Election predictions

Clinton

9 (69.2%)

Trump

4 (30.8%)

Hung college

0 (0%)

Total Members Voted: 13

[Alan Klein]

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.

[Alan Klein]

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. 

[Rob C]

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

[Alan Klein]

Rob.  Not sure of your point.  Could you expand?

[N80]

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 C]

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

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

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', 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

[Alan Klein]

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', 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.

[BobShaw]

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.

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

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.

[Rob C]

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

[jeremyrh]

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.

[Tony Ovens]

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

[mecrox]

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.

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

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

[Rob C]

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

[LesPalenik]

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.
   

[RSL]

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.

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

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

[Alan Klein]

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.