Has U.S. Democracy Been Trumped?

[Winstonm]

Still, for all the anger whipped up by politicians and the propaganda machine in the US, I see that the US went up from 15th to 13th in the latest happiness rankings: Denmark Recovers Top Spot on World Happiness Ranking

 

 

Of course, the US might have gone up because some folks enjoy being angry...

 

You don't think it might be due to marrying an ugly girl, do you? Just my personal point of view. :)

[Al_U_Card]

Since Andrew Jackson, the financial system has been the major "factor" in both happiness and political success. Pols backed by bankers (Hilary, anyone?) have sold the nation to the banks. Trump is bad but Hil is a shill for G-S. Money makes the world go 'round but debt is always an accident waiting to happen.

[Zelandakh]

Of course, the US might have gone up because some folks enjoy being angry...

Or it might have gone up because 2 or more other countries got less happy. Also, if you go into the report and look at the numbers you will find that USA fell from 7.119 to 7.104 and occupies position 93 (of 126) on the "changes in happiness from 2005-2007 to 2013-2015" with a delta of -0.261. So I am not entirely sure one ought to see this as a major positive. Just for the record, the 2 countries that have fallen below USA between 2015 and 2016 are Costa Rica and Mexico. Costa Rica went from 7.226 to 7.087 while Mexico had a large drop from 7.187 to 6.778 - must be the worry at having to pay for that new fence! :P

[barmar]

Maybe Mexico got more unhappy because the unhappy Mexicans used to migrate to America, and it's become harder for them to do that. Or perhaps the prospect of being able to go to America gave them some happiness, and hearing about tightening the border worries them.

[WellSpyder]

Maybe Mexico got more unhappy because the unhappy Mexicans used to migrate to America, and it's become harder for them to do that. Or perhaps the prospect of being able to go to America gave them some happiness, and hearing about tightening the border worries them.

This somehow reminds of the claim that emigration from Scotland to England raises the average IQ in both countries....

[straube]

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/27/us/politics/donald-trump-transcript.html?_r=0

[kenberg]

I saw in the paper this morning that there are two Republican governors who have publicly stated they will not vote for Trump if he is the nominee. One of them is Larry Hogan from Maryland. I knew there was a reason I voted for that guy. I guess with Hogan a well as with me, party loyalty is not the only thing to be considered.

Not being a great enthusiast for either Clinton or Sanders my vote was up for grabs this time around. Trump will not be grabbing it, and I think that there are quite a few Rs whose vote he also won't be grabbing. What a disaster.

[blackshoe]

Vote for Cthulhu. Why settle for the lesser evil? B-)

[Winstonm]

I recently saw that 2 states (Kansas and Louisiana) that elected Republican governors (Brownback and Jindal) and Republican-dominated legislatures a few years back and then went full bore into the Right Wing ideology of tax cuts for businesses and the better off and welfare benefits slashing have since reduced budget surpluses into massive deficits, while other parts of the country recovered from the Great Recession. This, to me, is important data that disputes supply-side and Reaganomics. When these data are added to the quick and savage budget hole that Reagan found the federal government in after his initial tax cuts and the Bush II disaster of spending the Clinton surplus on tax cuts and leaving a huger deficit and near depression, it become pretty clear that the Republican ideology is based on fantasy rather than fact.

 

The truly troubling aspect of the campaign to me is the lack of hostility from the press - other than a few isolated instances, the candidates are allowed to say and repeat fantasies without challenge, without being called out on facts, and without being embarrassed nationally. Case in point is Ted Cruz's continued claim that "Obamacare" has cost thousands of jobs when the job market - since the ACA was passed - has shown historically unprecedented growth.

 

Huxley was right - we have become a nation of entertainers and the entertained.

[PassedOut]

I saw in the paper this morning that there are two Republican governors who have publicly stated they will not vote for Trump if he is the nominee. One of them is Larry Hogan from Maryland. I knew there was a reason I voted for that guy. I guess with Hogan a well as with me, party loyalty is not the only thing to be considered.

Not being a great enthusiast for either Clinton or Sanders my vote was up for grabs this time around. Trump will not be grabbing it, and I think that there are quite a few Rs whose vote he also won't be grabbing. What a disaster.

I voted for Kasich in the primary. But if either Trump or Cruz gets the republican nomination, I'm definitely going to vote for the democrat.

[barmar]

There are sites like Politifact that fact-check the candidates, and the news vehicles I favor (NPR and The Daily Show) routinely pass these results on. But I think most supporters of the candidates really don't care. In particular, there's been plenty of reporting about how Trump's businesses have not been anywhere close to as successful as he claims, but it doesn't put a damper on his momentum.

