Has U.S. Democracy Been Trumped?

[y66]

From Why Washington insiders think Democrats will take back the House by Amber Phillips at WaPo:

 

Here's a striking stat: The House of Representatives has flipped parties only three times in the past 60 years. The conventional wisdom in Washington right now is that Democrats are about to make it four.

 

As we come up on 100 days before the midterm elections, nearly every key sign is pointing to Democrats controlling the House of Representatives next year for the first time since 2010.

 

“Democrats remain substantial favorites for House control,” writes David Wasserman, a nonpartisan election analyst for the Cook Political Report, in an analysis out Friday that has the political world buzzing.

 

Of course, the conventional wisdom in Washington is fallible. (See: Trump vs. Clinton, 2016.) And next week we'll be analyzing why it might be wrong.

 

But while Republicans are publicly bullish they'll keep the House, nonpartisan analysts are leaning toward Democrats. That's because there are some solid reasons to predict that this time, Democrats will win. Let's run those down.

[hrothgar]

It's not the sexual exploits that are so questionable -- we all knew that he was a slimeball, he bragged about this stuff on TV.

 

It's all the payoffs to stifle the women he banged. And the lying about it (although he lies about everything, and people like like don't care).

 

Many types of campaign finance violations are felonies...

[Winstonm]

Many types of campaign finance violations are felonies...

 

And if you set up your LLC to hide the source of the money, I think money laundering charges could also come into play. Then there are also conspiracy charges if Mr. Pecker of the National Inquirer knew about and went along with a plan to obfuscate a campaign donation.

[ldrews]

And this guy is in tears over getting his job back: https://youtu.be/qPrkRpRgz54

[hrothgar]

And this guy is in tears over getting his job back: https://youtu.be/qPrkRpRgz54

 

No one claims that the beneficiaries of a massive income redistribution scheme aren't going to be happy about it...

 

I'm just surprised that the GOP has become so enamored about picking "Winner and Losers".

[Chas_P]

In more lighthearted news, if you can call the President of the USA telling another lie lighthearted,

 

Dennison Celebrates ‘Record’ Sales of Nonexistent Health Insurance Policies

 

There's nothing better than health insurance that doesn't cover what ails you. Health plans with significant exclusions may be worse than having no health insurance at all, since you are paying premiums for insurance that ultimately may not pay anything when you need it most.

 

I would to hear the Dennison supporters support this B-)

 

It's terrible! It's almost as bad as Obama promising that your premiums will decrease by 20% and if you like your doctor you can keep your doctor. I'm heartsick.

[ldrews]

No one claims that the beneficiaries of a massive income redistribution scheme aren't going to be happy about it...

 

I'm just surprised that the GOP has become so enamored about picking "Winner and Losers".

 

Isn't all government action "picking winners and losers"?

[Chas_P]

Simple question for the Trumpistas

 

Suppose that the Mueller probe were to find conclusive evidence that the Trump "real estate" empire is, in fact, a large scale money laundering scheme, with its profits coming from some mixture of

 

1. Russian Oligarches

2. South American drug cartels

3. The Iranian National Guard

 

Would this disclosure change your opinion about whether or not Trump should remain in office?

 

The New York Times is reporting that the Mueller probe is now trying to put together an obstruction of justice case against the President based on his tweets, TV appearances, and public conversations. If true...and it must be true if reported by the NYT...it suggests that Mueller has no credible evidence of any wrongdoing by the President and is now trying to manufacture a crime from acts that are completely legal. This renders your question, though simple, moot.

[hrothgar]

The New York Times is reporting that the Mueller probe is now trying to put together an obstruction of justice case against the President based on his tweets, TV appearances, and public conversations. If true...and it must be true if reported by the NYT...it suggests that Mueller has no credible evidence of any wrongdoing by the President and is now trying to manufacture a crime from acts that are completely legal. This renders your question, though simple, moot.

 

Please try to familiarize yourself with the actual facts before posting.

 

1. Executive orders made by a President are not "legal". Nor are they "illegal". Context matters greatly.

 

As a practical example, the president has an unfettered power to pardon, however, a presidentially pardon can still be a criminal act if it was offered for an illegal purpose.

