Has U.S. Democracy Been Trumped?

[Trinidad]

Which president said this?

 

a. JFK

b. Clinton

c. Obama

d. Donald J Trump

 

Many people see JFK as a president with a vision for the future. But few people will think that this vision was so clear that he would be able to refer to Obama. :)

 

Rik

[gwnn]

Yes too bad I was too lazy to blur out the name of Obama, otherwise it would've been next to impossible to guess! :)

[Zelandakh]

Yes too bad I was too lazy to blur out the name of Obama, otherwise it would've been next to impossible to guess! :)

You are kidding I hope. It is obvious just from the style of speech. Many say that JFK was the first modern politician because his appeal was more visual than oral (Nixon actually won the radio vote but lost the TV vote more heavily). Even so, his oratory style is very different from that of Trump. The difference between JFK and Obama would be a lot more difficult to spot I think, if for no other reason that that Obama appears to have consciously decided to model himself on his predecessor. I would like to think I could recognise Clinton in this line-up. I guess he would be easiest to mix up with Obama due to the "easy" style of delivery but I think there are enough differences that it should not be so difficult except for "canned" answers and speeches (which are essentially not really that person speaking).

[jogs]

Total obstruction by the Democratic Party. The national Republican Party is in disarray. The Trump administration is unlikely enact any major tax reform. Have no clue how to provide healthcare to all citizens. Trump will only be able to roll back regulations which were created by bureaucrats not elected by the people.

The optimism in the business community is at record highs. Trump will demonstrate that any successful businessman is better than the best politician at running the U.S. economy. This will open the door for Jeff Bezos and Mark Zuckerburg to run for president.

[PassedOut]

Trump will demonstrate that any successful businessman is better than the best politician at running the U.S. economy. This will open the door for Jeff Bezos and Mark Zuckerburg to run for president.

We read it here first!

:D

[y66]

From Tamsin Shaw's review of The Undoing Project: A Friendship That Changed Our Minds by Michael Lewis:

 

Lewis’s tale of this intellectual revolution begins in 1955 with the twenty-one-year-old Kahneman devising personality tests for the Israeli army and discovering that optimal accuracy could be attained by devising tests that removed, as far as possible, the gut feelings of the tester. The testers were employing “System One” intuitions that skewed their judgment and could be avoided if tests were devised and implemented in ways that disallowed any role for individual judgment and bias. This is an especially captivating episode for Lewis, since his best-selling book, Moneyball (2003), told the analogous tale of Billy Beane, general manager of the Oakland Athletics baseball team, who used new forms of data analytics to override the intuitive judgments of baseball scouts in picking players.

 

The Undoing Project also applauds the story of the psychologist Lewis Goldberg, a colleague of Kahneman and Tversky in their days in Eugene, Oregon, who discovered that a simple algorithm could more accurately diagnose cancer than highly trained experts who were biased by their emotions and faulty intuitions. Algorithms—fixed rules for processing data—unlike the often difficult, emotional human protagonists of the book, are its uncomplicated heroes, quietly correcting for the subtle but consequential flaws in human thought.

 

The most influential of Kahneman and Tversky’s discoveries, however, is “prospect theory,” since this has provided the most important basis of the “biases and heuristics” approach of the new behavioral sciences. They looked at the way in which people make decisions under conditions of uncertainty and found that their behavior violated expected utility theory—a fundamental assumption of economic theory that holds that decision-makers reason instrumentally about how to maximize their gains. Kahneman and Tversky realized that they were not observing a random series of errors that occur when people attempted to do this. Rather, they identified a dozen “systematic violations of the axioms of rationality in choices between gambles.” These systematic errors make human irrationality predictable.

 

Lewis describes, with sensitivity to the political turmoil that constantly assailed them in Israel, the realization by Kahneman and Tversky that emotions powerfully influence our intuitive analysis of probability and risk. We particularly aim, on this account, to avoid negative emotions such as regret and loss. Lewis tells us that after the Yom Kippur War, Israelis deeply regretted having to fight at a disadvantage as a result of being taken by surprise. But they did not regret Israel’s failure to take the action that both Kahneman and Tversky thought could have avoided war: giving back the territorial gains from the 1967 war. It seemed to Kahneman and Tversky that in this case as in others people regretted losses caused by their actions more than they regretted inaction that could have averted the loss. And if this were generally the case it would regularly inform people’s judgments about risk.

