that brings its own problems.
Cheers,
Graham
-
This kind of thinking is why Trump won. You laugh at people's core beliefs. You don't get it. Oh well.
He's perfectly entitled to his beliefs & opinions, but this man is set to be one bullet away from being President, and if he's so utterly ignorant of science, so divorced from reality ...
-
Hold on, Bill, evolution IS a theory, isn't it?
-
... one bullet away from being President..
Just noticed that. Is that a not-so-thinly vailed hope for a Trump's assassination?
-
Hold on, Bill, evolution IS a theory, isn't it?
Theory. It's a term used loosely in popular parlance, and even by some scientists when communicating with the general public. But in the doing of science it has a precise meaning: a theory is an explanation of known facts, a coherent accounting of gathered data.
Natural selection is a theory. A theory of evolution. It's been much refined and updated since Darwin's time and will continue to be so in response to more data and more thorough analysis. Evolution itself, though, is an observable parameter of biological reality. It's visible in the fossil record and in the DNA of past & present lifeforms. We can make it happen in the laboratory. It's as real as liquid water is wet.
Political implications of this, if any? IMO that's for politicians to deal with.
-Dave-
-
Some data for those of you who might be interested. The 2016 numbers aren't final but are pretty close to it.
Voter Turnout 2012
Total: 129.2m
Obama: 65.9m
Romney: 60.9m
3rd party: 2.4m
Voter Turnout 2016
Total: 127.5m (so far)
Clinton: 60.6 (-5.3m)
Trump: 60.1 (-824K)
3rd party: 6.8m (+4.4m)
Johnson: 4.1m
Stein: 1.3m
Other: 1.4m
-Dave-
-
You got to watch this:
Who's to blame for Trump? The left!
https://www.facebook.com/viralthread/videos/598130190359668/
-
You got to watch this:
Who's to blame for Trump? The left!
https://www.facebook.com/viralthread/videos/598130190359668/
So f*** true. And yet they keep looking elsewhere -- in fact, everywhere except in a mirror.
Good Lord, we even have this: 'Crazy' to say Facebook helped Trump win - Zuckerberg (http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-37946713)
::)
-
You got to watch this:
Who's to blame for Trump? The left!
https://www.facebook.com/viralthread/videos/598130190359668/
Thank God for the secret ballot. Funny that Trump didn't care. His thumbing his nose at political correctness was refreshing even if grating. It often made you feel queasy.
But now that he's won, he has corrected his speech. Note how he mainly complements everyone. Many years ago, long before he got into politics, I noticed how he always seemed to complement people even if they disagreed with him, even with competitors. He seemed to operate on the principal that you catch more flies with honey than vinegar. As a businessman myself, I took notice because I saw he was very successful and wondered how he operated. Now he's falling back into that way of expressing himself. Complementing Obama, Hillary, Bill and others. Even Putin. Building up their ego. Making them feel good about themselves and Trump. I think you're going to see a lot more of that. He will build bridges to Congress, especially the Democrats. Sane with foreign leaders. People are going to realize what an act he put on for the election. His persona was all hyperbole.
-
You got to watch this:
Who's to blame for Trump? The left!
https://www.facebook.com/viralthread/videos/598130190359668/
Wow! I think he absolutely nailed that. Thanks for the link.
As for the current status of evolution as `theory'.... Well yes, yes it is. But so is our current understanding of gravity......hummmm!
-
You got to watch this:
Who's to blame for Trump? The left!
https://www.facebook.com/viralthread/videos/598130190359668/
Same thing on YouTube (the original, I guess), I find it more comfortable to watch there (I have to admit I watched it several times...):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GLG9g7BcjKs
And, yes, if one still blames Facebook, FBI, moon phase etc., they have to watch this.
-
Good to see an American appreciation of
English humour some much needed levity...
(https://farm6.staticflickr.com/5809/30896039966_0d4143f040_b.jpg)
-
I have no problem with Pence stating this as his belief
I have no problem with Pence stating this as his belief. I have a big problem with someone in power having such a stupid belief.
-
Some data for those of you who might be interested. The 2016 numbers aren't final but are pretty close to it.
Voter Turnout 2012
Total: 129.2m
Obama: 65.9m
Romney: 60.9m
3rd party: 2.4m
Voter Turnout 2016
Total: 127.5m (so far)
Clinton: 60.6 (-5.3m)
Trump: 60.1 (-824K)
3rd party: 6.8m (+4.4m)
Johnson: 4.1m
Stein: 1.3m
Other: 1.4m
-Dave-
Looks to me like >4MM Obama voters preferred third party voting to Hillary. That's a pretty big protest vote (possibly the hard core Bernie voters). Interesting thing will be to see what happens when you subtract the illegal voters. 2020 will be a good test.
-
Same thing on YouTube (the original, I guess), I find it more comfortable to watch there (I have to admit I watched it several times...):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GLG9g7BcjKs
And, yes, if one still blames Facebook, FBI, moon phase etc., they have to watch this.
Hi,
While I agree with large parts of his analysis rant, he skips one important reason why Trump got elected. He was the nominated presidential candidate of the Republican party, so they are to blame for not coming up with a better candidate.
In addition, they are also partly to blame for the disgruntlement of large groups in the population, because they tried everything possible to block any progress that could have come from an across-the-aisle / bi-partisan cooperation in congress, with the sole purpose of making Obama fail. Thus a monster of Frankenstein, Trump, was created and he got out of their control.
Other very valid reasons for Trump's election are indeed the superficial one-sided 'information' (due to so-called bubble filtering) people tend to get from the internet (Facebook/Google search hides alternative opinions/views based on one's prior searches/likes), and the simple fact that large groups of persons didn't vote for Trump, but they voted for the Republican candidate (regardless, or despite, of who that was). It seems that very few Republicans voted for a non-republican candidate. I think that the total turnout of voter numbers (as a percentage of growing population) was even lower than the previous election(s), so that would magnify the motivated (in part protest) voter's influence.
That is not to say that there is no reason for being disappointed in previous governments, but that's the USA for ya. A dwindling middle class is the result, and the gap between haves and have-nots is only going to increase. Blaming only one of the flavors of government is too simple, both are responsible for neglecting the people and going after personal gain and future lobbying positions. I do encourage to take notice of the TED talks by Lawrence Lessig, like the one about Lesterland (http://lesterland.lessig.org/).
A basically 2 party system is also something that is not really helpful in mitigating the ill-thought through (or dubiously motivated) plans of either ruling party, so decisions (that could have been amended prior to implementation) by one government can be overturned by the next. This is not good for efficiency, predictability, and trust in government. In a somewhat different political system where coalitions (between several parties that in total represent a larger majority of the population) need to be forged to get laws to pass, there tends to be a more predictable evolution in lawmaking, gradually adapting to progressive insights that come with experience.
Anyway, Trump got elected, and that's what the system produced. People often tend to get the government that they deserve..., too bad that the rest of the world (that obviously had no say in the matter) also get to endure some of the negative consequences.
Cheers,
Bart
-
Just noticed that. Is that a not-so-thinly vailed hope for a Trump's assassination?
How do you get from a simple statement of fact, to the idea that I might be hoping for it? I meant precisely what i said. I might have said a heart attack, a stroke, alien abduction & a failure to return him. The point is that one event could leave Pence in charge, a man for whom evidence means very little (despite his law background), at least where it contradicts his mythological fancies. Evidence-based policy on climate change? Forget it; Jesus is coming to take the good boys & girls off to a special place, so why worry about the future of the planet? At least Trump is able to understand that it doesn't make good business sense to utterly trash the place.
-
Good to see an American appreciation of English humour some much needed levity...
(https://farm6.staticflickr.com/5809/30896039966_0d4143f040_b.jpg)
Are there any left there after Brexit? ;)
-
Good to see an American appreciation of English humour some much needed levity...
(https://farm6.staticflickr.com/5809/30896039966_0d4143f040_b.jpg)
As an American, I wouldn't buy from that store. I'd walk right by. Signs like that are why Clinton lost. Basically her calling Trump supporters "deplorables", and the media and the left as well as Republican, Democrat and media elites not showing respect for many Americans who are just plain spoken people who are hurting due to the economic mess. That sign is representative of all the late night talk show hosts laughing at these people who live in "fly over" country. This is "Brexit" and will be the same stuff happening in other countries in Europe next year unless they learn the lesson and begin to understand and respect these people.
-
C'mon Alan, don't take this so seriously. Sometimes a little humour and self reflection can actually help release the tension.
-
I have no problem with Pence stating this as his belief. I have a big problem with someone in power having such a stupid belief.
You can't get a persons' vote if you call their religious beliefs "stupid". This is why the Liberals, Democrats and media lost large swaths of the electorate.
-
C'mon Alan, don't take this so seriously. Sometimes a little humour and self reflection can actually help release the tension.
+1
-
C'mon Alan, don't take this so seriously. Sometimes a little humour and self reflection can actually help release the tension.
The sign is cute and I do have a good sense of humor. But I still wouldn't go in. The thing is you have to understand the constant joke making in American media, Hollywood, TV, newspapers, late-night stand-up comedian shows, etc. about people who have different views from the elite left. The put downs, disrespect, jokes and other demeaning insults are constant. Reminds me of the line from the comedian Rodney Dangerfield, "I don't get no respect."
-
OK I'll lighten up. Here's what everyone thinks of everyone else. Pretty funny.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WDqayC1sR7g
-
How do you get from a simple statement of fact, to the idea that I might be hoping for it?...
It is called a Freudian slip, Bill. You of all people should know it ;)
-
You can't get a persons' vote if you call their religious beliefs "stupid". This is why the Liberals, Democrats and media lost large swaths of the electorate.
C'mon Alan, even the word 'stupid (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/stupid)' has multiple possible meanings in the English language (even I as a non-native English speaker know that). Picking only the most negative of the possible meanings reflects a certain state of mind that's not an example of an agile mindset, and demonstrates a lack of humor to boot.
Cheers,
Bart
P.S. Frustration, even if understandable, is a poor guide for reactions.
-
You can't get a persons' vote if you call their religious beliefs "stupid".
I'm not looking to get peoples' votes, I'm just stating fact. The First Amendment guarantees the right to say what you believe. It does not create an obligation for anyone else to treat those expressed beliefs with anything other than the contempt they deserve.
-
...The thing is you have to understand the constant joke making in American media, Hollywood, TV, newspapers, late-night stand-up comedian shows, etc. about people who have different views from the elite left. The put downs, disrespect, jokes and other demeaning insults are constant....
Then again, the other side also uses all that about the other other side too. Jokes and labels about minorities, fringe groups, etc. The PC crowd wants to impose a solution, by force if necessary, that will prohibit the other side from saying things they label non-PC, while reserving the right for themselves to continue labeling them as "racist, bigots. etc." My solution is that we should be able to joke at each other expense relentlessly. As Pegelli pointed out, that actually releases the tension.
-
C'mon Alan, even the word 'stupid (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/stupid)' has multiple possible meanings in the English language (even I as a non-native English speaker know that). Picking only the most negative of the possible meanings reflects a certain state of mind that's not an example of an agile mindset, and demonstrates a lack of humor to boot.
Cheers,
Bart
P.S. Frustration, even if understandable, is a poor guide for reactions.
Oh. come on Bart! You've outdone yourself with that one. Calling someone stupid (or as you euphemistically phrased it as "a certain state of mind that's not an example of an agile mindset") for understanding the word "stupid" to mean "stupid" is well... stupid.
-
As an American, I wouldn't buy from that store. I'd walk right by.
Alan – a 'pub' isn't a store, it's a bar.
And I wouldn't have reposted it if it hadn't come from an American himself and anything but a 'leftie' – look him up on Wikipedia. The Brits are masters at self-deprecating humour – just this time by an American, on the other side of the pond.
-
Oh. come on Bart! You've outdone yourself with that one.
Thanks, I strive to improve myself.
Cheers,
Bart
-
You got to watch this:
Who's to blame for Trump? The left!
https://www.facebook.com/viralthread/videos/598130190359668/
There's an honest leftist. Demonizing your enemies means ignoring the truth. And the truth has a funny habit of being true. If you made believe that Hillary Clinton was a good person it gets kinda hard to convince people that you know what you're talking about when you call Donald Trump Hitler. And then when the Bernie voters saw on Wikileaks how their guy was screwed over by the DNC and the Media it really got kinda hard to feel morally superior to republicans or get excited about voting for the Harpy.
-
The sign is cute ... But I still wouldn't go in...
I would... and ask if anyone would volunteer to be my chaperone and sponsor me for a pint :)
-
Demonizing your enemies means ignoring the truth.
Yup, Trump never demonized Clinton, right! That's probably why he won ;)
-
Just noticed that. Is that a not-so-thinly vailed hope for a Trump's assassination?
And in a related news...
-
Then again, the other side also uses all that about the other other side too. Jokes and labels about minorities, fringe groups, etc. The PC crowd wants to impose a solution, by force if necessary, that will prohibit the other side from saying things they label non-PC, while reserving the right for themselves to continue labeling them as "racist, bigots. etc." My solution is that we should be able to joke at each other expense relentlessly. As Pegelli pointed out, that actually releases the tension.
I agree with you up to a point. And that is the left controls the media, newspapers, Hollywood, etc. So most of the insults and putdowns come from them. It seems most of the jokesters on on both liberal coasts making fun of the flyover people in the middle in the middle of the country. The very people in the swing states of Pennsylvania, Ohio, Florida, and Wisconsin who voted for Trump.
-
Updated 2016 numbers, reflecting ~1 million additional votes tallied:
Total turnout: 128.5m (-700K from 2012)
Clinton: 61.1m (-4.8m from Obama in 2012)
Trump: 60.5m (-400K from Romney in 2012)
3rd party: 6.9m (+4.5m from 2012)
-Dave-
-
And in a related news...
Are you sure she isn't talking about Obama? ;)
JK, all this protest, violence, intimidation, threats, hyperboles, demonizing, hate against minorities is absolutely counterproductive.
After two days it's already very clear that "Trump the candidate" is a very different person from "Trump the president elect", give the guy a chance to demonstrate what he is capable of rather then judge him by the words he uttered to get elected. When Reagan got elected also a lot of people were afraid the world would end in a big nuclear blast, but in the end it didn't turn out all that bad either.
-
Are you sure she isn't talking about Obama? ;)
JK, all this protest, violence, intimidation, threats, hyperboles, demonizing, hate against minorities is absolutely counterproductive.
After two days it's already very clear that "Trump the candidate" is a very different person from "Trump the president elect", give the guy a chance to demonstrate what he is capable of rather then judge him by the words he uttered to get elected. When Reagan got elected also a lot of people were afraid the world would end in a big nuclear blast, but in the end it didn't turn out all that bad either.
Pieter, you got it. He really isn't what he presented during the elections. Like Trump, I'm from Queens, NYC so I know the type. I also had a sub-contracting construction firm back in the 1980's and 90's and dealt with many NYC real estate developers like Trump but never Trump himself. They're mostly all the same. Cheap, hard bargainers, narcissistic, looking to save a penny, tough yet charitable. Cruz also had it pretty much right when he called him a New York liberal.
Another thing I noticed years ago about him. He always complemented people (for the most part), even his enemies and competitors. As near as I could figure out he didn't like burning bridges. You may need that person in the future. Plus you catch more flies with honey than vinegar. All the cursing, vile words etc during the campaign were to create his brand and get people to notice him and vote for him. But through the nasty way he often projected himself, many people understood that he was for them and they gave him their vote.
Now that the election is over, you already see the complements to Obama, Hillary, Bill and others. He will negotiate and smooth talk the Democrats in Congress to get things done. He'll balance that with toughness, something needed if you're a CEO or President. People are going to be very surprised when they see his true personality and will grow to like him very much like Reagan. He's going to be a very effective President for America.
-
The fact that bullshitting your way into office is routine, particularly at the US national level, is at the core of why I'm a non-partisan and why I feel the entire enterprise is an obscenity. That the electorate seems to prefer the shitshow to a considered discussion and evaluation of issues says nothing positive about us.
IMO you get the government you deserve. Maybe not at an individual level but at a societal level, yes.
-Dave-
-
Yup, Trump never demonized Clinton, right! That's probably why he won ;)
The two candidates are supposed to attack each other. That's how it works. The fellow in the film clip (someone in the media who by his own admission is a progressive) correctly diagnosed the problem of the media using their megaphone to shout down the people they don't like by branding them as whatever scary label they could think of (racist, sexist, homophobe, transphobe, climate denier, islamophobe, xyzphobe, etc., etc., etc.). Eventually the unevenhandedness becomes obvious. Once the media lose credibility then even a game show host who paints his head orange and marries models for a hobby becomes a more reliable purveyor of the truth than the newspapers and tv talking heads. That's why he won. Because what he said was closer to what these people experienced in their own lives than what everyone else claimed to be the case. Trump was the little orange headed boy who said the emperor had no clothes. So they voted for him. Very simple.
-
The fact that bullshitting your way into office is routine, particularly at the US national level, is at the core of why I'm a non-partisan and why I feel the entire enterprise is an obscenity. That the electorate seems to prefer the shitshow to a considered discussion and evaluation of issues says nothing positive about us.
IMO you get the government you deserve. Maybe not at an individual level but at a societal level, yes.
-Dave-
Discussion and evaluations of policies are nice especially if the people are running for Senator or Congressman who vote for this policy or that. But being a governor or a President is mainly about leadership, not necessarily about policies although people knew where both candidates stood on issues. Being a good debater or a policy expert, does not mean you know how to execute. You want to know what the President is made of, how they'll handle themselves especially when the scales are stacked against them. Will they fight or surrender? Will they compromise or pout? Do you trust them or not? These are the things that were on display for the last year. It was quite a show on both sides.
