Has U.S. Democracy Been Trumped?

[mikeh]

Ah, but this risk was always known, event to the founders. They were wise enough to plan for this, to construct a nation organized in such a way that it cannot be destroyed by a bad executive. This has been demonstrated in the past, and now will be put to the test again. I have confidence.

Go have a read of the Constitution of the Russian Federation. It espouses freedoms and rights in what is (in translation) modern language and seems perfectly reasonable and indeed easier to understand and more freedom oriented than the US Constitution. Then look at how the country is run...with 'free elections' of course.

 

It couldn't happen here. The claim of so many over so long.

 

Look at the McCarthy era. With Hoover in charge of the FBI and Eisenhower sitting on the sidelines, the US Congress treated the Constitution with contempt.

 

Look at the Japanese internment or the Dredd decision of the SCOTUS.

 

Your country has the profoundly bizarre, in my opinion, practice of selecting justices to your SCOTUS explicitly on the basis of political affiliation. Now Trump gets to pick at least one and possibly up to 4 more Justices.

 

When it is permissible to make sure that your appointments will rule as you want, before appointing them, the check afforded by the SCOTUS is illusory.

 

When major media, including online and mainstream media, fawn over Trump and legitimize the most abhorrent raving white nationalists, as Bannon has done for years, why do you think that anyone in power will protect your rights?

 

Police officers and military personnel are generally selected, and self-selected, to be amenable to hierarchical control. Indeed, boot camp and police academies, to a less fearsome extent, are intended to break down the personality of the recruit and to rebuild it to be obedient.

 

This has real value when it comes to preparing people to kill other people. Most of us recoil from the idea of killing others. Most of us are terrified of getting into a fight against people armed with lethal weapons. Military commanders need to know that their orders will be obeyed, so recruits are rigorously conditioned to obey.

 

Police officers are generally psychologically assessed: at least in the larger departments that can afford it. There is considerable self-selection in the hiring process but screening isn't just to weed out psychopaths: it is also intended to maximize the likelihood that the recruit will be a good, which means obedient, police officer, for the same, but diluted, reasoning as applies to the military.

 

So Trump will appoint 'law and order' and aggressive law enforcement and armed forces leaders, while stacking the SCOTUS with those who see the world his way. Meanwhile Congress may be tempted by the same rationalizations as the von Pappen deputies in the Reichstag in the 1930's.

 

I don't think for one moment that Trump is Hitler. I don't think he has any kind of agenda beyond 'winning' and getting sycophantic adulation.

 

But those around him are far more sinister, especially Bannon, and they know how to play him. Putin does as well, and you can be sure that many around the world are paying attention to how successful the Russians have been. There can be little doubt but that Putin, through Assange but also through a very careful and now increasingly documented fake news campaign on FB and elsewhere, swung enough votes to get his useful idiot in the White House.

 

Trump loves to listen to praise, and he listens to it avidly from all accounts. This is a man who, according to his ghostwriter, starts each day reading the 'good' stuff printed or published about him: he has staff whose main job is to find this stuff and have it ready for him.

 

At the same time he personally watches shows such as Good Morning America and SNL and then spends hours tweeting when his feelings are hurt.

 

He is going to be a pawn in the hands of some very nasty people who do not have the interests of American democracy in their hearts, and there is NO institutional power capable of resistance unless by some miracle enough republicans grow a sense of decency.

 

Look at how the leading lights of the republican party have reacted since the election. Ryan is groveling, because he is terrified that Trump will seek his revenge, and there goes both his status as Speaker and any chance of being President in the next 8-12 years. If Trump and his handlers destroy democracy in the next 4 years, then Trump or his anointed successor will defeat Ryan for the republican candidacy while if Trump crashes and burns, and the electorate swings against him decisively, no republican who licked his boots has any chance.

 

So the calculus for republican politicians now is simple. If one wants to cling to power and privilege, and ensure a lucrative career as a lobbyist later, one has to kneel before the Leader and do whatever he wants. Look at Romney, sucking up to him. Look at the way Christie sold out. Look at Cruz....look what Trump did to him and his wife, and see how Cruz knuckled under.

 

A Constitution is a political instrument of no value whatsoever unless people with power want it to have value. For all of the foregoing reasons, I am not the least bit optimistic. In fact, I am terrified, since the US is an example for many nations. Plus, the trump depression, which seems entirely probable but not in the next couple of years, will wreak havoc.

[Kaitlyn S]

Now, as for Islam. I read this article last night and I found it fascinating. Particularly the section that begins about half-way down: A Personal View of Sharia. I can see why the religion is so appealing and successful. I personally find many aspects of the religion appealing.