 

That research eventually yielded heuristics, or rules of thumb, that have now become well-known shorthand expressions for specific flaws in our intuitive thinking. Some of these seem to be linked by a shared emotional basis: the “endowment effect” (overvaluation of what we already have), “status quo bias” (an emotional preference for maintaining the status quo), and “loss aversion” (the tendency to attribute much more weight to potential losses than potential gains when assessing risk) are all related to an innate conservatism about what we feel we have already invested in.

 

Many of these heuristics are easy to recognize in ourselves. The “availability heuristic” describes our tendency to think that something is much more likely to occur if we happen to be, for contingent reasons, strongly aware of the phenomenon. After September 11, for instance, fear of terrorism was undoubtedly disproportionate to the probability of its occurrence relative to car crashes and other causes of death that were not flashing across our TV screens night and day. We find it hard to tune out information that should, strictly speaking, not be of high relevance to our judgment.

 

But in spite of revealing these deep flaws in our thinking, Lewis supplies a consistently redemptive narrative, insisting that this new psychological knowledge permits us to compensate for human irrationality in ways that can improve human well-being. The field of behavioral economics, a subject pioneered by Richard Thaler and rooted in the work of Kahneman and Tversky, has taken up the task of figuring out how to turn us into better versions of ourselves. If the availability heuristic encourages people to ensure against very unlikely occurrences, “nudges” such as providing vivid reminders of more likely bad outcomes can be used to make their judgments of probability more realistic. If a bias toward the status quo means that people tend not to make changes that would benefit them, for instance by refusing to choose between retirement plans, we can make the more beneficial option available by automatically enrolling people in a plan with the option to withdraw if they choose.

Sounds like a good case for Trump insurance, not that it is unlikely we'll need this.

[jogs]

In Section 2 of Article 3? Any time an EO is against existing law or treaties, a judge (of any level) is duty-bound to hear the case and make a ruling. It is precisely the point of the American constitution that the judicial branch puts a limit on the executive branch in this way.

 

 

That is a huge stretch. This is a dispute between the President of the United States and the local community.

When the president vetoes a bill, it requires 2/3 of the house and 2/3 of the senate to override the president's veto. Now the progressive left thinks every low level circuit judge is more powerful than the president.

[Zelandakh]

That is a huge stretch. This is a dispute between the President of the United States and the local community.

To which specific case are you referring? There have been so many already it is difficult to keep track. The main rulings seem to have been made with regard to individuals' rights in treaties entered into under international law. Is it really your position that upholding these would be beyond the remit of a judge?

[gwnn]

Yes, Zel, I was kidding. In fact the first post was also a joke. The joke was that DJT has a different (lower) level of eloquence than Obama, JFK, or Bill Clinton. So the question (posing as a riddle) is in fact trivially easy to solve, which is the contradiction leading to humour. I hope all is clear now.

[mikeh]

Total obstruction by the Democratic Party.

 

Incredible! Unbelievable! How destructive to the principles of democracy! What were they thinking? Where did that idea come from?

 

Oh.

 

Now I remember.

[jogs]

Susan Rice. Look her up. The main stream media refuses to report anything negative about the left.

[Zelandakh]

Susan Rice. Look her up. The main stream media refuses to report anything negative about the left.

You mean like that bastian of the alt-right, The Atlantic? I guess in your world it is ok to collude with state enemies but not to try and uncover evidence of wrong-doing by those enemies? Well in that case, I guess you are almost right. :unsure: :blink: :lol:

[kenberg]

Whatever the case with Susan Rice, we see a familiar pattern.

 

I was wiretapped.

Well, I didn't say I was wiretapped I said I was "wiretapped"

By "wiretapped", note the quotes, I meant I was surveilled.

Well, make that "surveilled".

What I really said, ok, make that "said", is that others connected to me were "surveilled".

Well, yes, the surveillance came up as a routine part of the surveillance of foreign agents but definitely, in the words of Spicer, something happened. Or at least "something happened".