-
The two candidates are supposed to attack each other. That's how it works. The fellow in the film clip (someone in the media who by his own admission is a progressive) correctly diagnosed the problem of the media using their megaphone to shout down the people they don't like by branding them as whatever scary label they could think of (racist, sexist, homophobe, transphobe, climate denier, islamophobe, xyzphobe, etc., etc., etc.). Eventually the unevenhandedness becomes obvious. Once the media lose credibility then even a game show host who paints his head orange and marries models for a hobby becomes a more reliable purveyor of the truth than the newspapers and tv talking heads. That's why he won. Because what he said was closer to what these people experienced in their own lives than what everyone else claimed to be the case. Trump was the little orange headed boy who said the emperor had no clothes. So they voted for him. Very simple.
I have no problem with all that you're saying, but it's a joke that Trump didn't demonize Clinton. He did (and so did his followers). But he got away with it because nobody else was following him. So it's not the demonizing that got him elected, it's the fact that of the two evils he seemed the lesser evil as well as willing to listen to what the people really wanted.
And while it was clear for his followers that he wasn't a racist, sexist, homophobe, transphobe, climate denier, islamophobe, xyzphobe, etc., etc., etc. it also cannot be denied that many of his remarks were racist, sexist, homophobe, transphobe, climate denier, islamophobe, xyzphobe, etc., etc., etc. But it got him elected, so the conclusion now is that it worked.
-
I have no problem with all that you're saying, but it's a joke that Trump didn't demonize Clinton. He did (and so did his followers). But he got away with it because nobody else was following him. So it's not the demonizing that got him elected, it's the fact that of the two evils he seemed the lesser evil as well as willing to listen to what the people really wanted.
And while it was clear for his followers that he wasn't a racist, sexist, homophobe, transphobe, climate denier, islamophobe, xyzphobe, etc., etc., etc. it also cannot be denied that many of his remarks were racist, sexist, homophobe, transphobe, climate denier, islamophobe, xyzphobe, etc., etc., etc. But it got him elected, so the conclusion now is that it worked.
They demonized each other. That's called politics. We expect that.
-
Eventually the unevenhandedness becomes obvious.
Ah, so Hilary talked about grabbing pussy, assaulted women, promised to ban Muslims, belittled war heroes, mocked the disabled, but the media didn't report it. Thanks for clearing that up.
-
Demonizing your enemies means ignoring the truth.
They demonized each other. That's called politics. We expect that.
OK, I get it ;)
-
Ah, so Hilary talked about grabbing pussy, assaulted women, promised to ban Muslims, belittled war heroes, mocked the disabled, but the media didn't report it. Thanks for clearing that up.
No it was about Hillary enriching herself selling political favors; about putting herself before the country's interest; about caring little about the little man and woman.
-
Ah, so Hilary talked about grabbing pussy, assaulted women, promised to ban Muslims, belittled war heroes, mocked the disabled, but the media didn't report it. Thanks for clearing that up.
grabbing pussy, assaulted women Listen to the tape and you'll realize you're listening to a rich guy describing the contestants trying out for the "So You Wanna Be Donald Trump's Next Wife" show. Let's face it. That's the world he lives in. Doesn't suck to be him.
promised to ban Muslims, After the latest two mass killings by first generation muslim americans I'm guessing this was considered a feature not a bug in the Trump program by most Americans.
belittled war heroes, mocked the disabled, Yeah, Trump can talk a lot of trash to people who go after him. He can act like a real jerk. But we saw how nice Mitt Romney was when he was being attacked by the press and he got his butt kicked. So people go with the guy who can defend himself. That doesn't mean they don't think he's a bit of a jerk. Just not a whimp.
By the way, read some of Hillary's private comments in wikileaks. She's also more than a bit of a jerk.
-
No it was about Hillary enriching herself selling political favors; about putting herself before the country's interest; about caring little about the little man and woman.
Well, luckily for us we can rely on you and your independent non-media-based investigation. Phew!!
-
belittled war heroes, mocked the disabled, Yeah, Trump can talk a lot of trash to people who go after him. He can act like a real jerk. But we saw how nice Mitt Romney was when he was being attacked by the press and he got his butt kicked. So people go with the guy who can defend himself. That doesn't mean they don't think he's a bit of a jerk. Just not a whimp.
Just to highlight one item from your string of nonsense - you think it's somehow being a tough guy to make fun of a person's disability? I think that tells us as much as we need to know.
-
Just to highlight one item from your string of nonsense - you think it's somehow being a tough guy to make fun of a person's disability? I think that tells us as much as we need to know.
Come on now, we don't want to discriminate against anyone by not allowing him to be mocked by Donald Trump. He made fun of Jeb Bush for being low energy. He claimed Ted Cruz's father was involved in the Kennedy assassination. He said Ben Carson was pathological and that the Pope was a communist. Why would you want to be left out of a club with so many high achievers. The only one who can complain because Trump didn't lie about him is Bill Clinton. It was no lie when Trump said Clinton was a rapist.
-
It was no lie when Trump said Clinton was a rapist.
And you know that because .. Oh, no. You don't know it at all.
Whereas ...
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/people/donald-trump-ex-wife-claim-he-raped-her-resurfaces-in-new-documentary-a6836151.html
-
And you know that because .. Oh, no. You don't know it at all.
Whereas ...
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/people/donald-trump-ex-wife-claim-he-raped-her-resurfaces-in-new-documentary-a6836151.html
As Hillary Clinton very wisely said, "if a woman claims to have been raped, she must be believed." Surely you're not a misogynist or something?
-
Surely you're not a misogynist or something?
Nope. But nice try at deflecting the attention from Trump.
-
As Hillary Clinton very wisely said, "if a woman claims to have been raped, she must be believed."
Did she say that, really?
What she really said (https://www.hillaryclinton.com/issues/campus-sexual-assault/) is somewhat different (as can be expected from someone with a legal background), but that apparently eludes those who want to twist the facts in their favor over the backs of actual sexual assault victims. Disgusting.
But then that so called quote of yours is just to divert attention, so I'll leave it at that. Enough said.
Cheers,
Bart
-
That is not to say that there is no reason for being disappointed in previous governments, but that's the USA for ya.
I beg to differ on this one, Bart. That's by far not just "the USA for ya", it's everywhere. The guy in the video is a Brit (and he always talks about US and GB), and I can also assure you that in Russia it is exactly the same way.
Who "created" Putin? "Liberal" (yes, in quotes; read on) scumbags and their media; look no farther.
Media, media, f*** media. Screwing reality 7/24. And then, of course, everything comes as a huge freaking surprise!
Crimea has about ~90% Russian-speaking population, about 7% Crimean Tatar, and 3% Ukrainian. What did Ukraine do? First, they banned Russian in Crimean cinemas, all movies had to be translated to Ukrainian. All shop names etc. in the streets etc. had to be in Ukrainian only. Then then-president Uschenko visited Crimea and noticed road signs in Russian -- those also had to go.
Then president Yanikovich (an unspeakable crook, but that's not the point) made concessions, and introduced the notion of a "regional" (as opposed to "state") language. What was the first thing done after the coup? They scraped it. This followed by nightly parades with torches (looking exactly like those in Germany of 30th), with slogans like "Moscovites to the gallows"... Russian journalists filming that got severely beaten.
Did many Westerners hear about any of that? Did they see those night Nazi-style parades with oceans of torches? If not, then of course subsequent Crimean events, including the overwhelming vote to join Russia, would come as a huge freaking surprise ("Brexit 0").
But when Russian government shuts down radio station run by the group behind "Crimean blockade", it's all over the news on BBC and elsewhere. Speaking of that "blockade": they shut down water supply to the peninsula, then blew up electricity supply lines, leaving ordinary people with scarce water and almost no electricity. What did all those "liberals" and "human rights" groups say? NOTHING. They are first to defend Khodorkovsky, who amassed $15 billions in just few years, allegedly ordering assassination of the major of Nefteyugansk in the process, but ordinary people? Nah, that's not interesting, that doesn't draw enough attention to them...
And guess what, those "ordinary people" still get it, everywhere. I remember that, when I visited UK in early 200th, I came to a small hotel (a dozen rooms above a pub, near Cambridge), and second thing after greetings an old lady at the desk said to me was "That Abramovich, he is a crook, right?". Yes, mam, he is. And yet if Putin ever touches him as he did with Khodorkovsky (unlikely, as what triggered crackdown on Khodorkovsky was his presidential ambitions; he wanted to own the whole country), "liberal" media will cry foul, aloud.
Berezovsky buys votes, wholesale, and makes Mikhail Evdokimov (a standup comedian!) governor of Altai Krai. That's somehow OK -- democratic process etc., no objections. But people saw what was happening... So when Putin scrapped the right to elect governors and started to appoint them, that went down pretty well with the majority.
Berezovsky... Ah, that a huge story in itself, but suffice to say that portraying (and supporting!) that beast as Putin's opponent by Western media was way better than open endorsement of Putin! Berezosky and Abramovich arguing in High Court about how exactly they stole the money from Russian people... Heck, Martha Stuart went to jail for 1/1000th of that!
Recently, one of the "human rights" groups got purged out of the building (central Moscow) they rented because they could not pay their bills. That's a bad thing, right? Well, right. But all I've seen from them so far is protecting oligarchs, gays, etc. They cannot be more detached from the reality, from what this country's biggest issues are. So I would not go as far as the guy in the video with his "No sympathy whatsoever", but I do have very little sympathy indeed.
Detachment from reality: this is where it all starts; in the US and elsewhere.
-
Did she say that, really?...
-
... Media, media, f*** media. Screwing reality 7/24. And then, of course, everything comes as a huge freaking surprise!
Crimea has...
+1
-
Did she say that, really?
What she really said (https://www.hillaryclinton.com/issues/campus-sexual-assault/) is somewhat different (as can be expected from someone with a legal background), but that apparently eludes those who want to twist the facts in their favor over the backs of actual sexual assault victims. Disgusting.
But then that so called quote of yours is just to divert attention, so I'll leave it at that. Enough said.
Cheers,
Bart
She had it on her website until Trump had Bill's victims show up. Then she scrubbed it. (http://www.snopes.com/hillary-clinton-right-to-be-believed/ )
The list of Bill Clinton's accusers include women in the US and the UK and include Juanita Broaddrick, Kathleen Willey, Paula Corbin, Sandra Allen James, Eileen Wellstone, Christy Zercher and others.
See link for more. http://www.albertpeia.com/oxfordassault.htm
Hillary Clinton claims to be a feminist but apparently Bill gets a pass to do whatever he wants. I think Trump is way out of his league when it comes to insensitivity to women's issues.
-
Hi Slobodan,
Tough dilemma, what to believe, a tweet, or Hillary speaking the (different) words herself.
In logic, I think that phenomenon is called "Confirmation bias".
As I said, it's a diversion (from the topic of Trump's credibility and character), also a common debating technique.
Cheers,
Bart
-
Hi Slobodan,
Tough dilemma, what to believe, a tweet, or Hillary speaking the (different) words herself...
Different words? Those exact words were a part of her website, including videos with the words inscribed:
-
I beg to differ on this one, Bart. That's by far not just "the USA for ya", it's everywhere.
Hi,
I agree, but I didn't say it was just or only in the USA.
However, there are some significant differences between the US government and most other (systems of) Governments. But that's something for another thread, some other time.
As for those who 'predicted'/warned about the disappearing of a "middle class", it's interesting to listen to Jaron Lanier (http://techonomy.com/conf/te14/future-revolutions/owns-future/) explaining his vision on the matter. Oh, and don't let his looks deceive you, he wasn't named one of TIME's 100 most influential people in 2010 without reason. Here (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jaron_Lanier#Who_Owns_the_Future_.282013.29)'s a bit of background on him.
Cheers,
Bart
-
Different words? Those exact words were a part of her website, including videos with the words inscribed:
Did you miss the webpage with the video that I already linked to? Have you listened to what she actually said?
"Don't let anyone silence your voice. You have a right to be heard, and you have a right to be believed".
That's not the same as what the super condensed tweet (is it even hers?) makes of her actual message.
Besides, 'rape' and 'sexual assault' are a closely related (but in most jurisdictions technically distinct) form of assault. Clinton, with a legal background, would know that, and that's why she said what she said.
Confirmation bias, and diversion from president-elect Trump's behavior.
Cheers,
Bart
-
Did you miss the webpage with the video that I already linked to? Have you listened to what she actually said?
"Don't let anyone silence your voice. You have a right to be heard, and you have a right to be believed".
That's not the same as what the super condensed tweet (is it even hers?) makes of her actual message.
Confirmation bias, and diversion from president-elect Trump's behavior.
Cheers,
Bart
Oh, come on, Bart. You started this by asking "is that what she said?" It has been shown to you and anyone who wants to see that she said exactly that. It has been shown in a tweet, in her web site, and in her video. If you don't want to admit it, that is up to you.
As for diversion... the topic of this thread is "election" so both leading candidates are a fair game for examination of their behavior, character and stance, not just Trump.
-
Did you miss the webpage with the video that I already linked to? Have you listened to what she actually said?
"Don't let anyone silence your voice. You have a right to be heard, and you have a right to be believed".
That's not the same as what the super condensed tweet (is it even hers?) makes of her actual message.
Besides, 'rape' and 'sexual assault' are a closely related (but in most jurisdictions technically distinct) form of assault. Clinton, with a legal background, would know that, and that's why she said what she said.
Confirmation bias, and diversion from president-elect Trump's behavior.
Cheers,
Bart
Being nonpolitical here for a moment - I think a spouse is generally going to give their partner the benefit of the doubt (especially publicly) in a similar situation, as we all want to believe in the best of and support those we love. I'm willing give Hillary a pass on defending Bill's unproven behavior, just as I'm willing to give Melania a pass on her continued support of her husband. (I'll also say that I've found the left's attacks on Melania to be hypocritical in many other ways, FWIW...)
Looks like y'all have been busy while I was away ;)
-
... I think a spouse is generally going to give their partner the benefit of the doubt...
In other words, "any other man on the planet but my husband is presumed guilty until proven innocent - because, you know, why would women lie?"
Welcome back, btw :)
-
Oh, come on, Bart. You started this by asking "is that what she said?"
Oh, come on Slobodan. I didn't start this, I responded to a text that suggested (without linking to a source) a literal quote from something that Hillary Clinton supposedly said. It wasn't, it was a tweet, and not what she actually said. I just pointed that out.
I know full well that my command of the English language leaves a lot to be desired, but the difference between speaking and tweeting is clear to me. Is it clear to you (especially when the tweet is not an accurate account of what was actually said)?
It's an important distinction in an age where many people tend to get their 'information' from the internet, without realizing the so-called bubble filtering effect (that people tend to get search results from the internet/Facebook/Google search, which hides alternative opinions/views based on one's prior searches/likes).
As for diversion... the topic of this thread is "election" so both leading candidates are a fair game for examination of their behavior, character and stance, not just Trump.
Sure, both are fair game, but not as a tactic to divert attention from painful observations about the president elect's character flaws. One can only hope that he gets the support of good people to compensate. Sarah Palin for internal affairs, anyone? Or was that only a rumor I read because of my internet search history?
Cheers,
Bart
-
Oh, come on Slobodan. I didn't start this, I responded to a text that suggested (without linking to a source) a literal quote from something that Hillary Clinton supposedly said. It wasn't, it was a tweet, and not what she actually said...
I am not going to let you get away with that obvious misstatement of facts.
It was:
1) a tweet
2) a part of her platform on her web site and
3) it was deemed by her significant enough to transcribe it on her video separately
Repeating the visuals, in case you missed them.
-
Oh, come on Slobodan. I didn't start this, I responded to a text that suggested (without linking to a source) a literal quote from something that Hillary Clinton supposedly said. It wasn't, it was a tweet, and not what she actually said...
I am not going to let you get away with that obvious misstatement of facts.
It was:
1) a tweet
I'm at a loss for your reasoning, but apparently we agree.
2) a part of her platform on her web site and
Yes, I was the first to provide a link to the source of the actually spoken text. How is that a misrepresentation?
3) it was deemed by her significant enough to transcribe it on her video separately
Yes, it underlined the text she did speak. Where dit it say RAPE, as in the quote I responded to? Where did it say "if a woman claims to have been raped, she must be believed.", the so-called quote I responded to? Who is misrepresenting what was said?
Repeating the visuals, in case you missed them.
Why do you think I missed them? I linked to her website myself (FWIW, the first link I got when Googling), and I responded to your (in my view, but that's just me I guess) puzzling rebuttal.
Your response also seems like Confirmation bias, and diversion from president-elect Trump's behavior, but maybe that's just my interpretation.
Cheers,
Bart
-
What exactly ARE your disputing, Bart? That because one of the three sources was a tweet, the whole stance doesn't count?
-
What exactly ARE your disputing, Bart? That because one of the three sources was a tweet, the whole stance doesn't count?
I'm disputing that it (the claim that I responded to) is a so-called quote from a speech by Hillary Clinton that was what she actually said. It was, at best, a very poorly (and legally ill-worded) condensed (twitter) version of what was actually said. I also stated that, in my opinion, it was a diversion from mentioning the character flaws of the president-elect, Trump, and that "Confirmation Bias" apparently takes the better of some of the posters in this thread.
I'm neither a Hillary supporter nor a Donald supporter. I just pointed out some flaws in IMHO logical/legal thinking. Flaws that are easily developed in a heated debate, or by those who seek to derail it.
Cheers,
Bart
-
In other words, "any other man on the planet but my husband is presumed guilty until proven innocent - because, you know, why would women lie?"