That's because you're not a woman. Any woman that finds Sharia the least bit appealing should have her head examined.

[Winstonm]

There is no reason to bring up Ayn Rand. The Democratic Party needs to think hard about how to get her vote in 2020, or in 2018 for that matter, and they should start by listening to what she has to say.

 

Humans are not entirely rational beings. That includes me, but that is hardly a confession since I believe that it includes everyone. But people listen, at least some do.

 

i had to look up what it meant that she holds a terminal degree. It sounded ominous.

 

I bring up Ayn Rand because Paul Ryan, current Speaker of the House, is an Ayn Rand Acolyte. With Trump's appointees hard line right wingers, Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security and all other social safety net programs are now in danger of funding reductions.

 

But Ryan made no bones about his philosophical influences just a few years ago. He told the Weekly Standard in 2003 that he gave his staffers copies of “Atlas Shrugged” as Christmas presents. Speaking to a group of Rand acolytes in 2005, Ryan said, “The reason I got involved in public service, by and large, if I had to credit one thinker, one person, it would be Ayn Rand. And the fight we are in here, make no mistake about it, is a fight of individualism versus collectivism.”

Even three years ago, Tim Mak of Politico noted, Ryan channeled Rand. “What’s unique about what’s happening today in government, in the world, in America, is that it’s as if we’re living in an Ayn Rand novel right now,” Ryan said. “I think Ayn Rand did the best job of anybody to build a moral case of capitalism, and that morality of capitalism is under assault.”

 

I think it is important to know that a politician in a position of power thinks Atlas Shrugged is his personal Mein Kampf.

[y66]

I found this opinion piece from an educated white woman who voted for Trump to be quite demoralizing.

 

It is clear from the woman's words that both Julian Assange and James Comey affected the outcome of the election, meaning, in the case of Assange, that Russia affected the outcome. It also means the the opinion page of the WSJ, a literary form of Fox News, is being listened to as if it were non-biased and valid. And finally, it means that the Right Wing propaganda has been repeated long enough and hard enough to be assumed "truth" by many casual observers.

 

I think the U.S.A. is screwed. The attack on the New Deal and the Great Society has begun with Ayn Randians in charge of the outcome. Things are indeed bleak.

I think you're still in shock and reading too much into that story. The woman was a fan of Peggy Noonan for Chrissake.

[y66]

I bring up Ayn Rand because Paul Ryan, current Speaker of the House, is an Ayn Rand Acolyte. With Trump's appointees hard line right wingers, Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security and all other social safety net programs are now in danger of funding reductions.

 

I think it is important to know that a politician in a position of power thinks Atlas Shrugged is his personal Mein Kampf.

The Ayn Rand thing is old news bordering on necro. I think it's more relevant to point out, as Jon Stewart pointed out on Charlie Rose two weeks ago, that "Trump is not draining the swamp. Ryan and McConnell are the swamp."

[kenberg]

I bring up Ayn Rand because Paul Ryan, current Speaker of the House, is an Ayn Rand Acolyte. With Trump's appointees hard line right wingers, Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security and all other social safety net programs are now in danger of funding reductions.

 

 

 

I think it is important to know that a politician in a position of power thinks Atlas Shrugged is his personal Mein Kampf.

 

You posted an article, and you mentioned Ayn rand

 

I said there is no reason to bring up Ayn Rand. I was responding to your post about the article.

 

So you say you bring up Ayn Rand because of Paul Ryan.

 

And, speaking of Ryan, let us not forget Mein Kampf.

 

As Lucrezia Borgia would say...Well, I forget what she said. And I haven't read Mein Kampf. Well, I read some of it. And a little Ayn Rand. Some Karl Marx also. And Wonder Woman.

 

Anyway, what I meant was that in the context of the article by Dr. Chew there is no reason to bring up Ayn Rand. Nothing in that article suggests that she is an Ayn fan.

[onoway]

So, what happens when the jobs that Trump promised don't materialize, when people lose whatever medical coverage they have except via private insurers, when things don't get in any way better for those people who voted for Trump, trusting in the verbal diarrhea of a con man? Who will they blame? Surely not themselves, that's not something people generally do, regarding their misfortunes, and especially not in an exuberantly litigious society such as the U.S. appears to be, it's always someone else's fault. So what's next, when the con is clear?