I was right. I am a;ways right. The health care bill would have "covered everyone". Obama is a "Muslim", "born" in "Kenya" . The "Earth" is "flat". (See Tom Friedman, he has a whole "book" on it.)

It's impossible to pin down a bowl of Jello and pointless to try. And I don't much care for the taste anyway.

 

As the defendant says in Chicago, "He ran into my knife. He ran into my knife ten times." That was funny. This isn't.

[WellSpyder]

As the defendant says in Chicago, "He ran into my knife. He ran into my knife ten times."

My wife's favourite line in Chicago! (I wonder whether there is a warning for me lurking there, somewhere??)

[barmar]

I miss the good old days when they only word we needed to put in quotes was "is".

[Winstonm]

Richard Dreyfess accused Donald Trump of being an idiot for his treatment of fellow republicans while campaigning for president. Trump won the nomination and won the presidency. Trump is brilliant and Dreyfess is the idiot for not recognizing this.

Donald Trump speaks like an uncouth trash talking 18-year-old enlisted man from the hicks.

The self-righteous progressive left has taken a page out of the Mao playbook. Mao did not allow criticism of his policies. With PC the left does not allow criticism of its views. Critics will be called racists, sexists, homophobes, xenophobes, bigots, etc. Well, I happen to be a proud shariaphobe. How can anyone be in favor of a morality system from the 7th century?

One can't be for both political correctness and free speech. That would be an oxymoron. Donald Trump is the first national figure to speak against political correctness. The first amendment protects people who are uncouth and unrefined. The first amendment allows everyone to offend. The left needs to develop thicker skin.

 

 

 

Sorry Rob, American voters prefer Archie to Meathead.

 

 

His approval rating as of April 4, 2017, is 35%.

According to the poll, the majority of Americans also believe the following about the president:

“He is not honest”

“He does not have good leadership skills”

“He does not care about average Americans”

“He is not level-headed”

“He does not share their values”

Additionally, 52% of voters say they are embarrassed to have Trump has president, according to the poll.

 

Even prior to the Republican primaries, how could anyone have believed his con man BS and NOT have envisioned his ineptitude? It still baffles me.

[ldrews]

I think you are understating the issue. Here is a thought experiment. Imagine Trump, after shedding his political neophytism (probably not a word), is able to push through exactly the healthcare bill that he thinks is best. What would be in it? I have no idea, and I doubt anyone else has. Maybe Ivanka knows, or Jared knows, but I don't. Trump likes to win. Everyone understands that. But beyond winning, what does he wish to accomplish?

 

 

Since passage of any health care legislation requires the cooperation of Congress, I have serious doubts that any health care bill will pass. Obamacare will remain in force. and will probably stay in force until it implodes/crashes or the costs skyrocket to the point that many people will effectively have no health care. Even now some families have deductibles in the $9,000 range. For them that is the same as having no health care at all.

 

So it probably doesn't matter what Trump has in mind. Whatever it is, we won't see it in our lifetime.

[Winstonm]

Since I see Trump as having little clout with Congress, yes I expect him to use Executive Orders. The problem is that, as we have seen, Executive Orders can be reversed by the next Administration. To me, the upside is that most of things that I would like to see happen can probably be accomplished via Executive Orders.

 

Focusing on golf course usage is again getting distracted from the essential operations. I really don't care how often he plays golf, I care that he initiates actions to reduce government, reduce regulations, etc., etc.

 

Don't watch the hands, don't listen to the chatter, focus on what cup is the pea under! Otherwise you will lose.

 

I don't think you really understand the limited scope of an executive order.

[nige1]

Ex CIA Director John Brennan's Richard Dimbleby Lecture

 

John Brennan talks well

[ldrews]

I don't think you really understand the limited scope of an executive order.

 

Great! Would you please explain the limitations to me.

[Zelandakh]

Great! Would you please explain the limitations to me.

Start by reading this and note in particular:

 

executive orders are subject to judicial review and may be overturned if the orders lack support by statute or the Constitution.

 

all executive orders from the President of the United States must be supported by the Constitution, whether from a clause granting specific power, or by Congress delegating such to the executive branch.[6] Specifically, such orders must be rooted in Article II of the US Constitution or enacted by the congress in statutes.