Welcome back, btw :)
Thanks - just a quick trip up the road to Dallas. :)
Anyway, yes, more or less. I just don't think that sort of behavior (defending one's spouse despite evidence to the contrary) is unusual and I;m hesitant to blame any spouse for defending his/her family.
-
Hopefully we won't have to hear about the Clintons any more. Trump put them away as he did the Bushes.
-
Hopefully we won't have to hear about the Clintons any more. Trump put them away as he did the Bushes.
Don't count on it Alan, watch the first interview with the president elect tonight. Some parts got pre-shown in Europe and from what I've seen he seems to have a lot of praise for Clinton and Obama. Go figure :o
-
Don't count on it Alan, watch the first interview with the president elect tonight. Some parts got pre-shown in Europe and from what I've seen he seems to have a lot of praise for Clinton and Obama. Go figure :o
One thing you'd have to give to them (Bill, Hillary and Trump): they are all highly skilled and successful in their chosen field, otherwise wouldn't be there. Hillary is a highly skilled politician, which, in this election, actually worked against her, but still.
-
One thing you'd have to give to them (Bill, Hillary and Trump): they are all highly skilled and successful in their chosen field, otherwise wouldn't be there. Hillary is a highly skilled politician, which, in this election, actually worked against her, but still.
Easy, duped naive voters who think the system will change. It will never change to any great degree and the status quo will be maintained within certain parameters. The system is flexible enough to allow some change, but generally once gravity takes hold individuals tend to fall into line and at least partly conform in the face of the system. Trump is experiencing this right now for the first time in his life.
-
Interesting piece in FT: Should investors ever trust pollsters after the Brexit vote? (https://www.ft.com/content/e7837a9a-951b-11e6-a1dc-bdf38d484582)
Not every... err, institution got it Brixit's odds wrong:
Had the political classes probed a little further, they would have discovered that the number of punters betting on Leave far outweighed those betting on Remain. The bookies were protecting themselves, as they always do. And guess who ultimately profited out of the £120m gambled on the Referendum? The bookies.
Is any data (from the bookies) available for the US elections yet?
-
Don't count on it Alan, watch the first interview with the president elect tonight. Some parts got pre-shown in Europe and from what I've seen he seems to have a lot of praise for Clinton and Obama. Go figure :o
I posted the following couple of days ago. Being nice to people is Trump normally despite his caustic comments during the campaign.
"...Another thing I noticed years ago about him. He always complemented people (for the most part), even his enemies and competitors. As near as I could figure out he didn't like burning bridges. You may need that person in the future. Plus you catch more flies with honey than vinegar. All the cursing, vile words etc during the campaign were to create his brand and get people to notice him and vote for him. But through the nasty way he often projected himself, many people understood that he was for them and they gave him their vote.
Now that the election is over, you already see the complements to Obama, Hillary, Bill and others. He will negotiate and smooth talk the Democrats in Congress to get things done. He'll balance that with toughness, something needed if you're a CEO or President. People are going to be very surprised when they see his true personality and will grow to like him very much like Reagan. He's going to be a very effective President for America. ..."
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TaWt6Vu0evs
Rob
-
Just signed onto LL and this thread caught my attention. Trump lost the popular vote by almost 3 million votes the most in US history! So the national polls were right. As one who has done business with Trump (one of the contractors he tried to stiff but failed) make no mistake he views himself as a Roman Emperor and hates people who cross him. He has absolutely zero knowledge about foreign policy and very little of domestic concerns. He is out for one thing, money! He is at heart a racist and has a racist as his main adviser. The tragedy about to befall the USA is revealed in his picks for the presidential cabinet. Every department run by an individual who hates it. He has already asked for lists of people that are working on climate change and environmental concerns in the EPA and Energy Departments. There is going to be a very deliberate purge in the civil service sector akin to what the Nazis did when they took power in Germany. 2017 is starting as a very bleak year for the majority of people that didn't vote for Trump seeing rollbacks in women's rights, the environment, energy, education, healthcare, minority rights, gun control, and many other issues.
-
^^^
Oh, no!?
Whey has the media been hiding those horrible truths from us all this time!?
-
^^^
Oh, no!?
Whey has the media been hiding those horrible truths from us all this time!?
The public isn't ready for them? It's like accident or war reports: bowdlerization. All one gets are broken toys, fluttering flags and lone bugle-calls...
Perhaps it will be ever so.
But hey, where a country can steal and settle in its neighbours lands, and then declare itself hurt when the power that has allowed it to do so from inception feels embarrassed enough (at long last) if not strongly enough to call a spade a spade, mind you, but strongly enough to object by not doing something, then you have to wonder at the reality of anything. T-Max starts to appear about as threatening as Batman's Robin.
More dangerous, though, as we found with Brexit, are the hordes, millions of 'believers' who finally find another excuse for their own failures just as they had feared they'd have to confront themselves at last. Rabble-rousing is a dangerous sport; all it takes is one guy with a plan.
;-)
Rob
-
Rob, we don't often disagree, but this time disagree we must. If a neighbor attacks you, clearly stating its intention to wipe you off the face of the earth, and you fight back and push the invaders beyond their late borders and into lands historically yours, that's not called stealing your neighbors' lands. It's called victory. Plenty of similar boundary adjustments took place after WW I and WW II. Were those adjustments stealing?
With regard to Brexit, I see it as the same kind of fighting -- in this case against a central agency making rules well beyond their legitimate writ, and without the blessings of the people the bureaucrats saw as their subjects. It's the beginning of the end for the EU and the Euro. If the European Commission had stayed within the bounds of sovereignty ceded by the nations they'd have been all right. But they had to go beyond that into niggling concerns and restrictions far outside their legitimate authority. Britain isn't the only country fed up with the results. The end may not be near but we've already passed the beginning of the end.
-
The public isn't ready for them?...
Rob, I think your sarcasm alert thingy ran out of batteries? ;)
-
Rob, I think your sarcasm alert thingy ran out of batteries? ;)
Could be worse: I could run out of 'em!
;-)
Rob
-
Okay, I wasn't reading carefully enough. Oops. Even though I screwed up I think I stated the case pretty well.
-
Rob, we don't often disagree, but this time disagree we must. If a neighbor attacks you, clearly stating its intention to wipe you off the face of the earth, and you fight back and push the invaders beyond their late borders and into lands historically yours, that's not called stealing your neighbors' lands. It's called victory. Plenty of similar boundary adjustments took place after WW I and WW II. Were those adjustments stealing?
With regard to Brexit, I see it as the same kind of fighting -- in this case against a central agency making rules well beyond their legitimate writ, and without the blessings of the people the bureaucrats saw as their subjects. It's the beginning of the end for the EU and the Euro. If the European Commission had stayed within the bounds of sovereignty ceded by the nations they'd have been all right. But they had to go beyond that into niggling concerns and restrictions far outside their legitimate authority. Britain isn't the only country fed up with the results. The end may not be near but we've already passed the beginning of the end.
Trouble with that kind of history, Russ, is that it depends for validity on where you choose to draw the datum line - or rather, where it's convenient to draw it. You could equally, and truthfully, say that America was stolen by armed force from the native Indians, and be correct. I'm sure most of their survivors think likewise.
As for Palestine: I'm equally sure that the folks living there pre-1948 would have been happy for the status quo to continue.
The rest of the world agrees that those pesky settlements do not belong where they are, only the US feels obliged, usually, to think otherwise, and it's not dificult to see where that pressure comes from, and why it mostly succeeds. Money talks, as ever and everywhere. As does military muscle, so I guess the 6-Day War showed that.
WW1 and WW2 had little to do with wars of religion, whereas that's the basis, if not the entirety, of the Middle Eastern problem. As for Europe, it always had shifting edges within itself, and I guess that 'victory' when it involves taking fresh territory, is indeed theft, definition based on datum line, again. It's own Wars of Religion are, I hope, long past; the latest versions were played out on the island of Ireland not so long ago - and still burble away underneath, but whether either side really cared a hoot about the God they purported to be fighting about is another thing altogether. Bigotry always needs an object upon which to project its slant; often it's found in football. However, a new version may be about to be sprung, but this time, not Christian against Christian.
The Euro and 'Europe' may or may not come tumbling down any time soon - everything does, in the end, but for the present, Britain had a pretty cool deal; it had its own currency and distinctly different agreements on many things, including freedom of travel across borders. Throwing away something that worked well and brought a lot of commercial joy was crazy. I have to stick with my belief that Brexit had nothing to do with economics and everything to do with jingoism and racism. As I've mentioned before, anyone given to thinking about local race 'problems', would have grasped that the problem had arrived in Britain decades earlier, well before any European Union influence came into being. I also suppose that when the folks in the US talk about race 'problems' they do not reserve that emotion for Hispanic/Latinos alone... As with Britain, the US is carrying the result of its actions and European ones a long, long time ago. If there's a moral, it might be leave folks in peace where they are, and do your own hard work. Do we listen? Does China? Territorial ambitions never cease, unfortunately, and neither does colonization, wherever the possibilities present themselves. Today, it's called developing the infrastructure for someone. The reality is exploitation of mineral wealth, and the building of influence blocks abroad.
I may be right and could as easily be wrong, but either way this is my last comment on this matter. I like and respect you too much to throw that away fighting over largely lost causes!
;-)
Rob
-
Trouble with that kind of history, Russ, is that it depends for validity on where you choose to draw the datum line - or rather, where it's convenient to draw it. You could equally, and truthfully, say that America was stolen by armed force from the native Indians, and be correct. I'm sure most of their survivors think likewise.
But Rob, then why trot out the example of the "native Americans" since that is just another one of those arbitrary datum lines. Case in point: your reference to "their survivors". Who are they? If they refers to this notion of "the very first to have ever claimed said patch of land", well, it doesn't hold up historically for two glaring reasons. First, there was always someone there before whoever was there next. And the someone who got there next got there for all the reasons we frown upon: They took it. Second, these "Native Americans" despised one another and typically considered other tribes sub-human. The Plains Indians claimed a good 1/3 of the continent for a tiny population of extremely violent and highly mobile warriors who sole point in life was to steal land and horses.
So I agree, its an arbitrary datum line. But the one you pick is no better than the one the U.S Cavalry picked or that "manifest destiny" picked or that post WWII Israel picked.
And the fact remains, the land in contest was taken by Israel from neighbors who attacked them and paid dearly for their treachery.
As for Palestine: I'm equally sure that the folks living there pre-1948 would have been happy for the status quo to continue.
Only if your status quo is another arbitrary datum line. And it is.
The rest of the world agrees that those pesky settlements do not belong where they are
The rest of the world has been awfully wrong before.
-
I may be right and could as easily be wrong, but either way this is my last comment on this matter. I like and respect you too much to throw that away fighting over largely lost causes!
Rob
Hi Rob, I think we're going to have to agree to disagree. I don't want to get into a heavy argument with an old friend. There's been too much of that already as a result of the recent election. When he learned who the candidates would be, an old and good friend opined that Hillary would be elected quite easily. I replied that Trump would blow her out of the water. We then agreed that it would be best if we stayed away from politics. That seems to work best. I'm not going to change your mind, and you're not going to change mine, and so be it.
-
I did not vote for either one of them. I did not see one of them as the lesser of two evils. I saw each of them as a different but equal evil. A sad time for the U.S..........either way. And even more sadly I think that the two viable candidates that we were left with says something about the people of the United States. I'm not sure what it says exactly, but it I am sure it isn't good.
I also see this nation as being deeply divided. More now than since the 1860s. This time the divide is not nearly as geographical. It is cultural.
-
I agree, George, that we're a nation as culturally divided as I've ever seen it in the roughly seventy-three years since I graduated from junior high school. But I think the reason we're so divided is that for at least the past fifty years we've been governed by a group of people we now call "the establishment," which gradually has steered us away from the principles upon which the U.S. was founded. Like you, I didn't care for either of the candidates. Both have demonstrated a level of greed and insensitivity I find repulsive. But one also demonstrated a level of incompetence and irresponsibility, especially with respect to national security, that contain potentially the seeds of national catastrophe.
Because the establishment has deliberately debased our currency, over the past fifty years we've seen a cumulative inflation rate of 645 percent. In other words, what cost a dollar in 1966 now goes for $7.45. Inflation is theft by the government; theft from savers who provide the capital essential for economic expansion. We have a national debt that points toward insolvency and we've disarmed ourselves to the point where, for the first time since the end of WW II, we're vulnerable. We still pretend to defend the entire Western world, but without the resources effectively to do so. Within NATO, only a couple countries have ponied up the defense contributions to which they've agreed, and we've ignored those shortfalls. In the meantime, we and the EU are accepting masses of endangered and wretched people who don't understand what it is that allows the countries they're entering to be havens to which they can escape, and who try to reestablish the kinds of societies from which they've flown. I could go on and on, but you get the idea.
I think that with this election we've decided it's time to take a gamble. Continuing with the establishment intact is almost surely national suicide. The establishment needs to be broken up. At this point I'm not sure what comes after it, but if we can steer the country back toward the intent expressed in the Declaration of Independence, and reestablish the Constitution as our governing document, there's at least hope for the future. The Declaration says ". . . whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends (the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness), it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government." I think the nation reached that point on the 7th of the month.
-
As my comment isn't going to be partisan (fairly pointless, as Brit!), I don't think it conflicts with my wish not to ruffle feathers.
Anyway. Just been watching the 'debate' on France24 (which I believe is available online all over the world), and the discussion was about the change in work/employment dynamics due to robots and the losing of people jobs. The point was made that this is far from something that will affect the blue-collar workforce alone, but will cut swathes across accountancy, medicine and scores of so-called secure professional occupations. Much time was spent talking about where the world seems to be today regarding how it will cope with massive unemployment, whether a form of basic wage, whether one has a job or not, will come to fruition, and whether that will aid incentive to find additional, supplementary work (where?) and also provide a secure, basic cash input to aid freelance work to start where it might have been felt impossible before. The general consensus was that the world hasn't even begun to face that problem and think of solutions for it. I also felt - by the drift of conversation - that nobody had given a thought to an alternative such as this: draw another datum line (I enjoy drawing these!) and declare enough is enough: we have to reintroduce manual manufacturing jobs. To me, it's blindingly obvious: if nobody works, nobody is going to be buying those pretty electric cars the robots will make. Maybe instead of stacking shelves, folks will stack unsold cars instead, and Dire Straits will pen another hit? Were the best recent years not the immediate post-war ones, when everything was about getting production going again, the replacement of lost buildings and industries, the reconstruction of cities and people's shattered lives? Was it just coincidental that the era produced the sexiest cars the common man could own? (In Britain, the common man usually didn't own any kind of car pre-war). We all seemed to be doing fine until too many of those labour-saving machines came into the factories. I don't think we need to redestroy the world to bring back the idea of people making things... I don't think this will be achieved by protectionism, country by country, but by a meeting of minds at the very top, and the realisation that some things are more important than territorial decisions, and require an international realisation of how grave and perhaps irreversible tbe situation will become if it is denied and neglected.
There is not going to be any Utopia where everyone lives in a pretty, state-owned and state-provided apartment, where free buses will take people to the shops - oops! no shops, just Internet connections - and so forth. For a start, people are not all the same: some have initiative, some think that's a dirty, capitalistic word; some can't sit still and always have to be busy doing something whereas others have to be bribed off the sofa. No, I think the only way that society will function and not implode into revolution or perhaps mass, cult suicide deals, is if we bring back real, physical and mental work. Perhaps the most dangerous animal on the planet is a young man with time on his hands and nothing worthwhile to do with them. Where and how will he apply them? Where will his frustrated spirit drive him?
Rob
-
Rob, I have to tell you that considering the people who own those minds, the idea of a meeting of the minds at the very top scares the s--- out of me. It's the minds at the very top that have brought us to this point; the point where in most of the Western world entrepreneurship is now effectively disallowed.
Taking hands off of the farm and later out of the factory has been going on since the beginning of the industrial revolution. In order to believe that it's time to put hands back to inefficient work you have to believe that the end of invention has arrived. I don't believe that. I think the solution is a revolution of free people that will reduce government in the Western world to its proper place in life so that the Steve Jobses of the future can do their thing.
-
Perhaps the most dangerous animal on the planet is a young man with time on his hands and nothing worthwhile to do with them. Where and how will he apply them? Where will his frustrated spirit drive him?
Rob
Agreed. But its even worse than that in the west (that is probably wrong) where we have convinced those young men that to do labor of any sort is beneath them. We have removed the dignity of a good day's work and a fair wage. Those few inclined to work in even the most menial jobs expect wages that will pay for a high tech smart phone (every time a new one comes out), monthly cell service, a large TV, monthly cable TV, and a car. One might laugh but the definition of poverty around here is not having cable or satellite TV or a new smart phone. I don't mean to disparage real poverty. We have it for sure, right around the block for most of us. But the bar has been set unrealistically high. And the idea that there is dignity in working hard all your life to improve the lives of your children is totally and completely removed from the American dream. I suspect it is even worse in Greece, Italy, Spain and Portugal who seem to think Germans work hard solely for the benefit of its lazy EU neighbors.
And this is why we seek to employ machines and not people. To pay an uneducated, untrained and untalented 20 year old male the type of wages that include not only health and disability insurance but the means to have all the required technological gew-gaws, a car and even purchase a home, all the while calling out sick and feeling put upon to complete his day's tasks is FAR more expensive than a high tech robot. The inflation Russ mentioned seals that deal.
Whenever I think about all this, whenever I look at the ingredients going into this global stew the conclusions are always the same: Its going to get worse, then something really really bad is going to happen and when that really really bad thing happens a generation is going to have to learn all over again what the WWII generation had to learn. And there will not be the time or the luxury or the will to worry about the latest iPhone, which gender is allowed in which restroom, or which boutique to buy your dog's treats from. And what's left of that generation will have bestowed upon it the modicum of character it so lacked. But only after they come through the fire, whatever fire that may be.
I live on a tree lined street in small, insignificant southern mill city, a block from a modest university. On this street of about 5 blocks the male of virtually every household served overseas in WWII. Two of them were killed in action. My grandfather was away from his family for nearly four full years. There was no sugar, little meat, little gasoline and no rubber for tires. And there wasn't a lot of whining. This, at a minimum is what it will take for a generation (which one?) to grow up.
Edit: I hope I'm gone before then. Not sure how I would bear up. :(
-
Rob, I have to tell you that considering the people who own those minds, the idea of a meeting of the minds at the very top scares the s--- out of me. It's the minds at the very top that have brought us to this point; the point where in most of the Western world entrepreneurship is now effectively disallowed.
Taking hands off of the farm and later out of the factory has been going on since the beginning of the industrial revolution. In order to believe that it's time to put hands back to inefficient work you have to believe that the end of invention has arrived. I don't believe that. I think the solution is a revolution of free people that will reduce government in the Western world to its proper place in life so that the Steve Jobses of the future can do their thing.
But the problem remains: what do those unemployed and increasingly unemployable people do with their day, and from whence comes the money to keep them alive and peaceful? In an age where even the middle-class pro with a degree is finding it difficult to find a regular job, it doesn't bode well for the future. There are more than a few university leavers who have discovered that their years there were a waste of time if they didn't read maths and sciences. Those disciplines are not within every person's ability or aptitude. Those people without those specific skills may have their degree, but it is no longer a passport, so even relatively bright people can, and do find themselves stacking shelves or handing burgers across a counter. Should good eating return as fashionable, even those Macjobs will vanish.
No, I don't see an end to inventions as having arrived; I see the opposite: no damned need for most of them. I'd be perfectly happy being back in the days before I had a computer or a cellphone, just as long as the rest of life was lived at that speed too. It never felt that I was at any disadvantage; in fact, I think I was a damned sight more happy and I'm as just certain that most reps in this world were too! What a scourge to be constantly badgered by the man back in the office, even as you stand there, enjoying a pee!
;-)
Rob
-
As more people need jobs, wages will decline and more jobs will be created as it will become affordable to compete with imports. Of course, we won't be as rich, but that's just the way it is. We're competing with foreigners who earn less than we're use too.
-
I saw a special on Cuba where a physician was finally able to purchase a refrigerator. It cost about a year's salary. She lived in conditions that would be considered well below the poverty level in the US. The water in her tiny apartment only worked a few hours a day. She claimed she was happy and content.
And while I consider discontentment an insidious evil and I admire her for finding happiness in her work and current conditions. But not only is discontentment the driving force in the world economy, I suspect if she saw a typical US welfare recipient, unemployed but still enjoying climate controlled government housing, food stamps, a big TV with cable, running and heated water, a washing machine and a cell phone, she might feel less content. Sad but true.
-
[quote author=Alan Klein link=topic=114435.msg950548#msg950548 date=14As more people need jobs, wages will decline and more jobs will be created as it will become affordable to compete with imports. Of course, we won't be as rich, but that's just the way it is. We're competing with foreigners who earn less than we're use too.
[/quote]
Alan, that's a path almost exhausted: Brits usually earned way less than Americans, Spanish and most other Europeans even less than us, and the Germans were, for a time, kings of the European heap, though Italy did have its brief "miracle" and if you ever bought a Fiat or an Alfo Romeo (I did both) you soon discovered why it didn't last. So, what happend? As with Japan, once cheap but now not, work moved away never to be replaced. Ask shipbuilders on the Clyde or the Tyne about that. I'm sure there are those in your own rust-belt who share the experience and silently know the reasons it happened.
The current lower earners, as a whole, are still India and Africa and parts of South America. Maybe that's why VW makes cars in Mexico... We will eventually lose all of our manufacturing to these poor countries, but perhaps it will be a short-lived new joy for them: to whom will they export their new toys when the rest of us can no longer afford to buy? It will be decades before the greater part of the extremely poor millions of India will be able to buy cars, by which time there will probably not be any, nor oil to drive them, to make plastic or simply to burn in order not to freeze...
I'm afraid it needs a quick, world-wide solution in the immediate future to fix this thing, and as most don't even want to accept there is a problem, it will be too late when they do.
Frankly, we have "progressed" too far for the good of humanity. At first there were problems for which inventions provided solutions; then there were inventions providing solutions looking for problems; now, however, those brilliant solutions have become the problem: they don't need us anymore. Cute, innit? Should have seen it coming, though to be fair, some few visionaries did and were laughed at.
But that creeps, inevitably, into politics, and only international politics can fix it, so I'll let it be at that.
Rob
-
But the problem remains: what do those unemployed and increasingly unemployable people do with their day, and from whence comes the money to keep them alive and peaceful? In an age where even the middle-class pro with a degree is finding it difficult to find a regular job, it doesn't bode well for the future. There are more than a few university leavers who have discovered that their years there were a waste of time if they didn't read maths and sciences. Those disciplines are not within every person's ability or aptitude. Those people without those specific skills may have their degree, but it is no longer a passport, so even relatively bright people can, and do find themselves stacking shelves or handing burgers across a counter. Should good eating return as fashionable, even those Macjobs will vanish.
Rob
Hi Rob, here are a few statistics about employment in some of those unnecessary fields of pursuit:
As of January 2015, Apple Inc. claims to directly employ 66,000 employees in the United States alone. Many other jobs are attributable to Apple, including 627,000 created to support the iOS ecosystem. The company's 265 Apple stores employ about 30,000 retail employees.
Amazon added 39,300 employees during its most recent quarter, which is record quarterly growth for the company. Amazon's headcount also surpassed 200,000 for the first time and is now at 222,400 — that's up 49 percent from this time last year.
From Googles 2012 Q2 report: "On a worldwide basis, we employed 54,604 full-time employees (34,311 in our Google business and 20,293 in our Motorola business) as of June 30, 2012, compared to 33,077 full-time employees as of March 31, 2012." In the latest quarterly filing Google reported to have 24,400 employees.
The number of Microsoft employees increased from 61,000 in 2005 to 118,000 in 2015 (measured as of the last day of the financial year). Founded in a garage by Bill Gates and Paul Allen in 1975, over the last four decades Microsoft has become a vast multinational corporation.
I say again that what we need is for governments to get off the backs of the people who, like Bill Gates and Steve Jobs create the jobs you want to see created. But it's not just the Apples, Amazons, Microsofts, and Googles. The outfits that have been hit hardest by government overreach are companies like McDonald's, which in the U.S., as a consequence of government-imposed "minimum wage" requirements, are pretty much shut down at the moment while they overhaul and install automated ordering devices. Guess what will happen to the people who used to take orders. They're outta there and they'll join the unemployed. What's worse is that outfits like McDonalds historically have provided the entry-level jobs that kids need to learn what it's like to work. I remember my early days with a paper route and a job at the Detroit Zoo (http://www.russ-lewis.com/history/my%20early%20life.html). Nowadays there's almost nothing like that available to introduce you to productive work. That's not the fault of business. It's the fault of government!
Government interference with the economy is what produces what you call ". . . unemployed and increasingly unemployable people." The free market, unencumbered, eventually can restore economic sanity and solve the problem.
-
As more people need jobs, wages will decline and more jobs will be created as it will become affordable to compete with imports.
Hi Alan,
So far for theory, but without spending power there will be no people who can buy those imports or their local equivalents, thus there will be none ...
Without a large enough middle class, the economic model of the USA (and many like that) fails, and falling wages is not a solution, on the contrary.
Cheers,
Bart
-
The problem for the west is that we are 'forgetting' how to make things. We don't make stuff. And not only are we losing the machinery to make things, we are losing the machinists. Good machinists are craftsman. You don't come out of tech school as a fully functioning machinist. Our machinists are aging out and we're not training many more. When you lose that skill and knowledge base, you cannot make the machines that make stuff or even the machines that make the machines that make stuff.
We'll be fine without our techno wonders when the hard times hit. We won't be fine when the machines that bottle and can food are gone, or the machines that make tractors or the machines that provide us with power and water.
-
Taxes, deficits, debt, printing money (inflation), low interest rates causing less capital formation are the things that are hurting the middle class and the economies as a whole. If the governments got out of the way and let free markets really work, every country would be doing better. There would be expanding and new businesses creating a lot more jobs and wealth.
-
If the governments got out of the way and let free markets really work, every country would be doing better.
right, Charles Dickens comes to mind
-
The problem for the west is that we are 'forgetting' how to make things. We don't make stuff. And not only are we losing the machinery to make things, we are losing the machinists. Good machinists are craftsman. You don't come out of tech school as a fully functioning machinist. Our machinists are aging out and we're not training many more. When you lose that skill and knowledge base, you cannot make the machines that make stuff or even the machines that make the machines that make stuff.
We'll be fine without our techno wonders when the hard times hit. We won't be fine when the machines that bottle and can food are gone, or the machines that make tractors or the machines that provide us with power and water.
So right: when I began, it was a five-year apprenticeship to become a mechanical engineer, and then a lot more experience to become a foreman - if you did remain on the floor. You just don't come out of tech colleges with that knowledge and understanding. My late father-in-law had a surveying business that, at its peak, employed thirty people. The perfect business model, you might say. He once or twice employed surveyors who'd earned their degree in a university, and then never again. The only ones worth their pay were the ones who'd worked in private practice as apprentices and gone to day classes or night school to earn their paper qualifications. In Britain, the apprentice concept became a little bit of showbiz, a part of entertainment...
Rob
-
Government interference with the economy is what produces what you call ". . . unemployed and increasingly unemployable people." The free market, unencumbered, eventually can restore economic sanity and solve the problem.
Sounds like Ayn Rand type piffle. Governments seek to regulate for very obvious and often desirable reasons, unless we would all prefer to become destitute slaves mired in incredible pollution and without any healthcare Satanic Mill stylee. And since no market is ever truly free, except perhaps for a black market, setting things up in this way simply establishes a cycle of blame which can never be escaped because the alleged solution - no government worth the name and a fantasy free market - is entirely unachievable. Back to the drawing board, Sir. We need a something worthy of the West - three thousand or so years of shared history and culture, and freedoms and values hard fought for.
-
So right: when I began, it was a five-year apprenticeship to become a mechanical engineer
once upon a time people who operated steam locomotives were called engineers, they were not engineers though...
(http://www.catskillarchive.com/rrextra/engineer.jpg)
-
The problem for the west is that we are 'forgetting' how to make things. We don't make stuff. And not only are we losing the machinery to make things, we are losing the machinists. Good machinists are craftsman. You don't come out of tech school as a fully functioning machinist. Our machinists are aging out and we're not training many more. When you lose that skill and knowledge base, you cannot make the machines that make stuff or even the machines that make the machines that make stuff.
We'll be fine without our techno wonders when the hard times hit. We won't be fine when the machines that bottle and can food are gone, or the machines that make tractors or the machines that provide us with power and water.
So who cares? As long as doctors, scientists, and the necessary engineers with undergrad degrees can be imported from India, and finished products from China, the US and the UK don't need to educate any of their own except for MBAs, accountants, and lawyers, who you will notice are still paid "middle class" salaries. latin-speaking Europe is not yet quite gone so far because immigrants want to escape poverty, not embrace it :)
Edmund
Edmund
-
except for MBAs, accountants, and lawyers
please be assured that MBAs, accountants, and lawyers are being infiltrated too... survival of the fittest ;D
-
once upon a time people who operated steam locomotives were called engineers, they were not engineers though...
(http://www.catskillarchive.com/rrextra/engineer.jpg)
Nice picture; that kind of 'engineer' is celebrated in country music. It's his reward to be remembered in folklore. The engineers of whom I speak all worked in factories producing whatever their factory produced. The basic five-year appenticeship taught you how to be a miller, a turner, a fitter all of the manual/technical skills that went to make the entire factory function. The theoretical part, in the technical colleges, taught you about electrics, physics in general etc. etc. so that you could go ahead into design, development and producution planning and various levels of technical management.
In Britain, apprenticeships almost vanished because the factories did too; when you become an importer and, at best, an assembler of foreign-made parts, your needs for production experts withers, and as that dies so does your reservoir of available talent and expertise, so you can never start up again - at least, not with home-grown talent. Indeed, it has been one of the promises of recent UK governments to reintroduce apprenticeship schemes... It's my guess that had Britain not been cursed with quasi-communist and open communist union leadership, it would not today find itself in that condition where it was better sense to close factories and allow other countries not cursed with the scourge of politicised unions to make the bloody products.
It is not just lower foreign wages that destroy the national economy; one's own fifth column does a fine job of helping death along. And the same people who turned apathetic, blind eyes to what was going down all around them in their own workplace share the mindset of those who, today, seek solutions in isolationism. Sorry, guys, the sickness is in yourselves. You did nothing when you had the chance to save yourselves and your country too. Instead, you kept silent as you went along within the bellowing herd.
Rob
-
Sounds like Ayn Rand type piffle. Governments seek to regulate for very obvious and often desirable reasons, unless we would all prefer to become destitute slaves mired in incredible pollution and without any healthcare Satanic Mill stylee. And since no market is ever truly free, except perhaps for a black market, setting things up in this way simply establishes a cycle of blame which can never be escaped because the alleged solution - no government worth the name and a fantasy free market - is entirely unachievable. Back to the drawing board, Sir. We need a something worthy of the West - three thousand or so years of shared history and culture, and freedoms and values hard fought for.
Hi Mecrox, (have you an actual name?) Yes, Ayn Rand was a bit over the top. Government has many legitimate functions: providing clean water (which government failed utterly to do for Flint, Michigan), sewage disposal, etc. And as you point out, legitimate government functions include protecting individuals from the depredations of other individuals. That would include protections against robbery, slavery, pollution that harms others, etc. But it emphatically doesn't include such things as providing health care or establishing wage levels.
Until the 1930's the U.S. pretty much had free markets, though there were exceptions. There always are exceptions. FDR's government experiments with socialism managed to keep the Great Depression (caused by government interference with free trade) going until WW II broke out, but our residual strength, the remnants of what we'd built with free markets, allowed us to go to the rescue of the Western world. Without that rescue your "three thousand or so years of shared history and culture, and freedoms and values hard fought for" would have gone down the same drain the Romans went down. Heaven help us if we come face to face with a similar threat today.
If you see all that as "piffle" or "not worthy of the West," I'd suggest you explain what you mean.
-
Government has many legitimate functions: providing clean water...sewage disposal, etc.... doesn't include such things as providing health care
not sure why any kind of gov't owes you a clean water or remove your sewege ? establish cooperative and take care about yourself...
-
include protections against robbery... doesn't include such things as ... establishing wage levels.
not sure either why any kind of gov't must protect some photog's livelihood in terms of copyright laws, etc while not protecting McD's employee livelihood by (establishing and) enforcing min wages ?
-
The engineers of whom I speak all worked in factories producing whatever their factory produced. The basic five-year appenticeship taught you how to be a miller, a turner, a fitter all of the manual/technical skills that went to make the entire factory function. The theoretical part, in the technical colleges, taught you about electrics, physics in general etc. etc. so that you could go ahead into design, development and producution planning and various levels of technical management.
but I 'd assume the right word for that will be a technician, not engineer (w/ a degree or two and possibly a board certification)
-
not sure why any kind of gov't owes you a clean water or remove your sewege ? establish cooperative and take care about yourself...
Right. The kind of "cooperative" you're talking about is called a city.
-
not sure either why any kind of gov't must protect some photog's livelihood in terms of copyright laws, etc while not protecting McD's employee livelihood by (establishing and) enforcing min wages ?
Protecting McD's employee livelihood? Maybe you're not a careful reader. At the moment the local McDs are closed for renovation -- except for the drive-throughs. When they open again they'll have automated ordering devices. Former order-takers are out on their posteriors because of min wage enforcement. Doesn't sound as if min wages protected employee livelihoods does it?
-
but I 'd assume the right word for that will be a technician, not engineer (w/ a degree or two and possibly a board certification)
Reread the paragraph; degree courses are included. You could get Ordinary National Certificates and on upwards through all sorts of degrees according to your ability, desires and patience. You are your limits.
Rob
-
You are your limits.
Rob
More kids need to be taught that , Rob. It's really the basis of growing up, but far too many never realize it.
-
Reread the paragraph; degree courses are included. You could get Ordinary National Certificates and on upwards through all sorts of degrees according to your ability, desires and patience. You are your limits.
Rob
sure, that does not turn you into an engineer if you work as a technician ... and vice versa ... and in any case both will benefits one from the shop floor experience and one from a degree - but that does not change the nature of who they are
-
Right. The kind of "cooperative" you're talking about is called a city.
not exactly, the "city" is already morphed into "gov't" because it claims (based on the state laws for example) the authority over territory that it does not own...
-
Protecting McD's employee livelihood? Maybe you're not a careful reader. At the moment the local McDs are closed for renovation -- except for the drive-throughs. When they open again they'll have automated ordering devices. Former order-takers are out on their posteriors because of min wage enforcement. Doesn't sound as if min wages protected employee livelihoods does it?
just like a gallery can kick you out - you go and sell your copyrighted work elsewhere ... but you retain your protections that I can't steal it from you... so McD employee can go and find another job, but gov't shall protect his min wage (which is not tied to McD, btw)
-
just like a gallery can kick you out - you go and sell your copyrighted work elsewhere ... but you retain your protections that I can't steal it from you... so McD employee can go and find another job, but gov't shall protect his min wage (which is not tied to McD, btw)
Purely theoretical...
Come on, be practical, this only works if, and only if, there is another job available to go to.
Minimum wage is meaningless to the unemployed.
Tony Jay
-
Hi Mecrox, (have you an actual name?) Yes, Ayn Rand was a bit over the top. Government has many legitimate functions: providing clean water (which government failed utterly to do for Flint, Michigan), sewage disposal, etc. And as you point out, legitimate government functions include protecting individuals from the depredations of other individuals. That would include protections against robbery, slavery, pollution that harms others, etc. But it emphatically doesn't include such things as providing health care or establishing wage levels.
Until the 1930's the U.S. pretty much had free markets, though there were exceptions. There always are exceptions. FDR's government experiments with socialism managed to keep the Great Depression (caused by government interference with free trade) going until WW II broke out, but our residual strength, the remnants of what we'd built with free markets, allowed us to go to the rescue of the Western world. Without that rescue your "three thousand or so years of shared history and culture, and freedoms and values hard fought for" would have gone down the same drain the Romans went down. Heaven help us if we come face to face with a similar threat today.
If you see all that as "piffle" or "not worthy of the West," I'd suggest you explain what you mean.
Mecrox is made up of my first name which is Mark, my second name and my hometown with is Oxford.
My point is simple. Saying that whatever ails one is down to an overbearing government impeding a free market is really another form of bliblical prophecy: if only the people followed the path of righteousness rather than weakly allowed themselves to be led astray by the wiles of politicians then the promised land would arrive and all human ills would vanish. In practice, governments will always regulate because it is part of their job and a truly free market will never materialise because such a thing does not in fact exist, legally at least.
All that has been set up is an endless cycle of blame which neatly permits fans of the prophecy to evade responsibility for tackling the actual problems of the moment. Instead, they can avoid sullying themselves with the mess and compromises of the world and intone that it's all the fault of government and of a weak and ungodly people who want their government to do more than it should, apparently. It is one long If Only. Health care? The people are weak. Education? Ungodly. Housing or perhaps employment rights? Blasphemy. If only the people were not so weak and saw the path of righteousness.
Trouble is, recent history shows that once you start down the road of stripping out the shared values, laws and culture which make up a nation in the name of a greater good of some kind, including economic doctrines based on an arbitrary definition of what government is, then pretty soon maniacal dictators are turning up and running the show. Pragmatic government usually works tolerably well but ideology tends to be lethal. The extent to which humans are prepared to inflict suffering on others in the name of an idea, always a mad idea, is one of the more depressing realizations as one grows older. The Alt Right and, in the UK, the more inflexible end of the "Brexit" movement are just the latest incarnations of something with a long and very disreputable history.
-
There is a new statue on the streets of Chicago: Lincoln pointing a young man in the right direction ;)
-
Minimum wage is meaningless to the unemployed.
Meaningless or worthless ?
As are zero- hour work contracts ..
-
"That would include protections against robbery, slavery, pollution that harms others, etc. But it emphatically doesn't include such things as providing health care or establishing wage levels."
"Bankruptcies resulting from unpaid medical bills will affect nearly 2 million people this year—making health care the No. 1 cause of such filings, and outpacing bankruptcies due to credit-card bills or unpaid mortgages, according to new data. And even having health insurance doesn't buffer consumers against financial hardship. http://www.cnbc.com/id/100840148
"if it aint broke don't fix it." If anything needs fixing, this surely does.
The GFC was caused by unregulated companies "gone wild", luckily we had a mining boom in Australia and financial regulations in place.
God help us from Trump the four times bankrupt (or is that six times). https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2016/live-updates/general-election/real-time-fact-checking-and-analysis-of-the-first-presidential-debate/fact-check-has-trump-declared-bankruptcy-four-or-six-times/?utm_term=.2c0b580384c9
Cheers,
-
Meaningless or worthless ?
I would say both.
No job - it doesn't matter if the minimum wage is $1 000 000.00 per month!
-
I watched - and listened - to the John Kerry speech yesterday, and for the first time I saw a guy telling it like it is regarding the Is/Pal dispute, and then today the Netanyahu response. It's was if Netanyahu had been replying to another speech made on Mars by Darth V. himself. The red herrings Netanyahu raised were incredble, yet some will swallow it all, hook, line and sinker.
And then the spectacle of Trump wading in with his 'just wait until Daddy comes home in a few days, I'll fix it!' which, the more I hear him say, makes that eventuality ever more horrific. I am convinced he must have many erstwhile voters regretting their moment of ballot-box euphoria. His friend Lafarge inspires similar emotions. Somehow, I think both will quickly find their tunes changed for them by reality. Then watch the mood of their country change as disappointment creeps in as the big lie is finally and universally understood for what it is. Yes, it is going to get a helluva lot worse without any guarantee it will then get better. When you get a country that realises that it has nobody left in whom it can believe, there is an ending of communal hope.
Pity Kerry didn't run instead of that self-consumed, pointing at everyone yet at no-one, Mrs C. We might actually have had a chance of ending at least some of the horror of the Middle East. In an era when there is chaos pretty much everywhere, the last thing the world needs is yet another gigantic loose cannon, especially one without any apparent safety-catch.
Rob C
-
I'd rather not lose any of my friends on LuLa, so this will be my final post in this thread.
For schoolkids and those who know little about history, the socialist slogan has great appeal: "From each according to his ability; to each according to his need." Nowadays, of course, we'd have to substitute "their" for "his" in order to be politically correct even though grammatically incorrect. But if you know anything about history you know that socialism NEVER has succeeded anywhere it's been tried. Under socialism people quickly lose their ability and even more quickly embrace their need.
One of the simplest, easiest to understand examples is the history of the Plymouth Colony on the North American continent, established by Pilgrims in about 1620. In summary, it was a socialist group that nearly was wiped out by starvation under socialism. Finally William Bradford, the governor of the colony told the survivors that in order to eat they'd have to work. Suddenly ability was on the rise and need began to decline. In the end, under private enterprise, the colony thrived. If you look up this history you'll find that local natives were involved in the colony's survival. Sometimes that's overplayed. Sometimes not. But, bottom line, it was the switch from socialism to capitalism that saved the colony from extinction.
But you don't have to know about the Plymouth Colony to see what socialism has "accomplished." You can look at the Soviet Union as an historical example, or you can look at Venezuela as a current example. There are many others, including that paragon of socialist delight, Cuba. You could look at the history of China. Under Mao's brand of socialism China constantly was on the brink of economic disaster. A gradual conversion to a more-or-less capitalist economy has brought the Chinese to a position of international strength. Somebody's going to tell me that that was communism, not socialism, and I'll ask that person to explain the difference. (There isn't any.)
Now somebody surely is going to tell me about the huge success of socialism in Scandinavia. If you really believe that you haven't actually checked it out. Sweden is the classic example of what's happened in Scandinavia. Its economy was faltering and there's been a move toward more and more capitalism that's gradually brought the economy back. Unemployment is falling and the budget is heading toward a surplus. I suspect it'll be at least a generation before the uneducated schoolkids take over again and bring back socialism.
One reason Brexit succeeded and Trump was elected is that people all over the world are becoming fed up with socialism. Brexit and Trump are just the tip of the iceberg. I've said it before and I'll say it again: the EU's days are numbered. And socialism as a guiding force in the US is about to go under for a couple generations. Its number is up. Oh, it'll take time. Probably a generation. And it won't be complete. There'll always be the schoolkids attracted by the socialist slogan, and eventually they'll take over again and run the Western world's economy into the ground. But at least I won't have to be here on the downslope.
There'll always be socialism and there'll always be capitalism. We almost always see a mix of the two, but it's very clear that where capitalism is the larger part of that mix economies thrive, or at least survive. The opposite is true with the mix moves the other way.
-
But if you know anything about history you know that socialism NEVER has succeeded anywhere it's been tried. Under socialism people quickly lose their ability and even more quickly embrace their need.
That's odd - the most socialist countries are those in Scandinavia, and they seem to be managing to muddle through. Rather better on every metric than the USA in fact. Still, best not let the facts get in the way of your rant, eh?
-
That's odd - the most socialist countries are those in Scandinavia...
All those are free-market, capitalist countries. The only thing that makes them "socialist" are generous safety nets, but socialist they ain't.
-
All those are free-market, capitalist countries. The only thing that makes them "socialist" are generous safety nets, but socialist they ain't.
And that's the problem with Russ' opinion. There is no simple Socialist versus Capitalist choice, there are numerous mixed forms of government possible, and they are actually successful and in place (with different coalitions) for a long time already. Countries with a (mainly) 2-faction type of government are heading for difficult times.
Cheers,
Bart
-
All those are free-market, capitalist countries. The only thing that makes them "socialist" are generous safety nets, but socialist they ain't.
Mmm - not really. But I'm aware that your mind is as made up as Russ's on the subject.
-
And that's the problem with Russ' opinion. There is no simple Socialist versus Capitalist choice, there are numerous mixed forms of government possible...
This is also Russ' opinion:
There'll always be socialism and there'll always be capitalism. We almost always see a mix of the two...
How different is it then from what you are saying?
-
Mmm - not really. But I'm aware that your mind is as made up...
I am open to suggestions.
-
This is also Russ' opinion:
He is mostly stressing the differences as alternatives and mixes Socialism with Communism. Just look at his earlier statements.
How different is it then from what you are saying?
I'm pointing out a middle ground, and suggest to use the best of both systems, without getting gridlocked by an opposition that either blocks any movement forward (i.e. the John Boehner tactics to make Obama fail), or even reverses the things done by previous governments when a new government gains a small majority (Trump's promises).
Cheers,
Bart
-
No, Russ is right: there is no substantive difference between socialism and communism; it's only a matter of degree, with socialism doing a slightly better PR job than does communism.
You only have to look at the fringes of 'socialism' to see the hordes of banner wavers, the people who turn up at every possible demonstration and hold Daily Worker etc, placards. Socialism, sometimes, but not always, tries to distance itself from those groups, but doesn't really try too hard; how can it - it's family.
Good grief, just look at the number of current and past Brit high-ranking Members of Parliament who openly espoused communism in their early, less PR-savvy lives; it would make you weep at the gullibility of those who vote for them. We have had such people trying to make the UK defenceless by removing its ultimate sanction weapons since we had such weaponry. I can't remember any of the marchers or military camp squatters ever bearing banners condemning the old USSR's weaponry... are you kiddin? That's the ultimate objective: our defeat!
Then, there would be even more flags flying everywhere than in the USA! A veritable sea of poppies, sans a touch of blue or white. If there's a sad bit, it's that many who sincerely believe in the socialist ethic are not aware of what it hides and what drives its head honchos.
Thing is, and where I suggest Russ may be a bit mistaken, is in the hope that history will continue 'safely' to be a series of left/right alternatives, for once the extreme left gets control, in enough powerful countries, that's it; curtains. Those totalitarian countries that are changing slightly are only doing so beause of the existence, at the moment, of very visible alternatives via the Internet etc. Remove that, and where no alternatives are seen, change will cease to be possible. Think of what's going down in Turkey right now, with thousands newly under arrest on political charges; think of how IS can wash minds and recruit so easily and you'll find it hard to believe that any genuine freedom should be taken as a given, anywhere. Momentum...
Rob C
-
Perhaps one could conclude like this:
Fascism: you have two cows and the state takes both and sells you some milk.
Communism: you have two cows; the state takes both and gives you some milk.
Sociaism: you have two cows and are supposed to give one to your neighbour who has none.
Traditional Capitalism: you have two cows. You sell one and buy a bull. Your herd multiplies, and the economy grows. You sell up amd retire on the income.
Venture Capitalism: you have two cows. You sell three of them to your publicly listed company, using letters of credit opened by your brother-in-law at the bank, then execute a debt/equity swap with an associated general offer so that you get all four cows back, with a tax exemption for five cows. The milk rights of the six cows are transferred via an intermediary to a Cayman Island Company secretly owned by the majority shareholder who sells the rights to all seven cows back to your listed company. The annual report says that the company owns eight cows, with an option on one more.
Bureaucratism: you have two cows. The state takes both, shoots one, milks the other and then throws the milk away.
An Italian Corporation: you have two cows, but you do not know where they are. You decide to have lunch.
A Fench Corporation: you have two cows. You go on strike, organize a riot and block the roads because you want three cows.
A Swiss Corporation: you have five thousand cows. None of them belongs to you. You charge the owners for storing them.
A Greek Corporation: you have two cows borrowed from French and German banks. You eat both of them. The banks call to collect their milk, but you cannot deliver so you call the IMF. The IMF lends you two cows. You eat both of them. The banks and the IMF call to collect thier cows/milk. You are out getting a haircut.
A British Corporation: you have two cows. Both are mad.
An Irish Corporation: you have two cows. One of them is a horse.
An American Corporation: you have two cows. You sell one and force the other to produce the milk of four cows. Later, you employ a consultant to analyse why the cow has died.
An Australian Corporation: you have two cows. Business seems pretty good. You close the office and go for a few beers to celebrate.
A Chinese Corporation: you have two cows. You employ three hundred people to milk them. You claim you have full employment and high bovine productivity. You arrest the newsman who reported the real situation.
An Indian Corporation: you have two cows. You worship them.
An Iraqi Corporation: everyone thinks you have lots of cows. You tell them that you have none. Nobody believes you, so they bomb the crap out of your country and invade you.
You still have no cows, but you are at last now a Democracy.
;-)
Rob
-
not sure either why any kind of gov't must protect some photog's livelihood in terms of copyright laws, etc while not protecting McD's employee livelihood by (establishing and) enforcing min wages ?
Copyrights and patents were written into the American Constitution over two hundred years ago and is required by law. Congress has written laws regarding the limits, penalties, etc since then.
Article I, Section 8, Clause 8 of the United States Constitution, known as the Copyright Clause, empowers the United States Congress: To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries
edit add: there are no clauses in the Constitution regarding wages.
-
He is mostly stressing the differences as alternatives and mixes Socialism with Communism. Just look at his earlier statements.
I'm pointing out a middle ground, and suggest to use the best of both systems, without getting gridlocked by an opposition that either blocks any movement forward (i.e. the John Boehner tactics to make Obama fail), or even reverses the things done by previous governments when a new government gains a small majority (Trump's promises).
Cheers,
Bart
I know you think Obama was wonderful and the Republicans were terrible. But now that the Republicans are in charge, the Democrats are threatening to block all legislation that the Republicans want to do. Will you be consistent and argue that that's terrible too?
Frankly, I like it when Congress blocks the president. It's exactly what the Founding Fathers wanted when they wrote the American constitution. They knew King George III and wanted nothing to do with royalty. So you will see if you read our Constitution that everything was written to weaken the President's power. Laws were to be generated from the Congress and they had to approve practically everything the president did especially going to war. Unfortunately, over the years, Congress has watered down their own power, foolishly, so now they have given way to much power to the President.
Also, Obama "wrote" laws with personal executive edicts without Congressional review and approval. I suppose he thought Hillary was going to win and continue his edicts. So now that Hillary lost, Trump can unilaterally reverse those edicts without congressional approval. What goes around comes around. Obama shouldn't have been so lazy and pushed for Congressional approval. Then his "edicts" would have been secured by law.
Regarding small majorities in elections, Britain is not that much different than America. Brexit reversed Britain's position in the EU by a 52%-48% vote. Most election result differences are very small. Major changes can occur in government policies with seemingly small differences in the vote.
-
Regarding small majorities in elections, Britain is not that much different than America. Brexit reversed Britain's position in the EU by a 52%-48% vote. Most election result differences are very small. Major changes can occur in government policies with seemingly small differences in the vote.
Indeed, and that's why a far greater percentage should be required to determine something that cannot be resolved or repaired by anything as simple as another general election, where only one country's internal politics are involved. Brexit was something that could not be reversed by the UK holding another general election later on, should Brexit become real. It still hasn't reached that point, so whilst there's life...
Rob
-
Rob. Not sure of your point. Could you expand?
-
That's odd - the most socialist countries are those in Scandinavia, and they seem to be managing to muddle through. Rather better on every metric than the USA in fact. Still, best not let the facts get in the way of your rant, eh?
What garbage. Look at their defense spending. How can it be so low? Why don't the Germans and the Russians own them like they once did? For goodness sakes folks, WWI was only about 100 years ago. WWII was about 70. Does Europe really forget its history of perpetual violence that quickly?Small western European nations exist in their current states of perfected socialism upon the shoulders of U.S. taxpayers who fund the military that keeps the Russians out. Again, not claiming we do this for altruistic purposes, we don't, but it gets so old hearing these meaningless stats about how great the Swedes or the Danes are doing with their nations that are smaller than many of our states and with tiny populations who don't, won't and cannot defend themselves from an enemy they thought Reagan had buried.
Spend the money to defend yourselves adequately from your neighbors and then come talk to me about your socialist utopias. Or, continue to believe that Europe is just one big happy family, Russia is a crazy but harmless uncle and the U.S. is the source of your woes. Many of us here in the U.S. would like to hear that just one more time...........and then wash our hands of it all.
-
Rob. Not sure of your point. Could you expand?
Yes, sure. If a government makes a bad decision over purely internal matters, all the country needs do is wait for the next general election and vote that government out, and make changes to 'correct' the situation. That is a thing within the remit of each country's government and citizens; it's an internal matter that can be resolved internally.
In matters such as membership or otherwise of international bodies, decisions made and applied by one government cannot be reversed by the election of another government of that country should an error be perceived to have been made; it depends on the rest of the independent countries' governments involved and affected by that dubious decision, and how positively or otherwise they feel disposed towards the 'sinner' country after the fact.
In the first case, new elections can change the landscape and clear away mistakes, so a smallish majority is perhaps enough to be legitimate.