 

just as an aside, my new favorite weekly half hour show is out of London, called No Such Thing As The News. ( on You Tube). One item they mentioned was the proliferation of not only fake news but fake newspapers, noting that two newspapers published a grumpy plea for people to stop quoting newspapers that either didn't exist at all ever ( Denver) or hadn't existed since 1860 or so ( maybe Milwaukee? They said but I don't remember the name). They also said that according to researchers ( they said who but don't remember that group either) fake news got shared considerably more often than real news ... also using the bus tweet as an example..and possibly the most interesting thing, that over half the people didn't read all or even most of the article or news item they were sharing. It would be interesting to know how they knew this, though, possibly assuming that x amount of time is needed to read something and over 50% of the people took less time. That would be relatively easy to track, internet marketers have been doing it for ages.

[barmar]

This sort of appalling abuse of Canada's generosity (and naiveté and narcissistic Trudeauian virtue signaling) is what makes my blood boil. And it's entirely predictable. These aren't the immigrants of old, willing to sacrifice and work hard to create a brighter future in a sparsely populated New World teeming with (incredibly arduous and low-paying) jobs, these are opportunistic people looking for free stuff. Enough already!

Where do you get this idea? These are refugees trying to escape a barbaric regime.

 

Are they any more "opportunistic" than the Irish who came to America in the 19th century to escape the potato famine? They just want to find a better place to raise their families. This has been the American Dream for centuries.

[cherdano]

You posted an article, and you mentioned Ayn rand

 

I said there is no reason to bring up Ayn Rand. I was responding to your post about the article.

 

Would you find it less offensive to point out that the people who are now in power (thanks, in part, to the vote by the author of that article) want to end Medicare (replacing it by an exchange-style market place, i.e. the part of Obamacare that has worked the worst), and want to take away health insurance from about 20 million people?

[kenberg]

Would you find it less offensive to point out that the people who are now in power (thanks, in part, to the vote by the author of that article) want to end Medicare (replacing it by an exchange-style market place, i.e. the part of Obamacare that has worked the worst), and want to take away health insurance from about 20 million people?

 

I did not indicate in any way that I was offended. I wasn't.

 

I said a few words about what I thought the Democratic Party should be doing. And, by implication, some things that I think it has been doing wrong. The short version is that too often the Dems are very quick to write people off.

 

I don't know Dr. Chew at all. I have known people with whom there is absolutely no point in discussing politics, often no point in discussing much of anything. They are right, that's that. But I saw no reason to believe that Dr. Chew is such a person. I feel a little uncomfortable discussing her at any length since I doubt she is all that political, but she did write an article on politics so there we are.

 

As mentioned, I have read a little Ayn Rand. Long ago. My reaction was that a person would have to be very devoted to her politics to wade through her awful writing. But I have no idea what Dr. Chew thinks about Ayn Rand, I have no idea if she has ever read her, maybe she has never heard of her. There are, as we know, many people I have never heard of.

 

I have a number of objections to Donald Trump. Some have to do with policy, but as I have said I also simply object to Trump the person. I would not want Donald Trump as president regardless of the party he belonged to or the policies that he espoused. I think some of my objections to Trump the person would make a lot of sense to a middle of the road person, say one who voted for Obama in 2008 and Romney in 2012. As Dr. Chew says she did.

 

So I think the Dems should consider having discussions with people like her. I think she is representative of a large number of people who did vote for Trump, but were not at all beyond reach. If, as soon as she speaks up, someone starts speaking of Ayn Rand and Mein Kampf, this will not get her to rethink her vote.

To be clear, I am not suggesting that Dems learn to fake an interest i what she has to say. I am suggesting that they look within themselves and see if they really can have such an interest. If they cannot, then that's all there is to that. It very much appears that this is the place we are at right now.

 

If you think that I believe the dismissive attitude of people on the left toward anyone who disagrees with them had a big role in electing Donald Trump president, you are reading me right. That's exactly what I think.

[y66]

From After Democrats’ Losses, Nancy Pelosi Becomes a Symbol of What Went Wrong:

 

WASHINGTON — In the aftermath of Democrats’ demoralizing election defeat, Representative Nancy Pelosi’s bid to return as minority leader has been transformed into a larger debate about what has gone wrong with a party that eight years ago controlled Congress and the White House.

 

Ms. Pelosi, a 76-year-old San Francisco progressive, is expected to easily win re-election when her colleagues vote on Wednesday. But she has become a stand-in for complaints that Democrats have failed to offer a compelling, broad-based economic message to the working-class voters in the Midwest and South who helped them capture the House 10 years ago and made Ms. Pelosi the first woman speaker.

 

Representative Tim Ryan, who represents a blue-collar district in northeastern Ohio, has mounted an unexpected challenge to Ms. Pelosi and given voice to the message that House Democrats must broaden their appeal beyond the three liberal states — California, Massachusetts and New York — that now account for a third of their members.