 

2. As such, it can be extremely difficult to bring charges of obstruction of justice against a sitting president. Not only do you require evidence about the act itself, you also require knowledge regarding the state of mind of the President when they took said action.

 

3. In turn, this is where Trump's State of consciousness stream of tweets and quotes enters into the picture. It is why Trump's direct on camera statements that specifically link Comey's firing to the Russia investigation are so important.

 

4. When you say that Mueller has no "credible evidence", I don't think that either you or I has direct knowledge of the full set of data that Mueller has available to him.

 

I do know that Mueller's been able to get a whole lot of convictions and flip a whole bunch of insiders for someone with "no credible evidence"...

[hrothgar]

Isn't all government action "picking winners and losers"?

 

No. However, some government action certainly has this effect.

 

What you seem to be missing is the following:

 

I belong to a political affiliation that is happy to pick winners and losers, so long as this is done in an efficient manner.

For example, I don't have philosophical objections to using taxes to transfer wealth from individuals with large amounts of $$$ to those who are less fortunate.

 

You, on the other hand, have frequently stated that you believe that all taxes are theft.

Therefore, the rank hypocrisy inherent in you're making the previous post seem to be worthy of comment.

[ldrews]

No. However, some government action certainly has this effect.

 

What you seem to be missing is the following:

 

I belong to a political affiliation that is happy to pick winners and losers, so long as this is done in an efficient manner.

For example, I don't have philosophical objections to using taxes to transfer wealth from individuals with large amounts of $$$ to those who are less fortunate.

 

You, on the other hand, have frequently stated that you believe that all taxes are theft.

Therefore, the rank hypocrisy inherent in you're making the previous post seem to be worthy of comment.

 

You are right, I believe that all taxation is legalized theft. It is extracting money from non-consenting individuals through the use or threat of us of force. Isn't that theft? The fact that it is authorized by law simply makes it legal. Hence, legalized theft.

 

I would be interested in hearing an example of a government action that doesn't advantage some individual or group and disadvantage another individual or group. Can you supply one?

 

And once again we can depend on you to make a personal attack. I appreciate your reliability.

[hrothgar]

And once again we can depend on you to make a personal attack. I appreciate your reliability.

 

Drews, of yo want people to stop treating you like an idiot, stop acting like one.

 

Its not my fault that that your positions are ideological inconsistent.

And, given how much is despise you I'm sure as hell not going to stop mocking you whenever you show yourself to be a *****head.

 

> I would be interested in hearing an example of a government action that doesn't

> advantage some individual or group and disadvantage another individual or group.

> Can you supply one?

 

The government engages in all sorts of "pure" research.

I'd find it hard to claim that that this sort of activity disadvantages one group or advantages another.

[ldrews]

Drews, of yo want people to stop treating you like an idiot, stop acting like one.

 

Its not my fault that that your positions are ideological inconsistent.

And, given how much is despise you I'm sure as hell not going to stop mocking you whenever you show yourself to be a *****head.

 

> I would be interested in hearing an example of a government action that doesn't

> advantage some individual or group and disadvantage another individual or group.

> Can you supply one?

 

The government engages in all sorts of "pure" research.

I'd find it hard to claim that that this sort of activity disadvantages one group or advantages another.

 

Most, if not all, government research is carried out via contracts. Those receiving the contracts are advantaged versus those that don't. The research actually conducted by the government yields policy decisions. Those policy decisions advantage certain groups over other groups. Finally, those government employees are paid to conduct the research. They are advantaged over others who are not paid.

 

Would you like to provide mare concrete examples or do you prefer invective?

[Al_U_Card]

Guns and religion versus anger and invective. There's the rub, common ground breeds compromise rather than conflict, but some people are just plain (insert left to right adjective here).

[Cyberyeti]

Most, if not all, government research is carried out via contracts. Those receiving the contracts are advantaged versus those that don't. The research actually conducted by the government yields policy decisions. Those policy decisions advantage certain groups over other groups. Finally, those government employees are paid to conduct the research. They are advantaged over others who are not paid.

 

Would you like to provide mare concrete examples or do you prefer invective?

 

Well they could just not bother paying for an army or nuclear weapons and allow the Iranians or North Koreans to vaporise the place.