In the second instance, I believe that it requires a far more substantial majority to truly represent the nature of a nation, because the decisions being made cannot be reversed in five or so years by simply changing the colour of the next government. In other words, any decision made is pretty much permanent, whether it's a good or a bad one; no second chances.
In fact, I think that a referendum should never be used because it puts complex matters in the hands of people who generally do not have the equipment to deal with the choices properly. I certainly do not believe that I would be the best person to make such decisions, if only because I have definite personal reasons to wish to maintain the status quo. That colours my perspective. I have lived in a variety of countries and consider myself far from totally dumb. Yet, I'd hate to be responsible for the future well-being of any nation, a responsibility that would appal me; I just don't have the knowledge of the detail, the inside track, to formulate the best decisions, and by gum, neither does 99.99% of the rest of the herd. That's why we employ politicians, at least, in theory, and hope that by experience at the coalface they gain the understanding needed for the job.
Rob
-
I know you think Obama was wonderful and the Republicans were terrible.
Hi Alan,
Do you? That's the problem with the black versus white, or Democratic versus Republican, or right versus wrong discussions. Loss of nuance. Simple folks prefer simple solutions, but know what, so do more knowledgeable folks. It's just that the latter are (hopefully) not so entrenched in their dogmatic beliefs, and they also see the shadow sides to superficially attractive solutions. It then becomes a matter of weight to be assigned to the pros and contras, for reaching a balanced opinion.
But now that the Republicans are in charge, the Democrats are threatening to block all legislation that the Republicans want to do. Will you be consistent and argue that that's terrible too?
Sure, if they do similarly counterproductive (for the general public) things. But with a Democratic minority, how likely is that going to happen?
Frankly, I like it when Congress blocks the president. It's exactly what the Founding Fathers wanted when they wrote the American constitution.
Really? Maybe they just wanted to avoid a dictatorship, and give more power to the people and even allow minorities to have their voice heard, not make a presidency fail to improve one's own chances next time around.
Interesting sideline may be the Dutch 'Act of Abjuration (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Act_of_Abjuration)', when Dutch provinces declared their independence from Spanish rule:
Signed on 26 July 1581 in The Hague, the Act formally confirmed a decision made by the States General of the Netherlands in Antwerp four days earlier. It declared that all magistrates in the provinces making up the Union of Utrecht were freed from their oaths of allegiance to the King of Spain, Philip II. The grounds given were that Philip II had failed in his obligations to his subjects, by oppressing them and violating their ancient rights (an early form of social contract). Philip was therefore considered to have forfeited his thrones as ruler of each of the provinces which signed the Act.
...
The Act was remarkable for its extensive Preamble, which took the form of an ideological justification, phrased as an indictment (a detailed list of grievances) of King Philip. This form, to which the American Declaration of Independence bears striking resemblance, has given rise to speculations that Thomas Jefferson, when he was writing the latter, was at least partly inspired by the Act of Abjuration.
When President Obama visited The Netherlands in March 2014 for the Nuclear Security Summit, he was shown the original document. Some say it was at his request, but I'm not sure if that's true although he is called 'Historian-in-chief' by some.
End of history lesson.
Cheers,
Bart
-
Hi Alan,
...Sure, if they do similarly counterproductive (for the general public) things. But with a Democratic minority, how likely is that going to happen?
Really? Maybe they just wanted to avoid a dictatorship, and give more power to the people and even allow minorities to have their voice heard, not make a presidency fail to improve one's own chances next time around.
Interesting sideline may be the Dutch 'Act of Abjuration (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Act_of_Abjuration)', when Dutch provinces declared their independence from Spanish rule:
When President Obama visited The Netherlands in March 2014 for the Nuclear Security Summit, he was shown the original document. Some say it was at his request, but I'm not sure if that's true although he is called 'Historian-in-chief' by some.
End of history lesson.
Cheers,
Bart
Minority party, the Democrats, can block some legislation by using the filibuster in the Senate which requires a 60 vote override to allow legislation to go to a vote. For example, a vote for the Supreme Court justice. Republicans only have 52 votes currently so you will see a lot of filibusters. Frankly I think there's merit in the filibuster as it van block the majority party from jamming down legislation like Obamacare that was opposed by much of the public.
Filibusters allow minority viewpoints to be heard. Other than that, the Bill of Rights in the Constitution protects minority viewpoints such as freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, freedom from illegal searches, freedom to bear arms, etc. Majorities don't need protection because they have the majority vote in legislation to get what they want, as long as it doesn't violate the Bill of Rights.
-
What garbage. Look at their defense spending. How can it be so low? Why don't the Germans and the Russians own them like they once did? For goodness sakes folks, WWI was only about 100 years ago. WWII was about 70. Does Europe really forget its history of perpetual violence that quickly?Small western European nations exist in their current states of perfected socialism upon the shoulders of U.S. taxpayers who fund the military that keeps the Russians out. Again, not claiming we do this for altruistic purposes, we don't, but it gets so old hearing these meaningless stats about how great the Swedes or the Danes are doing with their nations that are smaller than many of our states and with tiny populations who don't, won't and cannot defend themselves from an enemy they thought Reagan had buried.
Spend the money to defend yourselves adequately from your neighbors and then come talk to me about your socialist utopias. Or, continue to believe that Europe is just one big happy family, Russia is a crazy but harmless uncle and the U.S. is the source of your woes. Many of us here in the U.S. would like to hear that just one more time...........and then wash our hands of it all.
OMG.
"Does Europe really forget its history of perpetual violence"
Violent deaths in most countries of Europe are 1/5 - 1/10 the rate of the US, largely due to 30,000 Americans shooting other Americans.
US 5.56 violent deaths per 100,000. Finland 2, Poland 2.29, Portugal 1.1, Spain 0.64, UK 0.63, Austria 0.5.
Other areas - Nth Korea 5.13, Iran 3.91, Chile 3.88, Australia 1.15, China 0.84, Japan 0.28
So actually Europe and the rest of the world is pretty right.
You have to look to Africa and Central America to find the really violent places.
-
OMG.
"Does Europe really forget its history of perpetual violence"
...
Your little diatribe is completely irrelevant for the point N80 was making. He was clearly talking about historical violence, i.e., WARS, not crime or suicides.
-
Your little diatribe is completely irrelevant for the point N80 was making. He was clearly talking about historical violence, i.e., WARS, not crime or suicides.
You Americans are too quick on responsive draw: dead, Slobodan, is dead. Even worse when it's internecine.
Happy 2017!
;-)
Rob
-
What garbage. Look at their defense spending. How can it be so low? Why don't the Germans and the Russians own them like they once did? For goodness sakes folks, WWI was only about 100 years ago. WWII was about 70. Does Europe really forget its history of perpetual violence that quickly?Small western European nations exist in their current states of perfected socialism upon the shoulders of U.S. taxpayers who fund the military that keeps the Russians out. Again, not claiming we do this for altruistic purposes, we don't, but it gets so old hearing these meaningless stats about how great the Swedes or the Danes are doing with their nations that are smaller than many of our states and with tiny populations who don't, won't and cannot defend themselves from an enemy they thought Reagan had buried.
Spend the money to defend yourselves adequately from your neighbors and then come talk to me about your socialist utopias. Or, continue to believe that Europe is just one big happy family, Russia is a crazy but harmless uncle and the U.S. is the source of your woes. Many of us here in the U.S. would like to hear that just one more time...........and then wash our hands of it all.
In your own phrase, what garbage. Do you imagine that the US gains nothing from using Europe as a forward defence base? If you suppose that the US involvement in Europe is not self-serving - well, I have a bridge you may be interested in purchasing. Reasonable rates available.
-
Here in the South West of England some aspects of traditional capitalism have unfortunate outcomes for traditional family farms and Rob's amusing post could be revised thus:
Traditional Capitalism: You have two cows bought with a loan from the bank, extending the loan used to buy the farm. The supermarket pays you less for the milk than it costs to produce it. The bank calls in the loan and you have to sell the cows and the farm.
Tony
-
Your little diatribe is completely irrelevant for the point N80 was making. He was clearly talking about historical violence, i.e., WARS, not crime or suicides.
So the American Civil War doesn't count? In any case, there is a case for saying that tens of thousands of deaths or injuries from firearms each year amounts to a low-intensity civil war just as it does in similarly afflicted countries like Mexico or Brazil. All about history or perhaps Socialism? It looks to be a bit more about drugs, money and inequality from some angles.
Apart from this, all that seems to be emerging is the usual ding-dong in which some very unhappy people bear witness against the viper Socialism, wilier than Old Nick himself and capable of befouling the most innocent breast with diabolical stratagems. These old tropes have been circulating for hundreds or thousands of years in different forms and now under Trump the forms may change again since a scapegoat is always required. My guess is that China may soon be found to be incubating the most devilish schemes and plots, the epicentre of Socialism, an anti-Eden on earth!! Quick, Batman, pass the smelling salts.
-
Minority party, the Democrats, can block some legislation by using the filibuster in the Senate which requires a 60 vote override to allow legislation to go to a vote.
Yes, they could, and probably will to some extent. Just like the Champions of filibustering, the Republicans did (see attached, which even doesn't show the last terms number). To me, as a relative outsider, it does not look as an effective mechanism for progress, but rather a sign of polarization. Wouldn't bipartisanship be better for the country and its people, or are they not important?
Filibusters allow minority viewpoints to be heard.
In theory, but the prolonged speech to prevent voting apparently doesn't have to be about the subject/law at hand. It can be just a delaying tactic with no winners, and no results to further the nation other than more division.
So while I agree that sometimes no decision is better than an objectively bad decision, it doesn't look like that's how the system is used. It's more about frustrating the opposition, for frustration's sake.
Cheers,
Bart
-
Here in the South West of England some aspects of traditional capitalism have unfortunate outcomes for traditional family farms and Rob's amusing post could be revised thus:
Traditional Capitalism: You have two cows bought with a loan from the bank, extending the loan used to buy the farm. The supermarket pays you less for the milk than it costs to produce it. The bank calls in the loan and you have to sell the cows and the farm.
Tony
As an interesting coincidence: this morning, on France24 (all findable on the .com version of the station), they ran a documentary on farming in Italy, France and Austria. There was a concensus that part of the problem in farming is one of age: the majority of farmers are around 60 years old, and they have a very hard time trying to get their offspring interested in keeping the farms going. A strong influencing factor is simply the work: it's too hard, unrelenting and without any escape possible. Consequently, several of the governments have devised ways to try and keep 'em down on the farm, and a few of these involve generous aid from the European Community's funds.
As a result, there's help to buy a certain level of stock etc. depending on your area and game plan. However, as one farmer commented, when supermarket prices leave you in debt, there's something very wrong in the system, and the major something that's wrong is the politicians who will never grasp the nettle of food having to cost everybody what it costs to produce, plus allow a profit down the chains of supply. So, they allow the weakest link - the farmer - to get screwed by the big tax-payer (one hopes they pay fair taxes, but one never can tell) supermarket chains with corrupted buying muscle. (Reflected in photography, too: ask any small shop that survives why it can't buy stock at the same factory or wholesaler price as the remaining 'big boys' enjoy for no honest reason.)
Subsidies are never going to be a good strategy becase of one factor: they distort reality. Any society, I think, is better having to spend its earnings paying more for its food than having that spare cash to give as a present to Mercedes of BMW or anyone else; I spent money on silly cars too, but all I really needed was a Fiesta or something like that, especially the very early Fiestas, where the back seats did fold properly flat and give you a useable flat space. Today, you get a useless, mild ski jump.
If the political climate ever becomes one where reason has a chance, then yes, I see a future for most labour-intensive industries, but I don't see anyone offering that promise, just more fibs and snake oil.
Rob
-
Here in the South West of England some aspects of traditional capitalism have unfortunate outcomes for traditional family farms and Rob's amusing post could be revised thus:
Traditional Capitalism: You have two cows bought with a loan from the bank, extending the loan used to buy the farm. The supermarket pays you less for the milk than it costs to produce it. The bank calls in the loan and you have to sell the cows and the farm.
Tony
The real problem is that the cow and milk farmer not only slowly poisoned the land and surrounding rivers, but due to all kinds of harmful ingredients in dairy and red meat also contributed to the early demise of his customer base. In the meantime, the new generation of yuppie farmers is cleaning up with growing organic garlic, broccoli and kale with many health benefiits and even healthier profit margins. Just another example of government bureaucrats steering their constituents towards a wrong business.
-
Yes, they could, and probably will to some extent. Just like the Champions of filibustering, the Republicans did (see attached, which even doesn't show the last terms number). To me, as a relative outsider, it does not look as an effective mechanism for progress, but rather a sign of polarization. Wouldn't bipartisanship be better for the country and its people, or are they not important?
In theory, but the prolonged speech to prevent voting apparently doesn't have to be about the subject/law at hand. It can be just a delaying tactic with no winners, and no results to further the nation other than more division.
So while I agree that sometimes no decision is better than an objectively bad decision, it doesn't look like that's how the system is used. It's more about frustrating the opposition, for frustration's sake.
Cheers,
Bart
Hi Alan and Bart,
I didn't expect to post in this thread again. I'll still avoid expressing any opinions, but the current state of the filibuster needs to be cleared up.
I'm oversimplifying, and my dates may not be altogether accurate, but one of the reasons your chart shows few filibusters before the early seventies is that in order to filibuster you had to strap on a motorman's friend (google it) and keep talking. Early in the seventies things changed. If you started to filibuster there could be a call for an immediate cloture vote, "cloture" meaning to shut down the filibuster. If the vote failed the issue being filibustered was dead. If the vote succeeded the issue could go forward to a vote. No longer having to worry about an overflowing motorman's friend, people were more likely to filibuster. (What exactly a filibuster is, by the way, is for the observer to define.) This pretty much explains Bart's chart.
But in November, 2013 Harry Reid used the "nuclear option" and the Senate did away with the filibuster on executive branch nominees and judicial nominees other than for the Supreme Court. Harry shot himself in the foot. (I'm still ROTFL.) He was sure the Democrats were going to prevail and Hillary would be elected. Republicans are now going to enjoy the fruits of Harry's mistake. Most of Trump's nominees will sail through without filibusters or cloture votes since they'll only require a majority vote, and guess who's now in the majority.
Oh, and happy new year to everybody on LuLa.
-
Oh, and happy new year to everybody on LuLa.
Same to you Russ, and your beloved ones. And of course to the other LuLa contributors, and staff.
Cheers,
Bart
-
There's nothing strange in using executive orders to get things done. Bush signed 291 EO, so far Obama has signed around 260. Franklin D. Rosevelt signed well over 3000, Reagan around 380 EOs.
Seems like both parties agree on using that tool.
The question is which orders do not have the backing of the Constitution or legislative law. The president is not a king. Additionally, orders not specifically spelled out by law can be easily reversed by subsequent presidents.
-
Executive orders are an issue that needs constant attention regardless of the party. Roosevelt abused his office greatly and was our first socialist. He was as close to king as we've come so far.
The bigger issue is legislation through policy. We are a country encumbered in bureaucratic policies from all the various "departments" that presidents have created over the years. Bush was bad. Obama much worse. These policies get put in place with the weight of law but do not arise out of the legislative process. I despise Trump but am hopeful that he will begin to address this huge problem that leads to an essential oligarchy that works around actual legislation. These departments are hard to get rid of..............but very easy to de-fund. When they are defunded they shrivel. Which is what they need to do, particularly the EPA and CMS.
-
particularly the EPA and CMS.
Pfft...
-
These policies get put in place with the weight of law but do not arise out of the legislative process.
Not quite accurate. All regulations in the CFR have to have legislative links back to laws in the US Code. That linkage established the legal legitimacy of the regulation. The same applies to Executive Orders although that linkage is not always published in the EO. In any case, both regulations (CFR) and Executive Orders are subject to both legislative and judicial review.
-
Not quite accurate. All regulations in the CFR have to have legislative links back to laws in the US Code. That linkage established the legal legitimacy of the regulation. The same applies to Executive Orders although that linkage is not always published in the EO. In any case, both regulations (CFR) and Executive Orders are subject to both legislative and judicial review.
Agreed. But you know as well as I do that the link to actual legislation is often tenuous (to say the least) and that legislative review is nearly non-existent and judicial review is tedious and both are subject to partisanship. This, to me, is not a partisan issue. Both parties are guilty, the process lies outside of the intended checks and balances and represents a quicker, easier and more direct way to impose political power than the standard legislative process. It also relies on level upon level of bureaucratic baggage to resist change and to prevent challenge by those affected by it. It is not good for the nation, it is not good for freedom. It establishes, and has imposed on this nation for decades, a bureaucratic oligarchy. I don't care which party is in control, this process is insidious and harmful. Possibly the worst effect is that you develop a citizenry that is so beat down by bureaucracy and lack of real representation that they come to disrespect the law. They know said policy is morally and ethically wrong but they are helpless to do anything about it and so are their representatives. They then consider it non-binding for them and find ways to circumvent it. In Italy this is a national past time.
-
Frankly I blame the Congress and their cowardice. It's easier for them to let the President take a hit for decisions. Their thinking is why stick their own necks out. So they have been letting him make the decisions which has increased Presidential power over time to the point he can pretty much declare war without the congress. This is not what the constitution allows. The framers wanted a very weak President with very limited authority. They wanted laws written mostly in the various States and most things left to the People. But we also have allowed ourselves to be cowed into submission with our desires for handouts. So we give up so many of our personal freedoms and give all this power to morons in the government who get us into wars, spend our money, break the bank, and really could care less for us as long as they get re-elected. In the end, it's our own fault because we're willing to give up our freedoms for a silver coin, or should I say for a paper certificate.
-
The framers wanted a very weak President with very limited authority.
they also did not want females & colored people to vote, so ?
-
I watched Mrs Obama's farewell speech on the news today; what a charming lady. A very hard act to follow.