 

Once you feel you have a basic understanding of what an EO is, read this, which outlines the limits in more detail.

 

four important limits on executive orders: the federal judiciary, Congress, the public and the Office of Legal Counsel.

[Winstonm]

Great! Would you please explain the limitations to me.

 

Sure.

 

The President with his EOs tells those departments and agencies that fall under the executive branch how they must operate. Even then, all EOs can be ruled illegal by the judicial system, and EOs cannot encroach on the powers of the legislative branch.

 

The more telling consequences of the Trump presidency (oxymoron intended) is not his anti-Obama executive orders but the cabinet picks and other department picks he has made. What we are seeing on that front is an organized attempt via the Jeff Sessions-led Justice Department to suppress voting rights by omission of federal protection, less protection for the environment in favor of corporations, and less protection of the working class and women, again favoring capital over labor.

[y66]

From Is the Risk of Russia-NATO War Going Up or Down? by Max Fisher and Amanda Taub

 

The international relations field spends a lot of energy thinking about low-probability, high-risk scenarios. There is probably none higher-risk than a nuclear war between Russia and the North Atlantic Treaty Organization.

 

The scenario is not that Moscow or Washington would deliberately start a war. Rather, it’s that an accident or provocation, occurring at a time of high tension, could set off an unintended escalation. Under the terrible logic of deterrence, rapid retaliation and something called first strike instability, this would spiral into full-on war.

 

When Max wrote a long article on that scenario, during a period of rising tension in early 2015, the political scientist Jay Ulfelder tried to indirectly measure its probability by surveying a database of expert political forecasters. He found an aggregate view of an 11 percent chance of Russian-American war before 2020, and an 18 percent chance that such a conflict would go nuclear.

 

In total, Mr. Ulfelder’s surveyed experts assessed about a 2 percent probability of Russian-American nuclear war, the potential consequences of which include the literal destruction of humanity. That’s very low, but it’s still about twice the odds that any individual American will die in a car accident, and 180 times the odds of them being killed by a gun.

 

With all that’s happening between Russia and the United States, and with Russia’s expanding influence operations targeting Europe, is that risk going up or down?

 

David Wood, writing for the Huffington Post, argues this week that the risk is growing. He bases this on the frequency with which NATO intercepts Russian military jets flying without filing a flight plan or broadcasting a transponder code. The flights are considered provocations meant to intimidate European NATO states, and they create a risk of unintended escalation.

 

James Stavridis, the commander of NATO in Europe from 2009 to 2013, told Mr. Wood, “We are now at maximum danger” due to the risk of miscalculation, which he called “probably higher than at any other point since the end of the Cold War.”

 

We might argue, though, that the risk peaked in early 2015 and has since declined for three big reasons. More

[jogs]

Additionally, 52% of voters say they are embarrassed to have Trump has president, according to the poll.

 

 

These same posters concluded that Hillary had better than a 97% chance of winning.

Markets would tank with Trump as president.

World markets are all at or near all time highs.

Small business optimism is at a 20 year high.

 

Don't trust left-wing posters.

[Trinidad]

These same posters concluded that Hillary had better than a 97% chance of winning.

Markets would tank with Trump as president.

World markets are all at or near all time highs.

Small business optimism is at a 20 year high.

 

Don't trust left-wing posters.

Did you read this (particularly the part I emphasized), before you posted?

 

Sure.

 

The President with his EOs tells those departments and agencies that fall under the executive branch how they must operate. Even then, all EOs can be ruled illegal by the judicial system, and EOs cannot encroach on the powers of the legislative branch.

 

The more telling consequences of the Trump presidency (oxymoron intended) is not his anti-Obama executive orders but the cabinet picks and other department picks he has made. What we are seeing on that front is an organized attempt via the Jeff Sessions-led Justice Department to suppress voting rights by omission of federal protection, less protection for the environment in favor of corporations, and less protection of the working class and women, again favoring capital over labor.

Of course, markets will go up. But for those who are working, instead of living on capital, raising financial markets won't do them much good. And if they are going up at their expense, as Winston pointed out, it will work out for the worse for the majority of the population.

 

Rik