[hrothgar]

Most, if not all, government research is carried out via contracts. Those receiving the contracts are advantaged versus those that don't. The research actually conducted by the government yields policy decisions. Those policy decisions advantage certain groups over other groups. Finally, those government employees are paid to conduct the research. They are advantaged over others who are not paid.

 

 

The butterfly effect exists

 

People don't base their lives around it, nor is it useful for discussions such as this.

[kenberg]

You are right, I believe that all taxation is legalized theft. It is extracting money from non-consenting individuals through the use or threat of us of force. Isn't that theft? The fact that it is authorized by law simply makes it legal. Hence, legalized theft.

 

I would be interested in hearing an example of a government action that doesn't advantage some individual or group and disadvantage another individual or group. Can you supply one?

 

 

 

I will take these one at a time.

 

" all taxation is legalized theft". Technically, this seems like an oxymoron. If it is legalized, it isn't theft. It's not my purpose tom play with words here, but could we just call it taxation? I believe taxation is a good idea, you are opposed to all taxation. We disagree. Most Libertarians are not in fact opposed to all taxation, they acknowledge the need for defense and that has to be paid for. Whatever your views on that, certainly I am far more in favor of taxation than you are. I'll indicate why as I move on to the second statement.

 

"I would be interested in hearing an example of a government action that doesn't advantage some individual or group and disadvantage another individual or group. Can you supply one?" Certainly government action advantages certain groups. That is it's purpose. Much of what I will now say I, and probably many others, have said before. I went to public elementary and secondary school, supported by taxes. I then went to the University of Minnesota, where the tuition was something like $72 per quarter, later going up to $84. Taxpayers made this possible. This was a great advantage to me. Now I dd not prove the Riemann Hypothesis, but I led a reasonably productive life. So maybe there was some benefit to society. For that matter, Sergei Brin went to the tax payer supported Eleanor Roosevelt High School, significantly increasing the average wealth of its graduates. Many people went to tax payer supported schools, and often this has worked out well for everyone concerned.

 

Tax money can be wasted, no doubt about that. And it can lead to corrupt practices, no doubt about that either. For me, this means that we do our best to bring out the good that can be done, and do ourr best to keep the bad features as minimal as possible.

 

Obama said "You didn't build this", an extremely clumsy formulation. But I sincerely believe that anyone who looks back on his life and cannot find places where help, sometimes from the government and sometimes from others, has been not only useful but often essential needs to look a little harder.

 

So yes, I support taxation. I have known people who do not. I cannot recall a single instance where something that I have said has changed their mind, but the fact is I do support it. That does not mean that we should not be careful, but I support taxation. This is both in appreciation for what I believe has been beneficial to me and to what I believe has been beneficial to society as a whole. I don't expect to change your mind, but anyway this is my view. Rather broadly shared, I think. I am not all that original.

[ldrews]

I will take these one at a time.

 

" all taxation is legalized theft". Technically, this seems like an oxymoron. If it is legalized, it isn't theft. It's not my purpose tom play with words here, but could we just call it taxation? I believe taxation is a good idea, you are opposed to all taxation. We disagree. Most Libertarians are not in fact opposed to all taxation, they acknowledge the need for defense and that has to be paid for. Whatever your views on that, certainly I am far more in favor of taxation than you are. I'll indicate why as I move on to the second statement.

 

"I would be interested in hearing an example of a government action that doesn't advantage some individual or group and disadvantage another individual or group. Can you supply one?" Certainly government action advantages certain groups. That is it's purpose. Much of what I will now say I, and probably many others, have said before. I went to public elementary and secondary school, supported by taxes. I then went to the University of Minnesota, where the tuition was something like $72 per quarter, later going up to $84. Taxpayers made this possible. This was a great advantage to me. Now I dd not prove the Riemann Hypothesis, but I led a reasonably productive life. So maybe there was some benefit to society. For that matter, Sergei Brin went to the tax payer supported Eleanor Roosevelt High School, significantly increasing the average wealth of its graduates. Many people went to tax payer supported schools, and often this has worked out well for everyone concerned.

 

Tax money can be wasted, no doubt about that. And it can lead to corrupt practices, no doubt about that either. For me, this means that we do our best to bring out the good that can be done, and do ourr best to keep the bad features as minimal as possible.

