Has U.S. Democracy Been Trumped?

[ldrews]

A question I have been pondering lately is how did we get into a position where radical minorities wield power incommensurate with their numbers? At least in Congress, a better method than partisan rancor would be for moderates from both sides of the aisle to work to restore statesmanship and eliminate the radical influences that now hold us all hostage.

 

It appears the heart of this problem lies in the House, created by gerrymandering where you can end up with districts that are 55% radical right voters. It now appears that there has been creep into the Senate, as well.

 

We need moderate statesmen to regain control of our government; and we need a clear separation of church and state.

 

It seems to me that Congress is just a reflection of our polarized society. How often do you, or anyone else, attempt to find common ground with those who disagree with you? What I observe on all sides is a slash and burn mentality, my tribe against yours, etc. As long as that continues we won't see much change in Congress.

[jogs]

In the USA it takes 12 to 15 years to fix an infrastructure problem.

In Germany and Canada it takes 2 years.

 

In Japan it took 48 hours to fix this sinkhole.

[jogs]

You can see one lesson right away: Democracies tend to decline when they’re young. The median age is six. A lot of these cases are countries emerging from colonialism, which tends to leave them with weak institutions and small groups of powerful elites.

Most of those were never democracies. A nation becomes a democracy when there is a peaceful transfer of power.

[y66]

A question I have been pondering lately is how did we get into a position where radical minorities wield power incommensurate with their numbers? At least in Congress, a better method than partisan rancor would be for moderates from both sides of the aisle to work to restore statesmanship and eliminate the radical influences that now hold us all hostage.

 

It appears the heart of this problem lies in the House, created by gerrymandering where you can end up with districts that are 55% radical right voters. It now appears that there has been creep into the Senate, as well.

 

We need moderate statesmen to regain control of our government; and we need a clear separation of church and state.

Gerrymandering is a big part of it. So is increasing corporatism which is enabled by gerrymandering.

 

What I don't think the gerrymandering geniuses counted on is how this increases the vulnerability of moderates in primaries in which energized radical minorities do a better job of getting out the vote. Look what happened to Eric Cantor.

[y66]

This just in from Andy Borowitz:

 

MOSCOW (The Borowitz Report)—In a stunning rebuke of a former close political ally, Russian President Vladimir Putin on Wednesday angrily resigned from Donald Trump’s 2020 reëlection campaign.

 

The abrupt resignation sent shockwaves through the Trump reëlection organization, for which Putin had served as chairman.

 

Putin’s sudden departure, which he announced during a joint appearance with the United States Secretary of State, Rex Tillerson, appeared to catch the former ExxonMobil C.E.O. off guard.

 

“Given the recent actions of Donald Trump, I feel that I can no longer effectively serve as his campaign chairman,” Putin told reporters, while Tillerson looked on awkwardly.

 

In an unusually emotional comment by the Russian President, a visibly bitter Putin added, “I worked very hard on Trump’s 2016 campaign, and, at the end of the day, I have no more to show for it than Chris Christie does.”

 

At the White House, a source close to Trump said that he had not yet decided who would take Putin’s place in his 2020 campaign, but that it would “probably be Jared.”

[rmnka447]

A question I have been pondering lately is how did we get into a position where radical minorities wield power incommensurate with their numbers? At least in Congress, a better method than partisan rancor would be for moderates from both sides of the aisle to work to restore statesmanship and eliminate the radical influences that now hold us all hostage.

 

It appears the heart of this problem lies in the House, created by gerrymandering where you can end up with districts that are 55% radical right voters. It now appears that there has been creep into the Senate, as well.

 

We need moderate statesmen to regain control of our government; and we need a clear separation of church and state.

The gerrymandering works both ways. Here in Illinois, the legislature has been under Democratic control for something like 40 years and they are currently within one vote of having a veto proof majority in both houses. The congressional districts reflect that control and certainly favor Democrats although there are areas that just have too many Republicans to prevent Democrats getting all the congressional seats. Redistricting usually ends up in the courts because that's the only way to obtain anywhere near a fair redistricting.

 

The congressional district I live in is a good example of redistricting run amok. Instead of being anywhere near some regular geometric shape, it looks like a Rohrschach ink blot. The best I can devine is that the Democrats decided to move some Republican majority areas into one funny looking district, so several Democrats would be sure of being elected in several other adjacent districts.

 

I've been wondering if the current impasse created by the extremes in BOTH parties will be a prelude to the birth of a third moderate/centrist party that leaves them behind.

[rmnka447]

You probably are not surprised that I very much agree with this.

 

In the 1950s we had the John Birch Society, and claims that fluoridation of water was a government plot. Although I grew up in what I think could fairly be called an unsophisticated political environment, and people would have taken that description as a compliment not an insult, I did not know anyone who paid any attention to those nuts. Later I knew a guy who ran for governor on the Socialist Workers Party ticket. He wanted an investigation because he could not believe he got so few votes. I had no trouble believing it at all.

 

Eisenhower ran against Stevenson. Whatever you might think of either of them, nobody I knew thought either was a nut. McCarthy, of course, claimed Stevenson was a Communist but again nobody I knew paid any attention to this.

 

Ok, enough with the nostalgia. But it would really be nice if someone, preferably several someones of varying views, were capable of working together to get something done.

You're recalling a time when conservative radicals saw Russian agents and plots to take over the government everywhere.

 

Seeing the current situation, I couldn't help but muse about how much the progressive radicals trying to create this huge Russian conspiracy to take over and control the US government resembled the McCarthyites and Birchers.

[y66]

You're recalling a time when conservative radicals saw Russian agents and plots to take over the government everywhere.

 

Seeing the current situation, I couldn't help but muse about how much the progressive radicals trying to create this huge Russian conspiracy to take over and control the US government resembled the McCarthyites and Birchers.

Yes, they're just like that. Fluoridated water also leads to abuse of simile apparently.

[Winstonm]

In an interview with the Wall Street Journal that appeared on Wednesday, Trump made a warning. If Democrats won’t talk repeal, the president said, Republicans might decide to cut off some subsidies now flowing to health insurers offering coverage through Obamacare’s exchanges.

 

“I don’t want people to get hurt,” Trump said, sounding a bit like a mobster describing a protection racket. “What I think should happen — and will happen — is the Democrats will start calling me and negotiating.”

 

Or, more commonly stated in The Godfather as: "I"m gonna make them an offer they can't refuse."

 

 

This is not good news for America or horse owners.

 

Edit: Honestly, I wrote mine first!

(Paul Krugman from New York Times)

But Mr. Trump, as you may have noticed, isn’t big on accepting responsibility for his failures. Instead, he has decided to blame Democrats for not cooperating in the destruction of their proudest achievement in decades. And on Wednesday, in an interview with The Wall Street Journal, he openly threatened to sabotage health care for millions if the opposition party doesn’t give him what he wants.

 

In that interview, the president of the United States sounded just like a mobster trying to extort protection payments from a shopkeeper.

 

“Obamacare is dead next month if it doesn’t get that money,” he declared, referring to cost-sharing subsidies that reduce out-of-pocket expenses for low-income families, and are crucial even to higher-income families, because they help keep insurance companies in the system. “I don’t want people to get hurt.” (Nice shop you’ve got here, shame if something were to happen to it.) “What I think should happen and will happen is the Democrats will start calling me and negotiating.” (I’m making them an offer they can’t refuse.)

 

It’s a nasty political tactic. It’s also remarkably stupid.

[barmar]

The congressional district I live in is a good example of redistricting run amok. Instead of being anywhere near some regular geometric shape, it looks like a Rohrschach ink blot. The best I can devine is that the Democrats decided to move some Republican majority areas into one funny looking district, so several Democrats would be sure of being elected in several other adjacent districts.

John Oliver did his main story this week on gerrymandering. One thing he pointed out is that you can get crazy-shaped districts for good reasons, too, but it's far more commonly with gerrymandering.

[Winstonm]

To me the most distressing and nauseating conclusion that comes out of the Russia-Trump investigation, the investigation of whether or not the Trump campaign worked in concert with Russian intelligence to win the election, is that regardless of whether or not any collusion is ever found or proved, no one - neither supporter nor hater of Trump - can deny that he is so lacking in moral character as to be capable of having done such a thing for no other reason other than self-aggrandizement.

 

And that, in itself, is a tragedy.

[rmnka447]

As long as we're talking about being scared of particular types of people, I'm most afraid of people who:

 

1. Are white. As a white person living in America, I am much more likely to be murdered by a white person than a black or brown person.

2. Own guns. Most murders in the US are with guns.

3. Believe crazy conspiracy-theory stuff. This seems to be a common factor in people who shoot up schools, movie theaters, etc. While most people are murdered by people they know, I have a pretty "safe" set of friends (I think, maybe everyone thinks this). Most mass-shootings are by "crazies" as far as I can tell.

4. Are anti-semitic or anti-technology/globalization. This is maybe more personal, as a (non-practicing) Jew working in tech.

 

The interesting thing is, when you put these together the profile looks an awful lot like a typical Trump supporter!

 

And in defense of Trump supporters we have ..... Bernie Sanders?

 

https://www.yahoo.com/news/bernie-sanders-says-trump-voters-164721855.html

[y66]

From Trump Shifts Back to Health Care - President says his plan to change the tax code will have to wait by Louise Radnofsky, Peter Nicholas and Richard Rubin in the WSJ

 

WASHINGTON—After losing a fight to revamp the health-care system, President Donald Trump said last month he was prepared to put the setback behind him and move on to the next challenge, rewriting the tax code.

 

Three weeks later, he said he is determined to resurrect the health-care bill even if it means delaying the tax overhaul, telling The Wall Street Journal in an interview: “I want to get health care done…I think I will get it done.”

 

The tax overhaul, he said, would have to wait.

 

Mr. Trump’s revived push to fulfill a core campaign promise appears to be driven by three developments: First, a renewed confidence that he can still win enough votes to pass a bill; second, a belief that he needs the health-care savings to help pay for the tax bill and hit his economic growth promises; and third, a recognition that the tax-code overhaul isn’t near ready.

The abrupt shift caught some Capitol Hill Republicans off guard. They had been preparing to turn immediately to the tax legislation.

 

“We don’t get it. What a waste of time and political capital to return to the quagmire of health reform,” said Greg Valliere, chief global strategist at Horizon Investments, a North Carolina investment firm, in a client note Wednesday. Unlike taxes or infrastructure, he said the health bill is “clearly a no-win issue for the Republicans.”

 

The renewed focus on health care also raises the prospect of a second embarrassing defeat that would raise more questions about the new administration’s ability to shepherd complicated legislation through Congress.

 

But some allies said they were encouraged, not alarmed, by that pursuit now.

 

“Just because they didn’t achieve success at first on health-care legislation doesn’t mean it’s not going to get accomplished,” said Corey Lewandowski, Mr. Trump’s former campaign manager. “It’s going to get accomplished and they’re continuing to work on that. It’s a pledge he has made and will fulfill.”

 

In his interview with the Journal, Mr. Trump specifically mentioned a renewed confidence in the Freedom Caucus, a group of conservative Republicans he had just two weeks ago suggested targeting for defeat in next year’s midterm election.

 

“They want to do the right thing and they do like me and they do like their president,” he said.

 

Rep. Mark Meadows of North Carolina, a prominent House Republican and leader of the Freedom Caucus, said he had conversations with the president and his staff in which he set out a potential path to yes on a health-care deal for a number of conservative members and others.

 

He declined to discuss the specifics of that path, but praised the president’s past business history in making deals where no deals seemed to be in sight.

 

“He’s singularly focused on making sure he fulfills his campaign promises,” Mr. Meadows said.

 

While Mr. Trump has also suggested he is open to a deal with Democrats on health care, some White House officials believe the most direct route to passage of a bill involves persuading Republicans to go along. Democrats oppose the effort to repeal the law.

 

Among other things: The administration hasn’t decided whether to seek a tax cut, who might get a tax cut and whether to pursue the border adjustment feature at the center of House Republicans’ plans. When they do make those choices, it is going to be difficult, especially given the likely need to find almost all the votes for the tax bill inside the GOP, some officials said.

 

What’s more, the two initiatives are interconnected, White House officials believe. Should a health-care overhaul pass, that would free up hundreds of billions of dollars that could be used to help pay for tax reductions brought about by the tax-code rewrite, they said.

 

“That’s the biggest driver in that decision,” a White House official said Thursday.

 

Under congressional rules, though, money from one bill isn’t deployed to another. What the health-care bill does is repeal taxes created in the Affordable Care Act, paid for by cutting spending on Medicaid.

 

Because the last week of April will be spent funding the government, Republicans have a window to work on health care without significantly delaying their tax agenda, which couldn’t advance publicly anyway during that time, said Kenneth Kies, a GOP tax lobbyist.

 

“There’s a window here to pull the health care thing back together and get it done without impeding tax reform,” he said.

 

Still, the prospects for that victory, however much Mr. Trump wants it, are mixed.

 

Current and former Republican House members believe that their colleagues could yet be inclined to get a bill voted through the lower chamber, if for no other reason than to tell constituents that they had done so. Whether Senate Republicans then can resolve their own, separate but equally divisive fights on health care is no certain matter.

[barmar]

And in defense of Trump supporters we have ..... Bernie Sanders?

Saying that they're not "deplorables" is a pretty mild form of support. Even Hillary regretted saying it.

[jogs]

It is time your guys start watching Colin Cowherd.

Cowherd is left or left leaning on every major social issue.

But now Cowherd thinks the PC left is going too far.

 

Cowherd says that Pepsi has done no wrong. Only the PC left is against giving a cop a Pepsi.

Cowherd defends Eli Manning. It's the NFL which makes the big money on sports memorabilia.

[Winstonm]

It is time your guys start watching Colin Cowherd.

Cowherd is left or left leaning on every major social issue.

But now Cowherd thinks the PC left is going too far.

 

Cowherd says that Pepsi has done no wrong. Only the PC left is against giving a cop a Pepsi.

Cowherd defends Eli Manning. It's the NFL which makes the big money on sports memorabilia.

 

Better yet, why not just listen to fact and make up your own mind?

[awm]

And in defense of Trump supporters we have ..... Bernie Sanders?

 

https://www.yahoo.com/news/bernie-sanders-says-trump-voters-164721855.html

 

While I voted for Bernie Sanders in the primary, he is still a politician. Politically, it is not a good strategy to insult a significant subset of voters, even if the insults are technically correct. The reason is that other voters who may be more on the fence can get offended that someone they know has been called "deplorable" or a racist or whatever, and therefore change their vote.

 

Of course, I am not a politician and am not campaigning for anything. So I pretty much call them as I see them (rightly or wrongly). In my opinion this poll says a lot about Republicans. They are not so much dedicated to a particular set of policies or positions; in addition to the given poll on bombing Syria, we can see the same behavior on infrastructure spending and even Romney/Obama-care. And Republican voters are convinced of many things that just aren't true (like the stock market went down under Obama, or he raised taxes, or he's a muslim, etc). The theme is that Republican voters don't judge politicians on their stated positions or even on what they do while in office -- they are choosing in a very tribal manner based on who the politician is. And what they want is a wealthy white christian male, preferably one who doesn't seem too sympathetic to non-whites, non-christians, or non-males. This is what they got with Donald Trump! And I don't think it's unfair to call this behavior out for what it is (racism, sexism, religious discrimination) although admittedly politicians hoping to win elections in "red" parts of the country might want to avoid saying it aloud.

[ldrews]

Better yet, why not just listen to fact and make up your own mind?

 

If you do not personally observe the "fact" or personally do the experiment, then is it still a fact? Or is it just hearsay? If it is reported to you, how do you know that the reporter is truthful or accurate? How do you know it is, indeed, a fact?

[Winstonm]

If you do not personally observe the "fact" or personally do the experiment, then is it still a fact? Or is it just hearsay? If it is reported to you, how do you know that the reporter is truthful or accurate? How do you know it is, indeed, a fact?

 

If you can't recognize opinion for what it is, and you don't have the basic curiosity to search out verification of facts, then you probably lack the mental flexibility nexessay to change your mind.

[ldrews]

If you can't recognize opinion for what it is, and you don't have the basic curiosity to search out verification of facts, then you probably lack the mental flexibility nexessay to change your mind.

 

I apologize for putting a basic metaphysical question to you. Obviously that is not your area of focus.

[Winstonm]

I apologize for putting a basic metaphysical question to you. Obviously that is not your area of focus.

 

No, it's just that I have played that mind game before and I now find it banal rather than interesting.

[blackshoe]

In the 1950s we had … claims that fluoridation of water was a government plot.

It was a government plot! Its nefarious purpose was to reduce the incidence of dental caries in the population. Not sure, but I think it's working. :ph34r:

[kenberg]

If you do not personally observe the "fact" or personally do the experiment, then is it still a fact? Or is it just hearsay? If it is reported to you, how do you know that the reporter is truthful or accurate? How do you know it is, indeed, a fact?

 

The question is an old one.

 

 

What us Truth

[cherdano]

If you do not personally observe the "fact" or personally do the experiment, then is it still a fact? Or is it just hearsay? If it is reported to you, how do you know that the reporter is truthful or accurate? How do you know it is, indeed, a fact?

This is indeed difficult. It requires a certain skill - some call it "intelligence".

[ldrews]

This is indeed difficult. It requires a certain skill - some call it "intelligence".

 

You speak of it as if from a distance. Are you still looking for it?