Rob C
-
they also did not want females & colored people to vote, so ?
So what is your point? Or are you just expecting to end conversation with that old liberal conversation grenade? (Which isn't going to make the intelligent folks here at LuLa flinch.)
-
Frankly I blame the Congress and their cowardice. It's easier for them to let the President take a hit for decisions. Their thinking is why stick their own necks out. So they have been letting him make the decisions which has increased Presidential power over time to the point he can pretty much declare war without the congress. This is not what the constitution allows. The framers wanted a very weak President with very limited authority. They wanted laws written mostly in the various States and most things left to the People. But we also have allowed ourselves to be cowed into submission with our desires for handouts. So we give up so many of our personal freedoms and give all this power to morons in the government who get us into wars, spend our money, break the bank, and really could care less for us as long as they get re-elected. In the end, it's our own fault because we're willing to give up our freedoms for a silver coin, or should I say for a paper certificate.
Correct.
-
I watched Mrs Obama's farewell speech on the news today; what a charming lady. A very hard act to follow.
Rob C
Well I'm sure you'll see Melania saying the same words before too very long :-)
-
So what is your point?
screw the framers & co when the situation allows
-
screw the framers & co when the situation allows
Ah, the relativist mantra. Which is no better than the anarchist mantra. Condemn people 200 years ago by holding them to your own standard assuming that your standard is better just because it is now. It's kind of like condemning Newton's calculus because he was an anti-Semite. The irony, of course, is that in all probability the standard that you would propose has no basis other than it is what you believe to be proper or true. In reality, that's all the founders did. So your double standard becomes less irony and more hypocrisy.
Further, in the context of this portion of this thread, the issue at hand is that the executive branch has been trending towards autonomy over the last 50 years. Do you believe the founders of this nation were wrong to want to limit that just because they were wrong about other matters? Does this practice appeal to you? Will it appeal to you if King Trump ramps it up a bit too?
Its fine to be a relativist. Just don't whine about it when those who don't share your ideologies are too.
-
Frankly I blame the Congress and their cowardice. It's easier for them to let the President take a hit for decisions. Their thinking is why stick their own necks out. So they have been letting him make the decisions which has increased Presidential power over time to the point he can pretty much declare war without the congress. This is not what the constitution allows. The framers wanted a very weak President with very limited authority. They wanted laws written mostly in the various States and most things left to the People. But we also have allowed ourselves to be cowed into submission with our desires for handouts. So we give up so many of our personal freedoms and give all this power to morons in the government who get us into wars, spend our money, break the bank, and really could care less for us as long as they get re-elected. In the end, it's our own fault because we're willing to give up our freedoms for a silver coin, or should I say for a paper certificate.
Hi Alan - in a general sense you're right, but within that context it's important to remember a couple of things.
First (and this is critical if you're making and Originalist argument - you may not be but I think George might be), it would be incorrect to assume that the framers (or the colonial citizenry) were of one mind on Executive or federal power. In fact they ranged the gamut from desiring almost no Federal authority all the way to what some labeled "royalist," but what we do know is that the original "constitution" - the Articles of Confederation - proved to be unworkable due to an utter lack of Federal authority and were replaced. So we know that the Founders "repealed and replaced" the radical state's rights version of the governing principles of this nation because they were ineffective.
Second, I think your assertion that increased executive authority comes from trading freedoms for handouts is, well, extremely tenuous. If anything, liberals have been granting entitlements WITHOUT corresponding increases in authority, much to the chagrin of conservatives that see them as pandering handouts. I don't have a position (relative to this thread, that is) on the benefits or lack thereof of entitlements, but while I can entertain an argument that entitlements have the ultimate effect of "buying votes" I'm not prepared to make the jump to connecting that to increased executive authority (..and if I was, Medicare part D would rank up there with anything Obama has done).
Where we can agree is that Congress is more interested in pandering than governing (though they must be bad at even that, because our civic engagement is pathetic), and as such has become wholly ineffective on issues that really matter, but frankly, if the legislative body won't govern, someone has to. It's not ideal, but it is reality.
-
Ah, the relativist mantra. Which is no better than the anarchist mantra. Condemn people 200 years ago by holding them to your own standard assuming that your standard is better just because it is now. It's kind of like condemning Newton's calculus because he was an anti-Semite. The irony, of course, is that in all probability the standard that you would propose has no basis other than it is what you believe to be proper or true. In reality, that's all the founders did. So your double standard becomes less irony and more hypocrisy.
Further, in the context of this portion of this thread, the issue at hand is that the executive branch has been trending towards autonomy over the last 50 years. Do you believe the founders of this nation were wrong to want to limit that just because they were wrong about other matters? Does this practice appeal to you? Will it appeal to you if King Trump ramps it up a bit too?
Its fine to be a relativist. Just don't whine about it when those who don't share your ideologies are too.
It's not that the standard is better because it's "now," but rather that the information we have is better because we have 250 more years of knowledge. Obviously this is easy to see in areas like codified racial and sexual franchise, but it's fairly obvious that even civil communications laws written 30 years ago have become archaic and badly outmoded since the advent of the Internet, for example.
This isn't to say that the Enlightenment-based core principles laid down in the Bill of Rights aren't as relevant as guiding principles today as they were then - I strongly believe they are - it's just that it's impossible to argue that the framers of the document would or could have had any inkling of the practical realities of the world we live in.
As a rule, though, I advocate for little resistance when loosening restrictions (I'm pro Heller, for example, even though I don't think it's actually correctly reasoned Originalism, and I think most people who think they need a gun to protect themselves are a little paranoid) but massive resistance when *adding* restriction. Sadly, most people want to argue for individual liberties only when they personally agree with the underlying morality of the issue in question.
-
James, I'm not sure I'm an Originalist (because I'm not real sure what that entails) except in the sense that the original framers designed the document to be modified. Right? Yes, it takes a lot. But we do it and we have done it. Sometimes for the better. Sometimes for the worse. The framers fully understood that time and situations change.
The issue I have is with the idea that because of the progress of technology or science that we are not the same kinds of humans we have always been and that even the most basic principles cannot apply if they are 'old'. Shakespeare (via Ecclesiastes) was right, there is no new thing under the sun.
scyth's response to my question about what his point was regarding the failings of the founding fathers was:
"screw the framers & co when the situation allows"
Tongue in cheek? Silliness? Sophomoric? Or dead serious? He gave no indication. But if we relativize even the soundest of principles of government then we are simply left to our own devices and the result of that is might-makes-right. Anarchy. Or, might-makes-right totalitarianism.
I'm just curious about scyth's comment. It is such trite liberal speak which traps itself in paradox. "Our founding fathers were terrible people. We live in a terrible country." The notion that we are any better than those racist misogynistic greed mongers is in itself preposterous. Time has done a lot of things but it certainly has not made us, as humans, more virtuous. Anyone who thinks that does not know the history of the last 100 years. And in 200 years the same relativists will look at us in self-righteous indignation.
And again, "screw the framers" as a mantra as an unprincipled billionaire egomaniac becomes president? That is beyond ignorant regardless of your political leanings.
-
Well I'm sure you'll see Melania saying the same words before too very long :-)
Déjà vu?
Rob
-
Hi Alan - in a general sense you're right, but within that context it's important to remember a couple of things.
First (and this is critical if you're making and Originalist argument - you may not be but I think George might be), it would be incorrect to assume that the framers (or the colonial citizenry) were of one mind on Executive or federal power. In fact they ranged the gamut from desiring almost no Federal authority all the way to what some labeled "royalist," but what we do know is that the original "constitution" - the Articles of Confederation - proved to be unworkable due to an utter lack of Federal authority and were replaced. So we know that the Founders "repealed and replaced" the radical state's rights version of the governing principles of this nation because they were ineffective.
Second, I think your assertion that increased executive authority comes from trading freedoms for handouts is, well, extremely tenuous. If anything, liberals have been granting entitlements WITHOUT corresponding increases in authority, much to the chagrin of conservatives that see them as pandering handouts. I don't have a position (relative to this thread, that is) on the benefits or lack thereof of entitlements, but while I can entertain an argument that entitlements have the ultimate effect of "buying votes" I'm not prepared to make the jump to connecting that to increased executive authority (..and if I was, Medicare part D would rank up there with anything Obama has done).
Where we can agree is that Congress is more interested in pandering than governing (though they must be bad at even that, because our civic engagement is pathetic), and as such has become wholly ineffective on issues that really matter, but frankly, if the legislative body won't govern, someone has to. It's not ideal, but it is reality.
I agree with you that it's the whole government that "buys votes", not mainly the President. I disagree with you that the President should govern "if the legislative body won't". The legislative body does govern when it refuses to pass laws. It's a check on the President and the constitution requires the legislative to write laws for Presidential signoff or veto not the other way around. Someone once said that the best government is the one that governs the least. I think it's just grand when we have different parties in control of Congress and the President. Then you don't get one-party Democrat laws like Obamacare when half the country is in disagreement and not one Republican voted for it. Or what's going to happen now with its one-party Republican repeal. You get fewer but better laws when the government is divided. Trade-offs have to be done. You have to consider the other side's viewpoints to get laws passed. Then more of the country has a stake in the law and one feels that they had some real representation rather then it been jammed down their throat.
-
At the end of it, the truth seems to be that people are basically ungovernable, if by government you mean, or even look, for broader satisfaction.
I sometimes think of Benito M's Italy: he drained the marshes, got the trains running yet found himself in the catch 22 of joining the mighty, bellicose German or disappearing, along with his weak country, into the same hole as France, Poland etc. etc. A no-win choice, a sort of Hobsonian moment in the history of the country of tiny nation states pushed into the melting pot by yet another set of people who knew what was best... You could think Spain and see the same thing, not to mention southern France, where dreams of a sovereign, eastern Pyrenean unit are still alive in memory and possibly even in language. Go to the Spanish islands, and it's even more precise.
The problem, of course, is Man: he doesn't love his neighbour, not in the least.
Rob
-
Anyone who looks for satisfaction by getting the government involved is nuts. It was Reagan who said that you know you're in trouble when you hear, "I'm from the government and I'm here to help."
-
At the end of it, the truth seems to be that people are basically ungovernable, if by government you mean, or even look, for broader satisfaction.
I sometimes think of Benito M's Italy: he drained the marshes, got the trains running yet found himself in the catch 22 of joining the mighty, bellicose German or disappearing, along with his weak country, into the same hole as France, Poland etc. etc. A no-win choice, a sort of Hobsonian moment in the history of the country of tiny nation states pushed into the melting pot by yet another set of people who knew what was best... You could think Spain and see the same thing, not to mention southern France, where dreams of a sovereign, eastern Pyrenean unit are still alive in memory and possibly even in language. Go to the Spanish islands, and it's even more precise.
The problem, of course, is Man: he doesn't love his neighbour, not in the least.
Rob
You make some good points. The cliche' is true that democracy is the least efficient form of government. It is also true that the best form of government is a benevolent dictator. There was very little violence in Iraq before we ran Saddam out.....as long as you were a Bathist, of course. I think it is also important to understand that the US government CAN make us secure and safe. Totally. It is possible, if we are willing to give up the freedom necessary to do so. And we've been slowly but steadily doing that for the last 50-60 years.
And Rob, you are correct, I think, that man does not love his neighbor. He loves himself. And anyone who starts with the premise that mankind is basically good and can be perfected in goodness with proper governance, education and technology is both unobservant and deluded. All the governance, education and whiz bang technology have changed very little that matters throughout history. We still die mostly from infectious disease, poverty and war. We may have lowered the per capita numbers in the last 100 years but we have boosted the totals exponentially.
But again, the staggeringly amazing thing about the founders of the US is that they understood ALL of this and figured it into our constitution. The advent of MRI machines, global jet travel, cell phones, the internet and global markets do not change its relevance OR its flexibility. Those who think it is irrelevant (for whatever reason) must be charged with coming up with something better. If they think a giant bureaucracy is the answer then they are idiots. Period. The problem at hand is those who wish to wield power in both/all parties have found ways to abuse it. These include abuses of executive authority, abuses of agencies and departments as well as judicial abuses. All of these are far easier to use and misuse than the prescribed Constitutional processes that were intended. Those are hard and they often carry political penalties that our representative prefer not to risk. Sadly, we have no statesmen any longer. None.
In the US the answer is stunningly simple. Term limits. One survey a number of years ago showed that 96% of US citizens want term limits. We the people have probably never agreed on anything with such unity in our entire history. And yet nothing happens. This is proof enough that we no longer have even a facsimile of a representative government. And when you burden those who have no voice there will eventually be a last straw (no matter how comfortable you make them). Those most likely to snap are those who own guns. These folks are generally constitutionalists. And if you think this is some sort of paranoid delusions simply consider this: The citizens of the US own half a billion guns. Thats more than all of the rest of the people in all other countries AND their militaries COMBINED. And these people generally also know how to use them. Relevant? I don't know.
-
Anyone who looks for satisfaction by getting the government involved is nuts.
Says the man typing away on the Internet!!!
-
Says the man typing away on the Internet!!!
Oh, that's right...Al Gore. He invented global warming too. What a guy. But the internet is actually a very good example. The government has a good idea. Roughs it out a little bit. Nice enough. Add private sector and free markets, voila!
-
Oh, that's right...Al Gore. He invented global warming too. What a guy. But the internet is actually a very good example. The government has a good idea. Roughs it out a little bit. Nice enough. Add private sector and free markets, voila!
Utter garbage. Without initial development by the defence department in the US and other countries, and continued state support of related technology and infrastructure, your precious private sector wouldn't have done a thing.
-
Utter garbage. Without initial development by the defence department in the US and other countries, and continued state support of related technology and infrastructure, your precious private sector wouldn't have done a thing.
That's an amazing statement.
I can't vouch for the States, but insofar as the UK was concerned, it was private enterprise that opened up the world to us, from the buccaneers through the slave traders, the 'baccy growers and the traders in spices, cottons and silk. It was the needs of industry that drove the railroads, the canals, the shipyards, almost everything that was the backbone of the Industrial Revolution. As ever, the state mostly just sat on its hands and tried to limit everything and create ever more laws with which to govern everybody else, forgetting often that it was also meant to include them, too. And at the top of everything sat the rich: the nobles, the merchants, the people whose vast wealth afforded the appetites that provided the commercial incentives to the rest. In Britain, we have pretty much turned the once rich into theme park operators, a consequence not of communism, but of socialism gone mad. So, instead of some people being rich by descent, we now have even more rich by playing football, which is obviously an improvement in anyone's view, because it introduces vulgarity into the delightful equation... And everybody loves the sports hero. He even helps one buy the right shoes, which one clearly can't do by oneself. Redistribution of wealth, down in the barn.
States are not in the business of being creative; being creative derives from trying to do something by means of which to make life better for oneself. That's something that every individual eventually has to do for himself, or remain in the same place he was dropped. The most a state will/can do is help, if it gets in enough money from those doing something for themselves. That's why communism always fails. Big Daddy does not know best. Big Daddy is mostly sterile.
Rob C
-
That's an amazing statement.
I can't vouch for the States, but insofar as the UK was concerned, it was private enterprise that opened up the world to us [...]
Big Daddy does not know best. Big Daddy is mostly sterile.
Rob C
I see the Daily Mail is in plentiful supply in your place of exile. History books not so much :-(
-
I see the Daily Mail is in plentiful supply in your place of exile. History books not so much :-(
I'm curious as to what fault you find in Rob's brief analysis. Due to the control of things like Royal charters etc. in the colonial period, I'm not sure his example is entirely applicable to American economic development, but outside of that facet of central control, I think he's presenting a relatively fair picture
-
You make some good points. The cliche' is true that democracy is the least efficient form of government. It is also true that the best form of government is a benevolent dictator. There was very little violence in Iraq before we ran Saddam out.....as long as you were a Bathist, of course. I think it is also important to understand that the US government CAN make us secure and safe. Totally. It is possible, if we are willing to give up the freedom necessary to do so. And we've been slowly but steadily doing that for the last 50-60 years.
And Rob, you are correct, I think, that man does not love his neighbor. He loves himself. And anyone who starts with the premise that mankind is basically good and can be perfected in goodness with proper governance, education and technology is both unobservant and deluded. All the governance, education and whiz bang technology have changed very little that matters throughout history. We still die mostly from infectious disease, poverty and war. We may have lowered the per capita numbers in the last 100 years but we have boosted the totals exponentially.
But again, the staggeringly amazing thing about the founders of the US is that they understood ALL of this and figured it into our constitution. The advent of MRI machines, global jet travel, cell phones, the internet and global markets do not change its relevance OR its flexibility. Those who think it is irrelevant (for whatever reason) must be charged with coming up with something better. If they think a giant bureaucracy is the answer then they are idiots. Period. The problem at hand is those who wish to wield power in both/all parties have found ways to abuse it. These include abuses of executive authority, abuses of agencies and departments as well as judicial abuses. All of these are far easier to use and misuse than the prescribed Constitutional processes that were intended. Those are hard and they often carry political penalties that our representative prefer not to risk. Sadly, we have no statesmen any longer. None.
In the US the answer is stunningly simple. Term limits. One survey a number of years ago showed that 96% of US citizens want term limits. We the people have probably never agreed on anything with such unity in our entire history. And yet nothing happens. This is proof enough that we no longer have even a facsimile of a representative government. And when you burden those who have no voice there will eventually be a last straw (no matter how comfortable you make them). Those most likely to snap are those who own guns. These folks are generally constitutionalists. And if you think this is some sort of paranoid delusions simply consider this: The citizens of the US own half a billion guns. Thats more than all of the rest of the people in all other countries AND their militaries COMBINED. And these people generally also know how to use them. Relevant? I don't know.