 

Obama said "You didn't build this", an extremely clumsy formulation. But I sincerely believe that anyone who looks back on his life and cannot find places where help, sometimes from the government and sometimes from others, has been not only useful but often essential needs to look a little harder.

 

So yes, I support taxation. I have known people who do not. I cannot recall a single instance where something that I have said has changed their mind, but the fact is I do support it. That does not mean that we should not be careful, but I support taxation. This is both in appreciation for what I believe has been beneficial to me and to what I believe has been beneficial to society as a whole. I don't expect to change your mind, but anyway this is my view. Rather broadly shared, I think. I am not all that original.

 

Thank you for a thoughtful replay. You may be surprised to find that I am not that far from your position. As a "limited government libertarian" I concede that some taxation may be needed to fund essential government services. Our difference is probably in the definition of "essential government services". In my view there is a need for some national defense (including border control), a court system to adjudicate disputes and laws, and a police force to enforce the laws and decisions of the courts. How to pay for these essential services is open to debate, but some minimal taxation is probably necessary.

 

Beyond that I believe that government should butt out. Laws enforceable by the courts/police should be limited to the aforementioned areas. The rest to be handled through voluntary contracts between citizens, also enforceable by the courts.

[ldrews]

The butterfly effect exists

 

People don't base their lives around it, nor is it useful for discussions such as this.

 

Thank you for conceding that government actions always advantage/disadvantage individuals/groups. You may call it the butterfly effect if you wish. But those are some big butterflies!

[Winstonm]

Probably more bad news for Dennison and Dennison lovers - the joint defense agreement between Dennison and Cohen has been severed, according to Rudy G., which may well be the first necessary step for Cohen to make a deal with prosecutors.

[hrothgar]

Thank you for conceding that government actions always advantage/disadvantage individuals/groups. You may call it the butterfly effect if you wish.

 

I should have caveated my original comment with the words' in a meaningful and predictable fashio.

 

yes, the government naming a post office creates winners and losers.

And yes, a butterfly flappping its wings in china creates winners and losers.

But no one actually cares about any of this.

 

> But those are some big butterflies!

 

On occasion yes. A lot of the time, no.

[ldrews]

I should have caveated my original comment with the words' in a meaningful and predictable fashio.

 

yes, the government naming a post office creates winners and losers.

And yes, a butterfly flappping its wings in china creates winners and losers.

But no one actually cares about any of this.

 

> But those are some big butterflies!

 

On occasion yes. A lot of the time, no.

 

I would think the winners and losers care!

[Winstonm]

I have often compared libertarians to teenagers, as their emphasis solely on the effects of rules on individuals coupled with their angst at being prevented from doing as they wish reminds me of looking into a mirror when I was 16. At 16, I thought Atlas Shrugged was gospel. Fortunately, I grew up. Libertarians seem unable to grasp that some benefits they are too self-absorbed to notice positively impact their lives in subtle ways - that the "losing" that helps others can create a more stable and prosperous society, resulting in a win-win rather than lose-win, and eventually creating more wealth, thus increasing the wins by decreasing the size of the losses.

 

Will Rogers understood this "trickle up" economics:

 

This election was lost four and six years ago, not this year. They [Republicans] didn’t start thinking of the old common fellow till just as they started out on the election tour. The money was all appropriated for the top in the hopes that it would trickle down to the needy. Mr. Hoover was an engineer. He knew that water trickles down. Put it uphill and let it go and it will reach the driest little spot. But he didn’t know that money trickled up. Give it to the people at the bottom and the people at the top will have it before night, anyhow. But it will at least have passed through the poor fellows hands. They saved the big banks, but the little ones went up the flue.

[hrothgar]

I would think the winners and losers care!

 

Yes, but we all know how "good" you are at thinking...

[Winstonm]

From Rudy, there is now have a new meme directed at the Dennison "base": (emphasis added)

 

The goalposts have moved.

 

President Trump's attorney, Rudy Giuliani, appeared on CNN and Fox & Friends on Monday to argue that collusion is not a crime.

 

We will see how long it takes the parrots to learn how to repeat this phrase. :lol: