Has U.S. Democracy Been Trumped?

[y66]

WaPo ran this story about Derek Black last month. It's one of the most fascinating stories I've read this year. Love the part near the end where his old man got thrown out of his own birthday party because he wanted to invite his son in. That was heartening. Quisque ad sua gustus.

[barmar]

My view of what Dixon did: He singled out a member of the audience and, to all intents and purposes, announced "You are not welcome here". Not phrased exactly that way, but really it was the same message as the boos. Of course the audience and the actors have a right to send that message. I would have declined to do so.

I don't see it like that.

 

Pence has voluntarily chosen to be a political figure, and criticism from the public is part of the job. While Dixon could have tried to communicate with the Trump administration privately, like any other citizen, those requests are easily ignored. The administration can't easily ignore such a public display as this.

 

Does this mean that POTUS, VP, and their families can't go out in public without being in danger of being accosted like this? Yes. They're also in danger of being assassinated, so we should put this in perspective.

[ggwhiz]

I saw a documentary on Derek Black when there was nothing on TV and the first few minutes hooked me.

 

It's an extraordinary look at the time/effort and dumb luck that turned a rabid radical and a sobering insight into what it will take to bring radical islamists to heel when the quick fix of just kill them all (with "acceptable" collateral damage) has way too much appeal for my liking.

 

ps. Is that not the most ironic last name of all time?

[kenberg]

WaPo ran this story about Derek Black last month. It's one of the most fascinating stories I've read this year. Love the part near the end where his old man got thrown out of his own birthday party because he wanted to invite his son in. That was heartening. Quisque ad sua gustus.

 

A much ore interesting (article, for me anyway. I recall that I saw this in the Post, but the title pretty much marked it as the sort of thing I didn't read. "White Fight of Derek Black"? Oh how cute. White (race) and Black (surname) cleverly mixed together. Ugh. But you can't tell a book by its cover, I have now read it nd found it interesting. How do we become who we are? A good question indeed.

 

He went to New College. And I gather his parents actually sent him there. Astounding. It would be like me sending a kid to Liberty University. When I was going to the University of Minnesota I was asked if any of the courses there were tempting me toward atheism. I was dating their daughter at the time so I fudged a bit, that horse had left the barn quite a while back. (We soon broke up, religion had nothing to do with it.)

 

I wish him well in his struggles.

[kenberg]

I don't see it like that.

 

Pence has voluntarily chosen to be a political figure, and criticism from the public is part of the job. While Dixon could have tried to communicate with the Trump administration privately, like any other citizen, those requests are easily ignored. The administration can't easily ignore such a public display as this.

 

Does this mean that POTUS, VP, and their families can't go out in public without being in danger of being accosted like this? Yes. They're also in danger of being assassinated, so we should put this in perspective.

 

I understand, and of course listening to criticism is an essential part of the job. I kept it to how I would react in a specific situation. And even here, it depends. If a big show was made of Pence nobly attending this provocative theater event, demonstrating that he, Pence, is a great and magnanimous figure, then fine, boo him. He would be the one who politicized his appearance. Of course it is probably not possible (unfortunately) for Pence to just go out for an evening of entertainment without it being An Event. But as far as I am concerned, if he wants to go to the corner bar and have a beer, let him. Skip the cheers, skip the boos. Not that anyone would ever vote for me anyway, but I would never ever absolutely never take a job as President or Vice President or any such thing. If I go out for an evening and nobody knows who I am, that is a very good thing.

[y66]

David Frum: Can the Establishment Strike Back?

 

“People jump on bandwagons—that is the nature of politics,” David Frum, a Canadian-American and a former speechwriter for George W. Bush, says. “Every day, every hour, you see people who had been previously opposed to Donald Trump who are prominent intellectual names making some kind of peace with him.” Frum refuses to make that peace. While he was initially “Trump-curious” about the candidate’s policy ideas, Frum believes that, as President, Trump will fundamentally undermine American institutions and the rule of law. He seeks to make common cause with the Democrats to defend basic rights and keep order in government.

[jonottawa]

To me the Hamilton thing was much like the 'We didn't vote for Bush' thing. They had the right to do what they did, but it was inappropriate in that venue. If someone had done the same to Obama in December 2008, the backlash would have been monumental. Generally what folks on my side stress is intellectual honesty & consistency. And the other side seldom gives us that, because they know they lose the argument the moment that they do.

 

As for the Black kid, those who surrender their allegiance to ANY cause and join the other side always make for interesting stories but those stories seldom prove anything. Millions of lifelong Democrats voted for Trump, but we're not reading stories about them for some reason.

 

Anyway, here's a good story in Breitbart why Trump would be nuts to choose Romney for State.

 

Interesting: Obama urged Clinton to concede on Election Night

[PassedOut]

Generally what folks on my side stress is intellectual honesty & consistency.

How does that square with the constant use of fake news as evidence?

[Winstonm]

double post

[Winstonm]

I'll begin, as often, by confessing ignorance. But not total ignorance.

 

I accept that national debt and personal debt are two different things. It does not immediately follow from this that national debt is unimportant.

 

I brought up a wikipedia article

 

https://en.wikipedia...sks_and_debates

 

 

Yes I also know that wikipedia is not the leading source of economic research. But it's a start.

 

 

The graph at the top of the wik page, on federal debt held by the public, illustrates what I had understood to be correct: As a percentage of gdp, the national debt was very high during and just after WW II, it then dropped off substantially, and has since grown substantially.

 

We do not have to speak of personal debt to note that a short term peak in debt, caused by a crisis and dropping back after the crisis, is different from sustained debt growth that is accepted as the norm. So where are we?

 

A suggestion for caution, from the wik:

 

[/sup]Of course view vary. Krugman is quoted:

 

 

 

For me, about the only thing that is obvious is that the answer isn't obvious. If we go back to the public debt as a fraction of gdp chart, it appears that except for 1995-2000, the general trend has been upward for quite a while now. One might attribute the five year downward slope to the wise choices of Bill Clinton. Or one might note that the break up of the USSR made many things easier for us, at least temporarily. My guess is that it is a combination of these two items. Whatever the reasons for that decline, the rest of the trend is up.

 

Bernanke's rather mild claim seems to be that sooner or later we have to deal with this somehow. This seems right, well, obvious, to me. Does anyone disagree? But how to deal with it? Well, I don't know. I am sure Paull Krugman is a smart guy. He also strikes me as someone who has never entertained even for a moment the possibility that he could be wrong about anything. Wisdom suggests at least a bit of caution here. Generally speaking, I do favor investing money in the future. But really, who doesn't? The question is how to choose.

 

What I would gather from reading the opinions of Bernanke and Krugman, two of the smartest people I know on monetary issues, is that the histrionics about the immediate threat of the debt is totally unfounded.

 

I also noticed something else - when I ask for specifics instead of generalized claims of doom I am met with silence. From that I can only conclude that the doomsters are repeating someone else's claims else they would understand the arguments behind the claims - if there are any arguments, that is. ;)

[jonottawa]

How does that square with the constant use of fake news as evidence?

I'm not sure what you mean, I hardly ever cite the talking heads on CNN, MSNBC, NBC, CBS or ABC or the partisan hacks at NYT or Washington Post as evidence.

 

But seriously, the ENTIRE mainstream media was pushing for Hillary to win. Their coverage was skewed to be more favorable to her. Their talking points, their framing of the arguments, their choice of which stories to cover & how much to cover them. That, to me, is the epitome of FAKE NEWS.

 

On a personal level, I condemn the use of fake stories (or bogus arguments) on EITHER side. And Hillary's supporters were far more guilty of that than Trump's. Because the common attacks against Hillary were fundamentally HONEST (if somewhat exaggerated in some instances.)

 

[mikeh]

. Generally what folks on my side stress is intellectual honesty & consistency.

 

 

Orwell predicted your newspeak.

[jonottawa]

re: "Fake News"

 

I'll give some examples.

 

Trump believes that a nation has the right to enforce its borders.

 

MSM: "That's racist!"

 

Trump believes that a nation should serve the interests of its CITIZENS first and foremost.

 

MSM: "That's racist!"

 

Trump believes that a nation should enforce its laws, including its immigration laws.

 

MSM: "That's racist!"

 

Trump believes that a nation's immigration policy should be crafted so as to maximize the benefit of that policy to that nation's citizens.

 

MSM: "That's racist!"

 

Trump believes that people who choose to migrate to a country should do so with a willingness to assimilate to the culture of that country, not with the expectation that the citizens of that country conform to their beliefs.

 

MSM: "That's racist!"

 

Trump believes that the Constitution means what it says and that that's why the founding fathers explicitly set up an AMENDMENT PROCESS.

 

MSM: "It's the current year!"

 

As for scandals:

 

Trump hires lawyers and accountants to legally minimize his tax liability like EVERY OTHER WEALTHY PERSON ON EARTH and the NYT tries to make that a scandal. The only scandal there is the behavior of the former 'newspaper of record.'

 

Trump's hiring history proves he's not a racist or a misogynist. He's the most gay-friendly President-Elect in US History. Like many successful men (and past presidents,) was he a womanizer in his younger days? Yes. Does his conduct towards women come CLOSE to as awful as Bill Clinton's? No, not close.

 

As for Hillary, the 2 main charges against her are true.

 

1. If anyone else had set up a private server and had done what she did with it, they'd have been charged and convicted of (or pled to) a felony for endangering US national security.

 

2. She sold access and influence for tens of millions of dollars. She's corrupt. Giving a 'speech' doesn't magically turn a huge bribe into a legitimate source of income. If it did, we might as well legalize bribery.

 

That's leaving aside the health issues, the rigged primary (colluding with the DNC against Bernie,) the collusion with the MSM, the disgusting list of her top donors, and the policy disasters like amnesty that she pledged. Leaving aside the shenanigans on Facebook, Twitter and Google where they shut down anti-Hillary voices & messed with trending topics and search results to favor Hillary.

 

So tell me about this fake news.

[jonottawa]

Oh maybe you mean THIS fake news. Where we let incredibly biased and shameful companies like Google and Facebook (who deliberately distort the information their users receive) tell us what news stories are worth reading?

 

It's sad, but in order to learn anything from a Canadian Press story these days, you have to skip the story and read the comments:

 

"Canadian propaganda from Canadian media and Canadian government institutions are the GREATEST threat to Canadian democracy. It starts in kindergarten and never stops."

 

Couldn't agree more!

 

"Spread fake news like Saddam had WMD, Clinton dodged sniper fire in Bosnia, Assad gas his own people, Clinton had 50 points lead over Trump.

Putin is responsible for my missing socks in the dryer."

 

Snopes said this is false (because they don't recognize obvious attempts at humor.)

 

"Fake news? You mean Yahoo!, CNN, ABC, CBS, NBC, Google, etc.?"

 

Precisely!

 

"Oh please. Hillary is a hated woman in America. It wouldn't have mattered what stories came out, people who were planning to vote for Trump weren't all of a sudden going to vote for her. She says she is for the women ... yet her past says otherwise when she called the women who her husband raped and sexually assaulted liars and w(ho)res. Oh right, she's only for women until her power is at stake then the claws come out. LOL And since she flip flops on stances more than a fish out of water (as evidenced by her time in the senate), the voters who saw her for who she truly is, a power hungry corrupt global elitist and lapdog of George Soros,"

 

Correctamundo!

 

"American liberal media spreads nothing but fake anti-Trump news."

 

Well, to be fair, they also spread fake pro-Globalist news.

 

"The election is over. Move on!"

 

What? Over? Did you say 'Over'? Nothing is over until WE decide it is! Was it over when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor? Hell no! And it ain't over now.

 

"Give it up yahoo. You lost!"

 

Hey now, they've still got to try to rig the recounts in 3 states first. Stay tuned!

 

"The organizations trying their hardest to push us into a war with Russia are not participating in propaganda though. LOL As soon as the MSM realizes what a joke they have become and just die, the better off the planet will be."

 

If only it were that simple.

 

"Americans are being played."

 

Only the ones who still give the slightest credence to the MSM.

 

"More Democrat National Corruption Party Propaganda a la Goebbels"

 

Bingo!

 

And this wasn't a carefully selected sample of comments, these were ALL of the most popular comments.

[Winstonm]

The Deluded-in-Chief spoke again:(emphasis added)

 

Donald J. Trump ✔ @realDonaldTrump

In addition to winning the Electoral College in a landslide, I won the popular vote if you deduct the millions of people who voted illegally

2:30 PM - 27 Nov 2016

 

And this guy will have the launch codes. Makes me wonder what the Trump voters would have said had this been an Obama tweet from 2012?

[jonottawa]

The Deluded-in-Chief spoke again:(emphasis added)

 

 

 

And this guy will have the launch codes. Makes me wonder what the Trump voters would have said had this been an Obama tweet from 2012?

Non-citizens living in the US illegally wouldn't have voted for Mitt Romney, so it would have been a VERY strange tweet in that case.

[mike777]

Fake news has been around since the news was invented, not sure what the big deal is here. People enjoy reading fake news, sometimes more than the real or true news. What is sad and dangerous is when people threaten violence based on fake news such as how Hillary runs a kids sex ring out of real pizza place.

 

http://www.oxygen.com/very-real/fake-news-accused-hillary-clinton-of-sex-crimes-and-ruined-this-pizzeria

[PassedOut]

Fake news has been around since the news was invented, not sure what the big deal is here. People enjoy reading fake news, sometimes more than the real or true news. What is sad and dangerous is when people threaten violence based on fake news such as how Hillary runs a kids sex ring out of real pizza place.

 

http://www.oxygen.com/very-real/fake-news-accused-hillary-clinton-of-sex-crimes-and-ruined-this-pizzeria

That's disturbing for sure, but to have the president-elect make the ridiculous claim that millions of illegal votes were cast is disturbing too. I hope he's not that stupid himself, but in that case his dishonesty is shameful and embarrassing for the country.

 

I think that the recounts will show that the election was fair in both Wisconsin and Michigan, and that will quiet the suspicions of those who suspect that the Russians stole the election for their puppet. In Pennsylvania, there's no way to audit the results anyway, so I'm not sure what the recount will accomplish. So it seems to me that the fuss being raised by Trump and his people must be intended to distract attention from other news.

[mike777]

That's disturbing for sure, but to have the president-elect make the ridiculous claim that millions of illegal votes were cast is disturbing too. I hope he's not that stupid himself, but in that case his dishonesty is shameful and embarrassing for the country.

 

I think that the recounts will show that the election was fair in both Wisconsin and Michigan, and that will quiet the suspicions of those who suspect that the Russians stole the election for their puppet. In Pennsylvania, there's no way to audit the results anyway, so I'm not sure what the recount will accomplish. So it seems to me that the fuss being raised by Trump and his people must be intended to distract attention from other news.

 

 

Ya

 

 

talk about people, many people, not accepting the results, now this. Can you imagine the uproar if Trump pulled this if Hillary won. typical double standard, nothing new here,move along.

 

 

btw you make a good point about trumps response...

[hrothgar]

I'm not sure what you mean, I hardly ever cite the talking heads on CNN, MSNBC, NBC, CBS or ABC or the partisan hacks at NYT or Washington Post as evidence.

 

But seriously, the ENTIRE mainstream media was pushing for Hillary to win. Their coverage was skewed to be more favorable to her. Their talking points, their framing of the arguments, their choice of which stories to cover & how much to cover them. That, to me, is the epitome of FAKE NEWS.

 

Alternative explanation

 

1. Trump is an idiot as are his supporters

2. There's a lot of idiots in North America

[hrothgar]

I'm not sure what you mean, I hardly ever cite the talking heads on CNN, MSNBC, NBC, CBS or ABC or the partisan hacks at NYT or Washington Post as evidence.

 

But seriously, the ENTIRE mainstream media was pushing for Hillary to win. Their coverage was skewed to be more favorable to her. Their talking points, their framing of the arguments, their choice of which stories to cover & how much to cover them. That, to me, is the epitome of FAKE NEWS.

 

Alternative explanation

 

1. Trump is an idiot as are his supporters

2. There's a lot of idiots in North America

 

Judging from the qualities of the vocal Trump supporters on these forums, I'm running with my explanation...

[cherdano]

re: "Fake News"

 

I'll give some examples.

 

Trump believes that a nation has the right to enforce its borders.

 

MSM: "That's racist!"

That's not correct. Maybe you should go back and look at precisely what was considered racist, or "racially charged", by the media.

[kenberg]

I think that the frequent charges of racism, sexism, xenophobia, homophobia, and God only knows what other isms and phobias make calm rational conversation very difficult. The earlier piece about Derek Black illustrates my point. His thinking evolved through discussion. I have seen this happen many times. My own thinking evolves, or at least I hope that it does. But if the discussion begins with name calling, it usually evolves to more name calling, and then discussion ends, hopefully peacefully with both walking away.

 

I'll use myself as an example. I am no longer working for pay at any job. I am 77, soon to be 78 and so most people find this acceptable. I am concerned about the future of Medicare of course. A friend has been i n and out of hospitals with very serious problems since February. This costs money. A lot of money. My friend is neither broke nor wealthy, and Medicare/Insurance covers a lot (obviously I have not inquired about the details). The point is this. If someone expresses concern over how to finance the medical needs of our increasingly aging society, I do not label him (added: oops, make that him/her of course) an ageist. Realist might be closer to the truth. The columnist Paul Samuelson talks about this often. Maybe too often, I get the idea that his solution is we all die from boredom from reading his repeated description of the problem. But it is a problem. Raising questions of the "How are we going to do this?" sort does not make one an ageist here, and similar questions in other contexts does not automatically make one an ist or a phobe of some other sort.

 

How to apply this to Police/Race? I have said before that I think the starting point should be that everyone acknowledge that the young black male wishes to go out in the evening without being hassled or shot, the cop wants to do the job he is paid to do without being shot, and the community wants crime controlled. Too obvious to need stating? Not at all, I think. If everyone started from that position they might very well find sensible solutions to their shared problem. If they start by calling each other names, then it probably won't go well.

[andrei]

3. I understand the relationship between Donald Trump's polling numbers and share prices.

 

Spoiler alert: There is a strong negative correlation between the two...

(If you don't believe me, take a look at market prices in the US after Comey made his announcement last Friday)

 

If Soros was really trying to tank the market, he'd be trying to get Trump elected

 

LOL at this...

Any more predictions, while we are at it?

[andrei]

I think that the recounts will show that the election was fair in both Wisconsin and Michigan, and that will quiet the suspicions of those who suspect that the Russians stole the election for their puppet.

In Pennsylvania, there's no way to audit the results anyway, so I'm not sure what the recount will accomplish.

So it seems to me that the fuss being raised by Trump and his people must be intended to distract attention from other news.

 

Priceless.