 

Mr. Ryan argues that his party can only rebuild if it re-establishes itself as the party of the working class.

 

“We’ve lost that brand, and that’s the brand that gets you elected,” said Mr. Ryan, who is also thought by colleagues to be considering running for governor of Ohio in 2018.

 

In an interview, Ms. Pelosi brushed off his challenge. “I haven’t noticed it,” she said when asked if Mr. Ryan had won appreciable support. She added that she had spent last weekend reaching out to the party’s losing candidates rather than rounding up support from her colleagues.

 

Ms. Pelosi has her share of detractors. She retains a tight grip on important decisions such as who controls the party’s campaign arm, and, more to the point, she and the two other highest-ranking House Democrats are septuagenarians who have stood in the way of younger, ambitious lawmakers for over a decade now.

 

But the criticism of her tenure is as much a vehicle for airing broader complaints about the condition of a party that just lost the presidency, failed to regain the Senate and picked up only six House seats as it is an attempt to oust her from her post.

 

“This is not just on Nancy Pelosi,” said Representative Debbie Dingell of Michigan, who is supporting her. “Our entire party has to figure out how we appeal to everybody, how we reconnect with the working class.”

Our entire party has to figure out how we reconnect with the working class? Surely everyone agrees with this.

[Winstonm]

A word about my use of the Ayn Rand reference.

 

Perhaps I worded it wrongly, but it is clear to me when I re-read my post that I meant that the Paul Ryan's of Congress are now in charge. I certainly did not mean to (nor did I, I don't think) imply that all conservative voters or even all Trump voters are Ayn Rand acolytes - but I did mean to point out that the result of their collective votes has given Rand acolytes (Paul Ryan, et al) the collective power to take our country in that direction and away from a country that takes care of each other.

 

Perhaps I should have used Gordon Gekko instead of Ayn Rand - but my idea when I write is to used a type of shorthand (Rand) to evoke an generalized idea about a group of people (Far right in Congress).

 

If I were speaking face-to-face with a Trump voter, I would not call them a Rand acolyte, but I would point out that their vote helped increase the power of Rand acolytes like Paul Ryan, that Paul Ryan has long proposed eliminating Medicare and replacing it with market-based vouchers, and now, with a Republican Congress and Trump in the White House, his goal of eliminating Medicare could happen. How a person responds to that would be more telling to me than anything they might volunteer about themselves.

 

And, like most Trump-supporting posters here on the WC who don't appear to have considered any specific potential results of their vote, I cannot think the information as to what their vote really did should be construed as an insult.

[Al_U_Card]

A word about my use of the Ayn Rand reference.

 

Perhaps I worded it wrongly, but it is clear to me when I re-read my post that I meant that the Paul Ryan's of Congress are now in charge. I certainly did not mean to (nor did I, I don't think) that all conservative voters or even all Trump voters are Ayn Rand acolytes - but I did mean to point out that the results of their collective votes has given Rand acolytes (Paul Ryan, et al) the collective power to take our country in that direction and away from a country that takes care of each other.

 

Perhaps I should have used Gordon Gekko instead of Ayn Rand - but my idea when I write is to used a type of shorthand (Rand) to evoke an generalized idea about a group of people (Far right in Congress).

Upthread, Ken brought up Ben Bernanke as a brilliant economic mind. Was he not, also, an acolyte of Ms. Rand? Peoples' opinions are based on the synthesis of their experiences and the result of their cognitive abilities. That the Dems are now searching for a re-branding to get support back from the common man speaks volumes to their mind-set. Perhaps they might just determine an ideology that would fix the most serious issues and allow the electorate their due in the decision-making process? Trump was clever enough to confound the pundits and the established parties. Perhaps that cleverness could also be of use for the common weal no matter where he sits in the pantheon of despicable individuals that happened to be presidents.

[PassedOut]

Upthread, Ken brought up Ben Bernanke as a brilliant economic mind. Was he not, also, an acolyte of Ms. Rand?

No.

[Winstonm]

No.

Alan Greenspan was a Rand acolyte.

[PassedOut]

Alan Greenspan was a Rand acolyte.

Yes.

[Al_U_Card]

Alan Greenspan was a Rand acolyte.

Indeed. Thanks for the correction. Wasn't BB Greenspan's hand-picked and personally trained successor? (Just checking...)

[kenberg]

Although I did not say that Bernanke was a brilliant economic mind. we can get past that since I did cite him in a positive way. As I recall, I quoted him as saying we have to do something about the debt over the long run, and I said I thought that this was obvious. I am pretty sure I did not say it was brilliant. At any rate, Bernanke is one of a large number of people that know more about economics than I do. This means we treat is thoughts with respect, but not as godlike edicts.

 

As far as I know, Ayn Rand didn't know any more about economics than I do. She had strongly held beliefs. We can all have strongly held beliefs. That's easy.

 

Abrupt change of focus:

 

If I were to relate my thoughts about Trump to any fictional setting, i think it would be A Face in the Crowd.

https://en.wikipedia...the_Crowd_(film)

 

Upon its original release, A Face in the Crowd earned somewhat mixed reviews, one of them from Bosley Crowther of The New York Times. Though he applauded Griffith's performance ("Mr. Griffith plays him with thunderous vigor ..."^[11]), at the same time, he felt that the character overpowered the rest of the cast and the story. "As a consequence, the dominance of the hero and his monstrous momentum ... eventually become a bit monotonous when they are not truly opposed."^[11] Crowther found Rhodes "highly entertaining and well worth pondering when he is on the rise", but considered the ending "inane".^[11]

 

One critic who had only praise for the movie was Francois Truffaut; in his review in Cahiers du Cinéma, he called the film "a great and beautiful work whose importance transcends the dimensions of a cinema review".^[12]

 

Over the decades critical opinion of the film has warmed considerably. A Face in the Crowd has a 92% "fresh" rating on Rotten Tomatoes, based on 24 reviews

 

 

I particularly focused on "As a consequence, the dominance of the hero and his monstrous momentum ... eventually become a bit monotonous when they are not truly opposed."

 

A portrayal in movies can be monotonous. Real life is another story.

[jonottawa]

Where do you get this idea? These are refugees trying to escape a barbaric regime.

 

Are they any more "opportunistic" than the Irish who came to America in the 19th century to escape the potato famine? They just want to find a better place to raise their families. This has been the American Dream for centuries.

These are people who have already fled poor/war-torn countries. They aren't trying to escape. They're looking for the biggest sucker they can find & they found it here (and in Sweden, UK & Germany.) Let them move to an equally poor but less 'barbaric' country if what they're trying to escape is barbarism and they're not willing to fight. (Western countries could easily finance such a program.)

 

'Pure hatred': Translator reveals how Muslim refugees want to 'Islamize' Germany

 

People work hard and build nations for their posterity.

 

"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

 

Not so that some random person out of the 7 billion+ souls on the other side of the globe decides that 'Hey that's a better place to raise my family because I don't have to work if I move there and they'll give me a nice place to live and lots of free stuff and pay for me to have as many babies as I want.' Comparing this attitude to the brutal conditions in Ireland and the brutal conditions the Irish experienced in America is insulting. The Irish would have REJOICED at the living conditions in a Turkish refugee camp.

 

Anyway, I can already tell you and I won't see eye to eye on this so have the last word.

[jonottawa]

The Ayn Rand thing is old news bordering on necro. I think it's more relevant to point out, as Jon Stewart pointed out on Charlie Rose two weeks ago, that "Trump is not draining the swamp. Ryan and McConnell are the swamp."

You think it's somehow "more relevant to point out" the obvious fact that Donald Trump doesn't get to choose who the House Speaker & Senate Majority leader are because?

[jonottawa]

Go have a read of the Constitution of the Russian Federation. It espouses freedoms and rights in what is (in translation) modern language and seems perfectly reasonable and indeed easier to understand and more freedom oriented than the US Constitution. Then look at how the country is run...with 'free elections' of course.

 

...

 

The Sky is Falling!

 

...

 

A Constitution is a political instrument of no value whatsoever unless people with power want it to have value. For all of the foregoing reasons, I am not the least bit optimistic. In fact, I am terrified, since the US is an example for many nations. Plus, the trump depression, which seems entirely probable but not in the next couple of years, will wreak havoc.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bRmtpau8sOU

Fact check rating: GATLINBURG! (That's one level beyond PANTS ON FIRE!)

 

This post was pretty 'creative' even by Mike's standards.

 

Go have a read of the Constitution of the Russian Federation. It espouses freedoms and rights in what is (in translation) modern language and seems perfectly reasonable and indeed easier to understand and more freedom oriented than the US Constitution. Then look at how the country is run...with 'free elections' of course.

 

It couldn't happen here. The claim of so many over so long.

 

Nobody who lives in a country with a constitution with a NOTWITHSTANDING clause (which basically means that the government can ignore or override many sections of the constitution) should be trashing other country's constitutions or systems of government. The United States Constitution (including the Bill of Rights) is the greatest legal document ever written (particularly when you consider when it was written) & only a fairly recent tradition of judicial activism by the Court's regressive left wing has imperiled it, and imperiled the greatest nation in the history of our planet in the process.

 

Look at the McCarthy era. With Hoover in charge of the FBI and Eisenhower sitting on the sidelines, the US Congress treated the Constitution with contempt.

 

The McCarthy era was a response to a massive number of communists/Marxists infiltrating America during the Cold War, when capitalist America faced an existential struggle against Communist Soviet Union. Back then we took that sort of thing seriously, and it's good that we did. It might have bought us an extra decade or two of liberty and prosperity.

 

Were some constitutional rights infringed on in certain cases? Yes. Do most countries not have a police powers (state of emergency) type clause in cases such as this? I would assume so, though I'm not an international legal expert. Were the violations of the Constitution by Lincoln during the Civil War (which set the precedent that the federal government can occasionally ignore the Constitution because reasons) orders of magnitude more egregious? Certainly.

 

Look at the Japanese internment or the Dredd decision of the SCOTUS.

 

Canada interred Japanese too. It was an understandable reaction at the time. Again, nations fighting existential wars tend to (understandably) be more pragmatic & authoritarian for the duration of the conflict. Self preservation trumps 'Muh civil rights.'

 

If you want an incomprehensible Supreme Court decision, I'd go with Roe LONG before I got to Dred Scott (not to be confused with Judge Dredd.) A court decision can be legally valid even if it's morally wrong. I could probably find dozens of crazy moonbat Canadian SC decisions too, but I don't really want to rustle my own jimmies unnecessarily so I won't bother.

 

 

Your country has the profoundly bizarre, in my opinion, practice of selecting justices to your SCOTUS explicitly on the basis of political affiliation. Now Trump gets to pick at least one and possibly up to 4 more Justices.

 

If you want to talk 'profoundly bizarre': Canada has the QUEEN (as in hereditary monarch) of a foreign country that isn't even a sovereign country anymore as its official head of state (& on all our currency.) So careful with the rocks in that glass house of yours, Mike.

 

Now, as for Mike's inaccurate misrepresentation of SCOTUS appointments: Supreme Court nominees used to be selected (regardless of the party of the President) based on who the most experienced and qualified nominee was who would do his best to interpret the Constitution based on original intent and precedent. Republicans STILL generally approach it that way. It's the Democrats who mucked all that up and politicized the process.

 

As for the current court, SCOTUS has been a mess since Bush v. Gore. That seemed to open the floodgates to some of the most dreadful decisions (Citizens United, Obergefell v Hodges) since Roe. Horrible appointees like Sotomayor (wise Latina) & Ginsburg (publicly attacking Trump, an offense that should have gotten her thrown off the bench) certainly didn't help. Trump's (list of) potential nominees are highly experienced, qualified & respected and I hope he has the opportunity to make SEVERAL appointments (why stop at 4? I'm hoping for 6.)

 

When it is permissible to make sure that your appointments will rule as you want, before appointing them, the check afforded by the SCOTUS is illusory.

 

If a president appoints qualified justices who will interpret the constitution based on precedent and on the framers' intent, then the check afforded by the SCOTUS is very REAL. President Trump will do that.

 

When major media, including online and mainstream media, fawn over Trump and legitimize the most abhorrent raving white nationalists, as Bannon has done for years, why do you think that anyone in power will protect your rights?

 

If anyone reading this truly believes that the major media (mainstream media) fawns over Donald Trump, the most unfairly and viciously vilified major party nominee (and now President-Elect) in my lifetime (really of all time, but Goldwater perhaps comes close,) please seek professional help. Seriously. Or at least delete your Facebook account and turn off your regular source of 'news' for the next month & TRY to deprogram yourself. If you want to see 'mainstream media' fawning over a politician (or promoting a specific ideology,) please tune in to the CBC. Or read almost any of their stories on the Internet and then read the comments almost uniformly blasting the transparently biased coverage in the story.

 

For Mike, a Swedish person who wants to preserve & protect the centuries-old (and almost universally highly admired and respected) Swedish nation, society, culture & people from hordes of Muslim economic migrants is an 'abhorrent raving white nationalist'. For me, that person is someone whose rights need to be protected. I'm not sure where Bannon would fall on that, but if he agrees with me, then he would indeed be someone in power who 'will protect your rights.' (Unless you mean imaginary (invented by the regressive left) 'rights', of course.) Genocide and ethnic cleansing (remember Bosnia? Or Tibet?) used to be things we opposed once upon a time.