[mycroft]

I have a similar question. Why have we set up the News Entertainment industry (WWE can be Sports Entertainment, so...) so that actually finding out truth is farmed off to some other organization, and actually reporting it is left to niche players and comedy vehicles? And why do people put up with this?

 

I know, I know, the truth is expensive, and their clients know the viewers would prefer panem et circenses. And in many cases, the clients would prefer to pay for it over truth, for exactly the reasons the Roman Empire did.

[mike777]

I have a similar question. Why have we set up the News Entertainment industry (WWE can be Sports Entertainment, so...) so that actually finding out truth is farmed off to some other organization, and actually reporting it is left to niche players and comedy vehicles? And why do people put up with this?

 

I know, I know, the truth is expensive, and their clients know the viewers would prefer panem et circenses. And in many cases, the clients would prefer to pay for it over truth, for exactly the reasons the Roman Empire did.

 

News Entertainment Industry came about when decades ago the news division was expected to be a profit center rather than just an expense, a cost to own a tv network or local station. People put up with it, the vast majority put up with it, because they are not willing to pay for it.

 

 

As far as "truth" in a political campaign at some point we don't expect all the truth, all the time so we tune it out. As some point in our lives we accept that all the people don't tell the "truth" all the time. Sometimes this is because we don't know what the truth is, we get it wrong.

[Al_U_Card]

Starting with bread and circus...

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U1Qt6a-vaNM

[mike777]

See Brussels....no one wants to know the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.......basically Brussels does not want to send its young boys and girls to Asia and Africa to fight and die...that is the real truth.

 

 

the truth is boys and girls in Brussels are not lining up to go fight. People prefer to not see the truth.

 

 

lets talk truth are young boys and girls lining up in Egypt tonight to fight radicals? the answer is no.

[Trinidad]

basically Brussels does not want to send its young boys and girls to Asia and Africa to fight and die...that is the real truth.

 

It seems to me that Brussels is taking a sensible position there.

 

Rik

[Zelandakh]

It seems to me that Brussels is taking a sensible position there.

So sensible that it is difficult to follow the point Mike is trying to make...not for the first time, sadly. :huh:

[y66]

So sensible that it is difficult to follow the point Mike is trying to make...not for the first time, sadly. :huh:

Not really. I think Mike is channeling Edmund Burke here via Donald Trump and Tony Blair: "The only thing necessary for the triumph of ISIS is for good men not to "crush" ISIS ASAP".

[Winstonm]

Not really. I think Mike is channeling Edmund Burke here via Donald Trump and Tony Blair: "The only thing necessary for the triumph of ISIS is for good men not to "crush" ISIS ASAP".

 

No, what he must be saying is that the reason Chile is not suffering myriad terrorist attacks is because Chile sends so many of its young men to fight and die in foreign lands.

[Zelandakh]

Not really. I think Mike is channeling Edmund Burke here via Donald Trump and Tony Blair: "The only thing necessary for the triumph of ISIS is for good men not to "crush" ISIS ASAP".

I think you mean Plato here rather than Burke. The quote "The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing" is often linked with him (and has been since at least 1920) but that is almost certainly erroneous, his words being "When bad men combine, the good must associate; else they will fall, one by one, an unpitied sacrifice in a contemptible struggle." The earliest known example of the modern form comes from Reverend Aked but the real original is of course "The price good men pay for indifference to public affairs is to be ruled by evil men."

 

In any case, things have changed a fair bit since the 18th century. Blair did not expect normal civilians to go to war, not only because it is politically questionable but also because it is just not really feasible at the levels of training that would be possible. In a theatre like Iraq, a conscript militia is more harmful than useful. I daresay Trump knows this too and Belgium certainly has little to gain from raising a civilian army and carting them off to Asia, Africa or the Middle East. To blame the "good men" (women?) of Belgium for any successes would be similar, perhaps worse, than blaming Burundi for climate change but with the added effect of leaving thousands dead unnecessarily.

[kenberg]

After both the Paris attacks and the Brussels attacks Hollande said "We are at war". OK, maybe he said it in French. I don't disagree, but it needs more detail. In particular, it does not mean that Belgium or any other place will be drafting citizen armies. It does mean that everyone, from a baby to a grandmother, is potentially an ISIS target. And it does mean that ISIS will continue doing this until we are able to stop them, and it means that stopping them will include, but certainly not be limited to, military action. In short, they will be killing us and we will be killing them. If anyone has a clear idea how to get them to stop killing us without some military activity on out part I am sure the leaders in both the US and in Europe will be pleased to learn of it. I don't know anyone who welcomes war, but there does appear to be a threat out there and I imagine that it has to be addressed.

 

Certainly one of the issues in the upcoming US elections will be how best to address this threat.

 

Reading my last sentence reminded me: A day or so after the Bussels attack Wolf Blitzer was on air saying something like "And now we go to [whoever it was] to see how this will affect the US elections". Good God, Wolf, could we bury the people first? But we do need to discuss what to do. Anyone who thinks that the answer is obvious should be ignored.

[barmar]

Reading my last sentence reminded me: A day or so after the Bussels attack Wolf Blitzer was on air saying something like "And now we go to [whoever it was] to see how this will affect the US elections". Good God, Wolf, could we bury the people first? But we do need to discuss what to do. Anyone who thinks that the answer is obvious should be ignored.

The candidates don't let these things wait, the news can hardly avoid keeping up with them.

 

Like when Scalia died, the GOP leaders started talking about blocking a replacement nomination while he was still warm.

[Winstonm]

After both the Paris attacks and the Brussels attacks Hollande said "We are at war". OK, maybe he said it in French. I don't disagree, but it needs more detail. In particular, it does not mean that Belgium or any other place will be drafting citizen armies. It does mean that everyone, from a baby to a grandmother, is potentially an ISIS target. And it does mean that ISIS will continue doing this until we are able to stop them, and it means that stopping them will include, but certainly not be limited to, military action. In short, they will be killing us and we will be killing them. If anyone has a clear idea how to get them to stop killing us without some military activity on out part I am sure the leaders in both the US and in Europe will be pleased to learn of it. I don't know anyone who welcomes war, but there does appear to be a threat out there and I imagine that it has to be addressed.

 

Certainly one of the issues in the upcoming US elections will be how best to address this threat.

 

Reading my last sentence reminded me: A day or so after the Bussels attack Wolf Blitzer was on air saying something like "And now we go to [whoever it was] to see how this will affect the US elections". Good God, Wolf, could we bury the people first? But we do need to discuss what to do. Anyone who thinks that the answer is obvious should be ignored.

 

The only problem I have is that "military action" can mean so many different things. I do not think it the invasion and removal of Saddam Hussein has made the U.S. or Europe safer from terrorism. I do not think you should retroactively try to militarily punish an entire country because its leadership allowed terrorists to hide within its borders as we tried to do in Afghanistan.

 

This is Obama's greatest feat, IMO. He is smart enough to know that terrorism is not a state's crime but individual actions magnified. Intelligence, special forces, drone attacks, bombing when necessary are all useful in this battle as far as I am concerned. Sending troops - the typical "boots on the ground" call of the U.S. hawk is almost self-defeating, as there must be a useful political motivation with a reasonable chance for a permanent solution for there to be benefit from that type of war.

[kenberg]

The candidates don't let these things wait, the news can hardly avoid keeping up with them.

 

Like when Scalia died, the GOP leaders started talking about blocking a replacement nomination while he was still warm.

 

I know. But I found the Blitzer comment especially offensive. On wanted phone in no behalf of Belgium and suggest that when 30 some people have been blown to pieces and a couple of hundred more are devastatingly injured maybe, just maybe, we could hold off for a bit on discussing whether this is good for Bernie or Trump or Clinton or bad for Bernie or Trump or Clinton.

 

It does, however. require some thought. We are going to have a new president, and it would be best if he is not a narcissistic baboon.

 

 

On a somewhat related topic: There has been much talk about how the technology has eliminated the need for a court showdown with Apple. So far, everyone seems to have slid past the obvious: Assuming the gov is telling the truth, we now have proof, if proof were needed, that these phones can be hacked. Secure communication seems to be much more a myth than a reality.

[hrothgar]

On a somewhat related topic: There has been much talk about how the technology has eliminated the need for a court showdown with Apple. So far, everyone seems to have slid past the obvious: Assuming the gov is telling the truth, we now have proof, if proof were needed, that these phones can be hacked. Secure communication seems to be much more a myth than a reality.

 

Cracking the cell phone in question was never the focus of this debate. (Most knowledgeable folks believed that the government code have cracked the phone had they wanted to)

 

I work in tech, I work with a lot of lawyers, and I work with a bunch of people who care very much about privacy.

 

The key issues in this case were

 

1. Can the government compel a company to do novel work (against the company's interest)

2. Can the government compel a company to speak (against the company's interest)

 

For those who don't understand the reference to speech:

 

Code is treated in much the same way as speech

The government was trying to force Apple to write code and then create a digital signature for that code