Emphasis is mine of course. I think this is a fascinating assertion. I'm in the move right now and a phone isn't enough to reply with, but I think you've keyed on a fundamental point of contention.
-
I see the Daily Mail is in plentiful supply in your place of exile. History books not so much :-(
I don't have your familiarity with it - I never buy it.
In fact, the last British newspaper that I remember buying was some years ago - The Sunday Times, but I gave that up too, in the end, after many years of Winner, AA Gill and even Clarkson, because the ones printed in Spain had terrible ink problems that soiled everything that one touched. They even stained white plastic chairs that are used on the terrace, and, worst of all, was the grim fact that the darned thing (the newspaper) cost € 5 when it cost £ 1 in the UK. AND you didn't get the proper magazines, either, just a single, compendium version.
I read the local Spanish press if I'm having a coffee somewhere, and get an idea of what's what, but only an idea. And that's all the press gets, too.
Rob C
-
James,
"Emphasis is mine of course. I think this is a fascinating assertion. I'm in the move right now and a phone isn't enough to reply with, but I think you've keyed on a fundamental point of contention."
Indeed, and it's pretty fundamental to everything that happens; I do hope that it gets developed within LuLa because it could provide some interesting chat.
Rob C
-
Utter garbage. Without initial development by the defence department in the US and other countries, and continued state support of related technology and infrastructure, your precious private sector wouldn't have done a thing.
Your knowledge on this subject is very inaccurate.
To look at the example of the Internet, neither the government nor anyone working for the government invented it. This was pioneered by two computer scientists in the 1960s, who also happened to be college professors. The governments main involvement with the Internet did not occur until the Vietnam War, and the primary purpose was to utilize an unknown technology to send information that had very little chance of being intercepted since it was unknown.
However, during the war departments use of the Internet, very little, if any, advancement took place. It was not until the private sector took over in the 80s that the Internet began to expand and people other then those at the War Department started to learn about it.
Insofar as the infrastructure, the Internet in the beginning utilized the phone system, which was built and maintained by private business. There could be argument that the government played a roll here since Ma Bell was a government entity, however that is not exactly true since Ma Bell was never a government entity (another common misconception).
When the telephone was initially invented, a few people in the business realized that competing telephone companies in the same locale would produce an ungodly amount of telephone wires, that would be unsafe, inefficient and non-aesthetic. So, being the smart business men they were, they realized if they unite, they could approach congress and convince the government that a centralized (monopoly) communication company would be much better for the American people, and, if congress bit, become incredibly rich. Congress of course bit, and Ma Bell was born, albeit a highly regulated private monopoly.
(Now for the nay sayers who insist monopolies are un-american and congress would never allow such a thing, almost all pro sports in the country are monopolies. The NBA is the only company that provides professional basketball entertainment, the NFL is the only company that ... so monopolies are more common in the USA then one might realize.)
Now the Internet relies on cable wiring, another privately maintained infrastructure, which is my area is controlled by Comcast, and fiberoptics, privately maintained as well, which in my area is controlled by Verizon.
All businesses and major institutions behave in this manner. For the most part, government causes stagnation and private sector performance institutes growth and efficiency.
Another great example is the USPS vs. UPS & FedEx. It is no secret that the USPS is in deep trouble, and it is not that the system could not be improved, it very much can. However, for it to be improved would mean more centralization and automation, which will kill jobs, initially at least. Since any change in the USPS needs to be approved by Congress first, nothing is happening, because no Dem or Rep wants to be known as someone that killed 1000s of post office jobs.
Another example, look how well the air industry flourished after it was deregulated.
Another example, the railroad was built by private industry as well. Sure, the government did provide loads for its expansion in the 1860s. However, expanding the railroads helped the North immensely defeat the South, so there was a great incentive to provide those loans. In the end though, the amount of shipment fees the railroad made from Standard Oil in the tail end of the 1800s was far in excess of any amount loaned by the Government, which means the rails would have been built regardless.
Retouching is super boring and I need to listen to something. Most of the time it is historical documentaries, which are interesting enough to break the silence but not so interesting to distract myself to a great degree. PBS's 6 two-hour episode special on the Civil War and 8 two-hour episode special of the American West are really good ones.
-
Retouching is super boring and I need to listen to something.
I recommend you stick to music or something that will not lead you to make a fool of yourself in public. In the meantime, here is a handy timeline for you to refer to:
http://www.livescience.com/20727-internet-history.html
-
I recommend you stick to music or something that will not lead you to make a fool of yourself in public. In the meantime, here is a handy timeline for you to refer to:
http://www.livescience.com/20727-internet-history.html
To be honest, your link kind of backs up my statement.
It states that the Internet was invented in the 60s by professors working together.
1968: Beranek and Newman, Inc. (BBN) unveils the final version of the Interface Message Processor (IMP) specifications. BBN wins ARPANET contract. (I am pretty sure ", Inc." means private business just took over.)
It then states, 1974: The first Internet Service Provider (ISP) is born with the introduction of a commercial version of ARPANET, known as Telenet.
Then in 1987: The number of hosts on the Internet exceeds 20,000. Cisco ships its first router.
20K is pretty low and can be easily filled by academics and the like, but here we have a private company, Cisco, making the internet available for public consumption.
However, even though shipment of commercial and consumer routers began in 1987, it was not until 1989: World.std.com becomes the first commercial provider of dial-up access to the Internet.
(Note the phrase dial-up, aka phone lines. Once again, my point is shown that private business laid the infrastructure for the Internet to run on since the phone lines were being used. It is even stated in your link, 1934: Belgian information expert named Paul Otlet imagined a “Radiated Library” that would use technology of the day — the telephone and radio (all private enterprises) — to create something very much like the Internet.)
HTML & WWW is invented and introduced in 1990 and 1991 by Tim Berners-Lee at CERN, a public organization, but that does not mean anyone in the private sector could not have done it either.
And then the Internet really starts to grow, and the rest of your timeline is almost all private business and entities jumping on board.
So your link does nothing to really prove your original point, that the government created, nurtured and built the infrastructure for the Internet. You could argue that since Leonard Kleinrock worked at UCSB, and since the U.C. schools are public, then the Internet was created by government.
However, that would be a stretch to say the least.
Also, no mention of the War Department in the entire timeline, something else you referenced.
-
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ARPANET
*sigh*
-
I'm curious as to what fault you find in Rob's brief analysis. Due to the control of things like Royal charters etc. in the colonial period, I'm not sure his example is entirely applicable to American economic development, but outside of that facet of central control, I think he's presenting a relatively fair picture
Where to begin, really? In historical times the trade referred to by Rob was possible in the context of an Empire secured by the state. Innovation of all sorts was motivated by the needs of the navy (clocks, for example).
Much the same can be said of the US, with a different time scale, and different spheres of influence. Perhaps the most modern example of "new frontiers" is NASA.
-
Where to begin, really? In historical times the trade referred to by Rob was possible in the context of an Empire secured by the state. Innovation of all sorts was motivated by the needs of the navy (clocks, for example).
Much the same can be said of the US, with a different time scale, and different spheres of influence. Perhaps the most modern example of "new frontiers" is NASA.
True, I will agree that many innovations were inspired by war efforts throughout history. Here, though, the link is not nearly as strong, IMO.
With that said, I would sacrifice a little speed in the advancement of technologies for greater peace.
-
True, I will agree that many innovations were inspired by war efforts throughout history. Here, though, the link is not nearly as strong, IMO.
With that said, I would sacrifice a little speed in the advancement of technologies for greater peace.
There's no money in it.
Rob
-
There's no money in it.
Rob
Sorry Rob, there's heaps of money in it. Just look at travel to safe places.
"WTTC’s latest annual research, in conjunction with our partner Oxford Economics, shows Travel & Tourism’s contribution to world GDP grew for the sixth consecutive year in 2015, rising to a total of 9.8% of world GDP (US$7.2 trillion). The sector now supports 284 million people in employment – that’s 1 in 11 jobs on the planet."
Cheers,
-
Sorry Rob, there's heaps of money in it. Just look at travel to safe places.
"WTTC’s latest annual research, in conjunction with our partner Oxford Economics, shows Travel & Tourism’s contribution to world GDP grew for the sixth consecutive year in 2015, rising to a total of 9.8% of world GDP (US$7.2 trillion). The sector now supports 284 million people in employment – that’s 1 in 11 jobs on the planet."
Cheers,
That's very interesting information. I had no idea travel and tourism were so significant. Even so, it is hard not to think that trade and war have mostly been two sides of the same coin, with war often being a way of establishing trading advantages by other means. I think here of the East India Company, probably the most powerful corporation there has ever been. In its heyday it traded enormous riches and was enormously violent at the same time.
-
Sorry Rob, there's heaps of money in it. Just look at travel to safe places.
"WTTC’s latest annual research, in conjunction with our partner Oxford Economics, shows Travel & Tourism’s contribution to world GDP grew for the sixth consecutive year in 2015, rising to a total of 9.8% of world GDP (US$7.2 trillion). The sector now supports 284 million people in employment – that’s 1 in 11 jobs on the planet."
Cheers,
That's a stretch beyond bungie!
You must differentiate between countries that are peopled by relatively sane people and those that are not.
"True, I will agree that many innovations were inspired by war efforts throughout history." .... Joe K.
The topìc is innovations, not security which depends little on innovation and a helluva lot on goodwill, moles and clever, joined-up intelligence. It's a question of money spent on those concerns, not innovations per se.
Tourism is certainly huge, too bloody huge and it's a prime cause of global warming, air pollution, exhaustion of water supplies (even here in Mallorca), overflowing sewerage systems (not only sailors are concerned about the direction of the wind), hiked prices and a magnification of the massive disparity between those big groups that own hotel chains, the employees and also the lesser competition being hurt ever more by "all-inclusives" that also suck the life out of small bars and restaurants. The 'benefits' of tourism are being spread more thickly over ever fewer people.
Tourism kills local culture and, in its place, prompts a mocking, ersatz version of the real thing. Even churches and religion are abused in the march to making a dime and milking the travelling goat. Tourism is one of the most dangerous, corrosive influences that any small place can experience. Yes, some may well grow very rich, and they do, but at what price? I hear it all the time here, the epitome of tourist-land: "our kids just want us to buy them BMWs and not make them do any work..." Do you think that does no harm to a broader society than just the rick kids? Where drug use was an unknown, that is no longer the case, I'm afraid; the shit gets learned very quickly, as easily as are old morals discarded.
And I haven't even touched on the problems of hiked prices in every shop; the two-prices system is very real, and very prevalent. I know by being a regular diner at certain places.
The thing is, arguments for the greater glory of governance, socialism and its benefits are always pitched too broadly: yes, insofar as the health safety nets, great, I think every country should strive to provide that basic insurance/assurance to every one of its citizens. I do not, however, believe for a second that it, socialism, or even its political opposites do anything particularly wonderful to promote business. Rather do they often appear to do the opposite, as in Brexit, where people who once campaigned to stay within the strength of a broader union and guaranteed market now, blandly, argue that they should get out as fiercely as they can, cutting all ties in the process. Our current, benign leader is one such shining example. The one before her, a much more brilliant guy, made the fatal mistake of regarding his public too highly: he paid by falling on his sword. Instead, he should have thought of Barnum before making any offers that could go so terribly wrong. Geez, even poor old Obama came over and tried to tell it like it is, at least regarding negotiating trade deals with the States, the supposed saviour to replace the European suicide pact we have just made and are about to sign - God fobid.
Buy hey, we live in the post-truth, virtual games society now, so who gives a damn anymore, it'll all turn out okay again when we take off the headsets. Right.
Rob
-
The problem, of course, is Man: he doesn't love his neighbour, not in the least.
Rob
I've only just seen this thread and not read it all - but I find the above statement rather sad. I appreciate it's a generalisation but so untrue in many cases. What I see is that people are fearful that others will take what they have - either their money/possessions/land or their lives. Too much suspicion. Then there are the greedy power-hungry people who will sow the seeds of distrust among others and lead them to hatred and fear. I do love my neighbours (mostly) and I'm an un-suspicious sort of character. Much more relaxing to be that way.
Man wants to love his neighbour - if you don't, perhaps you should try.
This sounds a bit religious doesn't it - and to think I'm an atheist...... :D
Jim
-
I've only just seen this thread and not read it all - but I find the above statement rather sad. I appreciate it's a generalisation but so untrue in many cases. What I see is that people are fearful that others will take what they have - either their money/possessions/land or their lives. Too much suspicion. Then there are the greedy power-hungry people who will sow the seeds of distrust among others and lead them to hatred and fear. I do love my neighbours (mostly) and I'm an un-suspicious sort of character. Much more relaxing to be that way.
Man wants to love his neighbour - if you don't, perhaps you should try.
This sounds a bit religious doesn't it - and to think I'm an atheist...... :D
Jim
Jim, what on Earth gave you that impression? On rare occasions I could imagine loving a neighbouring wife, but very rarely, and then the second clause would snap in: I might get exactly what you mentioned before, and find my head in my hands. Which, in fact, would not only be poetic justice, but carry just a smidgen of religious justification too.
Better to stay away from them all, wives, husbands, the entire bunch of 'em!
Rob
-
This sounds a bit religious doesn't it - and to think I'm an atheist...... :D
Jim
Not at all. The typical religious view is that man is broken beyond his own ability to repair himself. Secularists and atheists tend to see man as flawed but a work in progress than can be repaired with the right programs and institutions. While the religious view doesn't seem open objective verification, the a-religious view flies in the face of all objective evidence. Another bitter irony.
-
Not at all. The typical religious view is that man is broken beyond his own ability to repair himself. Secularists and atheists tend to see man as flawed but a work in progress than can be repaired with the right programs and institutions. While the religious view doesn't seem open objective verification, the a-religious view flies in the face of all objective evidence. Another bitter irony.
I find myself, as I age, becoming slightly more serene about the prospects post-mortal coil.
Whilst not subscribing to any delineated or prescribed belief, my faith in a 'something greater than' grows by the year. In fact, the more I learn or think about things, the more unlikely it seems to me that any of this (our available visions) was just a random accident of any kind when, even that, would have required an earlier starting point that produced the things that supposedly combined in the intial stages of creation. Of course, I hold no PhD, and so my opinion is worthless, but I'm happy enough with that...
;-)
Rob
-
Exactly, Rob. Roughly 18 years ago I wrote this in an essay I titled: "The Meat of the Matter":
"Faith can come to you in various ways, but never by an exercise of the intellect. Faith isn’t intellectual. It comes to you when you recognize not only that you don’t control the world — not even your own world — but that something else does.
"I think some people are born with that understanding. Most of us aren’t. But you can be touched by something. You can call it God if you want to. What you call it doesn’t matter because neither words nor symbols of any kind can describe what it is that touches you. The touch, itself, occurs outside of time; occupies no time. It isn’t like a Shirley MacLaine “experience”: being taken outside your body, for instance, into another world. Suddenly it has happened, and you can only recognize in retrospect that it has happened. But it leaves you with absolutely no doubt that there is an infinity of creation beyond your ability to grasp with your senses, that that infinite creation is a summer of brightness, and that all of it is in good hands: that all of this world’s glories pale before the reality of what creation really is like. And since the touch is beyond the reach of your senses, you can’t describe it. It simply is!"
C.S. Lewis described this kind of experience in Surprised by Joy. That's a book worth reading.
-
I'm delighted to see that I share this concept with you, Russ.
In youth, I see it (organized religion) as something that can be structured into one by family, schools, churches etc. but those things (inputs) are external, and though they may convince one to a degree or even completely, there can come a time when, either through age or just experience, it's simply not enough to hold any longer and one abandons all spiritual faith, or, one breaks away and forms different, possibly parallel convictions, but a little apart, at least, from the dogma with which one might have grown up.
I think sometimes of those priests - possibly Jesuits - whose minds and characters are filled and formed with much learning and teaching, but who suddenly become stricken with doubt. That must be one of the most difficult and painful spiritual situations for any human to encounter. I envy them not at all! Not only might they carry the angst of their own situation, but the possible guilt, real or misplaced, of where their flock may also find itself in years to come.
Whatever one eventually discovers or, clearly, never will discover if there is nothing beyond, I'd rather live my life with a belief I can accept than with none at all. But, as with so much, one can't fake it.
Rob
-
I am a devout, protestant Christian. Faith, of course, is the hallmark of this particular religion. And while I do believe that faith goes beyond intellect I do not believe that faith precludes intellect. I think that Kierkegaard's "leap of faith" or, technically "leap to faith" is a glaring misappropriation of Biblical principles of faith. He based his ideas of faith on the Abraham-Isaac story but simply got it incredibly wrong. My view is that faith is primal but it is fortified by intellect including but not limited to empirical evidence. The scriptures confirm this time and again for those inclined to believe them. In essence the Bible is a case, an evidentiary argument for a creator God and his Christ. Paul, is known for his long and detailed arguments with the Greeks, in their philosophical form, for Christ.
Now, if one is not inclined toward Christianity or even if one is but dismisses scripture, then my beliefs do not hold as well.
But as a scientist, I am with Rob, the longer I live and the more I learn the less likely it seems that this is all the result of chance and time. Heisenberg famously said “The first gulp from the glass of natural sciences will turn you into an atheist, but at the bottom of the glass God is waiting for you.” I agree.
I also think that those who deny a creator God are often unwilling to accept the consequences of that idea. Neitsche (sp?) and Sartre were the exceptions. Sartre in particular understood the existential crisis of there being no moral basis for our actions and decisions. (Of course he was not true to his ideal later in life when he prescribed and supported certain political views as good and right.)
-
Hi George. I agree with everything you said. But I didn't say that faith precludes intellect. Faith is separate from intellect.