 

Police officers and military personnel are generally selected, and self-selected, to be amenable to hierarchical control. Indeed, boot camp and police academies, to a less fearsome extent, are intended to break down the personality of the recruit and to rebuild it to be obedient.

 

This has real value when it comes to preparing people to kill other people. Most of us recoil from the idea of killing others. Most of us are terrified of getting into a fight against people armed with lethal weapons. Military commanders need to know that their orders will be obeyed, so recruits are rigorously conditioned to obey.

 

Police officers are generally psychologically assessed: at least in the larger departments that can afford it. There is considerable self-selection in the hiring process but screening isn't just to weed out psychopaths: it is also intended to maximize the likelihood that the recruit will be a good, which means obedient, police officer, for the same, but diluted, reasoning as applies to the military.

 

So Trump will appoint 'law and order' and aggressive law enforcement and armed forces leaders, while stacking the SCOTUS with those who see the world his way.

 

Trump will indeed promote law & order, as every president before Obama & hopefully every president after Obama did/will. Enforcing law & order is the primary duty of ANY government. He will doubtless appoint a SecDef who will do what he can to undo the damage inflicted on the once-great US military by Obama (and to a lesser extent Dubya) & make America's military proud, mighty, feared and respected again. All of that is GOOD news.

 

Meanwhile Congress may be tempted by the same rationalizations as the von Pappen deputies in the Reichstag in the 1930's.

 

I don't think for one moment that Trump is Hitler. I don't think he has any kind of agenda beyond 'winning' and getting sycophantic adulation.

 

If Mike doesn't think Trump is Hitler then why bring up von Papen? Oh, just to be melodramatic, I see.

[jonottawa]

But those around him are far more sinister, especially Bannon, and they know how to play him. Putin does as well, and you can be sure that many around the world are paying attention to how successful the Russians have been. There can be little doubt but that Putin, through Assange but also through a very careful and now increasingly documented fake news campaign on FB and elsewhere, swung enough votes to get his useful idiot in the White House.

 

Trump loves to listen to praise, and he listens to it avidly from all accounts. This is a man who, according to his ghostwriter, starts each day reading the 'good' stuff printed or published about him: he has staff whose main job is to find this stuff and have it ready for him.

 

At the same time he personally watches shows such as Good Morning America and SNL and then spends hours tweeting when his feelings are hurt.

 

He is going to be a pawn in the hands of some very nasty people who do not have the interests of American democracy in their hearts, and there is NO institutional power capable of resistance unless by some miracle enough republicans grow a sense of decency.

 

More sanctimonious melodramatic armchair psychoanalysis and conspiracy theories, oh my! Move over Keith Olbermann, Dr. Phil and Alex Jones, here comes Barrister Mike!

 

Look at how the leading lights of the republican party have reacted since the election. Ryan is groveling, because he is terrified that Trump will seek his revenge, and there goes both his status as Speaker and any chance of being President in the next 8-12 years. If Trump and his handlers destroy democracy in the next 4 years, then Trump or his anointed successor will defeat Ryan for the republican candidacy while if Trump crashes and burns, and the electorate swings against him decisively, no republican who licked his boots has any chance.

 

To the extent Ryan is groveling it's because he's a traitor who tried to defeat Trump and now will have to deal with a President Trump. I'm curious to see if Ryan helps Trump pass Trump's 100 day agenda (or instead keeps promoting his own Randian/Libertardian #BetterWay.) I certainly don't think it's a foregone conclusion that he will, (he might well sabotage efforts behind the scenes) though I obviously hope he does. I don't trust Ryan or like Ryan but obviously President Trump will have to find a way to work with him if it's possible. Pence might help here. Romney in cabinet would (presumably) help enormously as well.

 

So the calculus for republican politicians now is simple. If one wants to cling to power and privilege, and ensure a lucrative career as a lobbyist later, one has to kneel before the Leader and do whatever he wants. Look at Romney, sucking up to him. Look at the way Christie sold out. Look at Cruz....look what Trump did to him and his wife, and see how Cruz knuckled under.

 

Romney is 'sucking up to him' because he's another traitor who tried even HARDER to defeat Trump & in spite of that Trump (being the forgiving and benevolent leader that he is) is still giving him serious consideration to be Secretary of State (absent the betrayal, he'd obviously be tapped for the nomination already.) My inclination is of course to not want Mitt anywhere near this administration (or perhaps in a portfolio like VA where he can bring his vaunted organizational prowess to bear without shaping policy) but it's not like the Republican bench is all that deep (especially once you exclude all the war criminals & neo-cons) & you'd like a household (and fairly popular) name at State if possible. Mitt is one of those folks who needs EXTREME VETTING & President Trump's giving him a close look.

 

When McCain ran against Dubya, Dubya's campaign knowingly spread a dirty lie in South Carolina that McCain (who had just won the NH primary) had fathered an illegitimate child with a black woman (much like Bill Clinton seems to have ACTUALLY done.) Dubya won the South Carolina primary and the rest is history. McCain endorsed Dubya that year.

 

This year, Hillary colluded with the DNC to rig the primary against Bernie. Bernie STILL almost beat her (and likely would have won without the collusion.) Bernie endorsed Hillary. So PLEASE spare me this claptrap about how mind-boggling it is that people who signed a pledge to support the nominee supported the nominee. That's what politicians DO. The UNUSUAL STORY is that some of them (Jeb, Kasich) broke that pledge, not that most of them (Christie, Rubio and even eventually Cruz (who dished it out every bit as good as he got it) and Fiorina) demonstrated integrity by honoring their commitment.

 

Goofy and melodramatic language aside, the 'calculus' for ALL politicians is simple when a new president is elected. You show respect and deference to a new president of your party. What president was that NOT true for, pray tell?

 

A Constitution is a political instrument of no value whatsoever unless people with power want it to have value. For all of the foregoing reasons, I am not the least bit optimistic. In fact, I am terrified, since the US is an example for many nations. Plus, the trump depression, which seems entirely probable but not in the next couple of years, will wreak havoc.

 

For someone who thinks a constitution should be interpreted so liberally that it is essentially meaningless, Mike sure seems to 'want it to have value' all of a sudden. Mike's philosophy is 'it doesn't matter what the words are or what the original intent was, ABORTION RIGHTS!' or 'it doesn't matter what the words are or what the original intent was, GAY MARRIAGE!'

 

It's the regressive left who destroyed the constitution & if Trump does what Mike's so fearful he will do, it's on THEM.

 

 

It's funny, because I think one of Trump's biggest mistakes is that he truly wants to govern in the middle & by rejecting his gracious overtures the regressive left will force him to instead be the boot that America's ass sorely needs. So keep fear-mongering, please! Keep rioting in the streets. Keep burning the American flag. Keep demonizing police officers, whistle-blowers, soldiers, patriots and Trump supporters (sorry if that's redundant.) Keep contesting the results of a historic landslide win. Keep exposing yourselves for what you truly are. Let me know how that works out for you.

 

I wish I had the time to parse all of Mike's posts like this but I hope I've demonstrated (with this rebuttal and my other lengthy rebuttals) that he repeatedly injects a significant amount of 'hot air' into his commentary. I think someone smart enough to be a partner in a law firm PROBABLY does that sort of thing deliberately (and not inadvertently,) but I could be wrong, I often am. I prefer discussions with people who don't repeatedly try to get away with those sorts of shenanigans. (Especially when they tend to make really LENGTHY posts and then (if you bother to make the effort to fact-check them) ignore the rebuttals that shred their misrepresentations.) That's why I generally try to make my case as concisely & unhistrionically as possible.

 

On the bright side, I'd like to give Mike a little crrredit. He made a LENGTHY post without once misusing the words bigot or bigotry! Way to go, Mike! Baby steps.

 

Let's all pray that Mike gets well again soon. And that our beloved Gatlinburg (another disastrous response to a disaster from Obama & his administration) rebuilds. And that President Trump is half as effective at Making America Great Again as Mike is afraid he will be. Amen.

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FMnkmlrJ9GA

[mikeh]

Jeez. Do you think jon has a little bit of an obsession with me?

 

Fortunately we live several thousand kilometres apart :D

 

But enough of poking the bear in the cage. He is now, belatedly, on ignore. I had to give up: I couldn't bring myself to read all of his ravings.

 

I have been contemplating using the ignore on him earlier, but it was amusing, in a sad and somewhat horrifying way, to read his screeds. It has now crossed over into being disturbing, especially his apparent fixation on me.

[jonottawa]

That's because you're not a woman. Any woman that finds Sharia the least bit appealing should have her head examined.

If you lived in a desperately poor/primitive country with a weak government (or no government) I think you'd see it differently. When you consider the alternative (and no, the alternative in an environment of extreme scarcity will NOT be 2nd wave feminism, sorry.) It beats some kind of Mad Max existence where the strong prey on the weak. It's well suited for the environment in which it has historically thrived.

[jonottawa]

If anybody else is planning to have a hissy fit if I reply to one of their posts, please let me know now so that I don't risk offending you. TIA :P