Illuminati-R-Us

I can see that. But what about the apparent lack of intelligence and common sense?

He always made sure he personally was insulated from his businesses.

Halcyon Dayz, FCD wrote:Having very little ethics is actually a boon in business.

I would think it would be a boon in many things. The solution to a constrained optimisation problem cannot be better than the solution to an unconstrained optimisation problem.

Halcyon Dayz, FCD wrote:And he had quite the head-start.

Yes he did.

I'm going to take a somewhat different spin on the discussion on democracy.

The founders of the US were deeply distrustful of democracy, and went to considerable lengths to protect the future Americans from democracy. These protections have been weakened somewhat over time, as the US government has become more democratic - e.g., direct election of senators, which was not how it worked originally. The choice of the president is also something approximating a democratic choice (yes, there have been a few cases where the popular vote winner did not take office, but you do need a lot of votes if you want in) - not what the founders originally envisioned.

The 1787 constitution put considerable limits on what the partially democratically elected government could do - for example, freedom of speech is not supposed to be abridged, whether or not 51% of the people want it that way (or 60%, or 80%) - it takes quite a high hurdle, modification of the constitution, 2/3 vote in two legislative bodies, and ratification of 3/4 of the states. Many of what we often call the "western democracies" don't have such a system, and the government can outlaw, with a majority vote, behaviour that is constitutionally protected in the US, and can only be outlawed by changing the constitution.

Personally, I think some of the problematic things we are seeing today are actually the result of creeping democratisation, and the founders would have felt somewhat vindicated that they had tried to prevent it. Of course there is no way to test that hypothesis for sure.

Just a sobering thought...

The president seems unstable, doesn't care who he offends, doesn't seem to think things through, acts on impulse, etc etc. His top people are even saying he lacks what it takes for the job and they fear him having the nuclear codes. Now what happens if he gets a bur under his saddle, and decides to launch nuclear weapons at say North Korea? I would imagine cooler heads to surround him, but we all know his reaction to dissent is to up the ante. So do we see mass resignations and refusal to fulfill the launch order? Do we see a hard core of presidential loyalists who gung ho, and off we shoot? Or does the military stage a palace coup and take the button from his hand?

They don't go into detail about how the system works but I've seen several people who should know, claim that it was designed intentionally so that one the call is made, others can't really intervene.

I don't know if it's true or not but those making the claims were not happy about it. And I'm talking about your various retired Generals turned CNN commentator types.

Perhaps some relevance to this topic here.

I don't think I ever heard any of that. Wow.

Old news, but I just found this article, notable for using the spelling, "reëlection"

Мастер wrote:I'm going to take a somewhat different spin on the discussion on democracy.

The founders of the US were deeply distrustful of democracy, and went to considerable lengths to protect the future Americans from democracy. These protections have been weakened somewhat over time, as the US government has become more democratic - e.g., direct election of senators, which was not how it worked originally. The choice of the president is also something approximating a democratic choice (yes, there have been a few cases where the popular vote winner did not take office, but you do need a lot of votes if you want in) - not what the founders originally envisioned.

The 1787 constitution put considerable limits on what the partially democratically elected government could do - for example, freedom of speech is not supposed to be abridged, whether or not 51% of the people want it that way (or 60%, or 80%) - it takes quite a high hurdle, modification of the constitution, 2/3 vote in two legislative bodies, and ratification of 3/4 of the states. Many of what we often call the "western democracies" don't have such a system, and the government can outlaw, with a majority vote, behaviour that is constitutionally protected in the US, and can only be outlawed by changing the constitution.

Personally, I think some of the problematic things we are seeing today are actually the result of creeping democratisation, and the founders would have felt somewhat vindicated that they had tried to prevent it. Of course there is no way to test that hypothesis for sure.

It's an interesting take, but I think the founders would disagree. The measures you cite were meant as safeguards against dictatorial takeover by one interested party (small p) - checks and balances. I don't think they were against democracy, they wanted that the stated actions were blunted and slowed by checks&Balbances and the rules of law. Indirect, representatative gouvernment is a logical idea there. To install a democratically (if indirectly) elected government tied and hampered by the rule of law and by other democratically (if indirectly) elected branches of the state I wouldn't call anti-democratic, but I'd call it anti-ochlocratic (ochlocracy, leadership of the mob).

Arneb wrote:It's an interesting take, but I think the founders would disagree.

The classic quote on the matter is from James Madison.

"Hence it is that democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and in general have been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths … A republic, by which I mean a government in which a scheme of representation takes place, opens a different prospect and promises the cure for which we are seeking."

But whether we define "democracy" more or less strictly, can we agree that the level of direct democracy has increased - by change in the constitution, direct election of senators, and by change in practice, electors essentially being automatons?

It seems The Economist now considers the US to be a "flawed democracy".

Ah - you see I was unaware that James Madison - or indeed, anyone, made that distinction. Of course, if you limit the work democracy to the states where the voting population has a direct say in the day-to-day running of affairs, the American Republic can be said to be undeocratic, with its various safegurards, laws and levels of indirectness. I just didn't know that kind of definition existed.

In that case, I am a happy anti-democrat. I am against referenda, direct election of powerful officials, and I prefer the guarantees of MY constitution (just let article 1 roll off your tongue! Human dignity is unimpeachable. To repect and protect it is the duty of all state authority!) to be above anything any German Adolf Trump wants to do.

A bit of an odd twist on things, would probably be funny if it weren't so sad. Part 6 of the series:

http://www.macleans.ca/politics/washing ... ump-vol-6/

I was really hoping that his "deal/not a deal" with the Democratic leaders would compel enough Republicans to seriously consider impeachment. Alas, only Ann Coulter seems to think that the "deal/not a deal" thing was the last straw.

I mean, DACA is a good thing, the wall is a bad thing, and it may seem inconsistent to hope that he'd be impeached for working with people to re-instate DACA and not build a wall. But I'm relying on Trump continuing to serve his own interests above all else, and assuming that as soon as neither of those things do that, he will publicly reject the notion that he ever attempted to make a deal in the first place.

And now he's full-throttle on a race to the bottom with North Korea and calling peaceful protestors "sons of bitches." He's nothing if not a contentious gas-bag.

Any depth you can plumb
I can plumb deeper
I can plumb any depth
deeper than you.

No you can't
Yes I can
No you can't yes I can

It'll be YUGE.

And we're gonna have the best mushroom clouds!

The greatest of them all. Great crwod too. If you look carefully, you can see their skeletons through their skin, it's THAT bright. Amazing, if you think about it. Historic.

Newspaper heading today on the Alabame primary: When Trumpism beats Trump.

It sounds like he personally liked Moore better, but was convinced against his "better" judgement to support Strange, instead. Considering the similarities between Moore and Trump, I find this to be the most believable scenario. Of course, whether he genuinely supported Strange or not, he's wasted little time throwing a tantrum about it, throwing his staff under the bus, and trying to make it look like he was a Moore supporter all along.

The lives of others. Tales from the ICE hotline.

Heid the Ba' wrote:The lives of others. Tales from the ICE hotline.

Has anyone reported Melania?

I see Trump has visited Puerto Rico.