Has U.S. Democracy Been Trumped?

[blackshoe]

All Americans are either Republicans or Democrats? I don't think so. I do think a lot people hold the view that "all Americans are either Republicans, Democrats, or a fringe that can be ignored". From my end of the telescope, that's called "the tyranny of the majority".

[hrothgar]

All Americans are either Republicans or Democrats? I don't think so. I do think a lot people hold the view that "all Americans are either Republicans, Democrats, or a fringe that can be ignored". From my end of the telescope, that's called "the tyranny of the majority".

 

Ed, people don't ignore you because your not a Republican or a Democrat, people ignore you because your ideas are stupid.

[mike777]

this has been often said here in the forums.

 

 

 

Gun laws at some point really mean gun consifiscation.

 

I do not add anything new.

 

But if you think the election is about that ...guns....you will lose those voters.

 

If you think the election is about to deny those weapons that kill.....no

 

see post 521 for another view point.

[y66]

The New York Times called for tighter gun control on its front page on Saturday, the first time it published an editorial there in nearly 100 years.

 

All decent people feel sorrow and righteous fury about the latest slaughter of innocents, in California. Law enforcement and intelligence agencies are searching for motivations, including the vital question of how the murderers might have been connected to international terrorism. That is right and proper.

 

But motives do not matter to the dead in California, nor did they in Colorado, Oregon, South Carolina, Virginia, Connecticut and far too many other places. The attention and anger of Americans should also be directed at the elected leaders whose job is to keep us safe but who place a higher premium on the money and political power of an industry dedicated to profiting from the unfettered spread of ever more powerful firearms.

 

It is a moral outrage and a national disgrace that civilians can legally purchase weapons designed specifically to kill people with brutal speed and efficiency. These are weapons of war, barely modified and deliberately marketed as tools of macho vigilantism and even insurrection. America’s elected leaders offer prayers for gun victims and then, callously and without fear of consequence, reject the most basic restrictions on weapons of mass killing, as they did on Thursday. They distract us with arguments about the word terrorism. Let’s be clear: These spree killings are all, in their own ways, acts of terrorism.

 

Opponents of gun control are saying, as they do after every killing, that no law can unfailingly forestall a specific criminal. That is true. They are talking, many with sincerity, about the constitutional challenges to effective gun regulation. Those challenges exist. They point out that determined killers obtained weapons illegally in places like France, England and Norway that have strict gun laws. Yes, they did.

 

But at least those countries are trying. The United States is not. Worse, politicians abet would-be killers by creating gun markets for them, and voters allow those politicians to keep their jobs. It is past time to stop talking about halting the spread of firearms, and instead to reduce their number drastically — eliminating some large categories of weapons and ammunition.

 

It is not necessary to debate the peculiar wording of the Second Amendment. No right is unlimited and immune from reasonable regulation.

 

Certain kinds of weapons, like the slightly modified combat rifles used in California, and certain kinds of ammunition, must be outlawed for civilian ownership. It is possible to define those guns in a clear and effective way and, yes, it would require Americans who own those kinds of weapons to give them up for the good of their fellow citizens.

 

What better time than during a presidential election to show, at long last, that our nation has retained its sense of decency?

[y66]

I see that Patti Smith closed for U2 last night in Paris with “People Have the Power” which she co-wrote with her husband Fred "Sonic" Smith in 1988.

 

People have the power...

The power to dream, to rule

To wrestle the world from fools.

We are obviously pretty good at doing nothing too.

[billw55]

It is possible to define those guns in a clear and effective way and, yes, it would require Americans who own those kinds of weapons to give them up for the good of their fellow citizens.

I do wonder exactly how they would define the weapons to ban. Simply by firing rate? That would likely exclude semiautomatic handguns also.

[hrothgar]

I do wonder exactly how they would define the weapons to ban. Simply by firing rate? That would likely exclude semiautomatic handguns also.

 

I don't speak for the NYT. However, here's what I would like to see:

 

First: I think that folks should be able to own most any firearm they want, up to and including fully automatic weapons. However, the overwhelming majority of said weapons need to be securely stored at a firing range. If you want to use your AR-15 or fire your Uzi, off to the range you go.

 

Second: Folks who want a weapon for home defense or hunting can have a bolt action rifle or a pump action shot gun. You can keep these long arms at home, have them on land posted for hunting, and transport them in between in a lock box.

 

Third: Handguns live at the firing range.

 

Fourth: When it comes to public spaces, No concealed carry. No open carry for that matter. You don't gt to carry a gun at the store, at school, at church, walking down the street, ...

[PassedOut]

I do wonder exactly how they would define the weapons to ban. Simply by firing rate? That would likely exclude semiautomatic handguns also.

Highland Park gave it a try.

 

Supreme Court Won’t Hear Challenge to Assault Weapons Ban in Chicago Suburb

 

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court on Monday refused to hear a Second Amendment challenge to an Illinois ordinance that banned semiautomatic assault weapons and large-capacity magazines. As is their custom, the justices gave no reason for turning down the appeal in the case, Friedman v. City of Highland Park, No. 15-133, which comes at a time when the national debate on gun control has been reignited by terrorist attacks in Paris and San Bernardino, Calif.

 

Justices Clarence Thomas and Antonin Scalia dissented, saying that lower courts have been ignoring Supreme Court precedents on Second Amendment rights.

 

The ordinance, enacted in 2013, banned some weapons by name, including AR-15s and AK-47s. More generally, it prohibited possession of what it called assault weapons, defining them as semiautomatic guns that can accept large-capacity magazines and have features like a grip for the nontrigger hand. Large-capacity magazines, the ordinance said, are those that can accept more than 10 rounds.

[PassedOut]

Maybe no one else does, but Hillary Clinton has been reading mike777's old posts.

 

And it shouldnt just be shareholders and taxpayers who feel the pain when banks make bad decisions; executives should have skin in the game. When a firm pays a fine, I would make sure that the penalty cuts into executives bonuses, too.

Yep, mike777 never forgets the importance of "skin in the game," and Hillary is in lockstep with him on that...

[y66]

From Bizarre Responses to a Plea for Reason by the NYT Editorial Board (December 8, 2015):

 

http://static01.nyt.com/images/2015/12/08/opinion/08tue1/08tue1-blog427.jpg

[mike777]

Maybe no one else does, but Hillary Clinton has been reading mike777's old posts.

 

 

Yep, mike777 never forgets the importance of "skin in the game," and Hillary is in lockstep with him on that...

 

thanks

 

 

Offtopic but it reminded me of a new rant from Bill O'reilly. He states he does not use sources for his books that had skin in the game. Skin in the game makes them bias in their memory. I wanted to scream...You want people/sources who have skin in the game. :)

 

 

Same argument when it comes to BOD, you want members who have skin in the game, not members who are "independent". ONe major reason is "independent" dr. are not asdependent as those who own a large amount of the company.

 

 

I use bridge and bbo as an example....those with skin in the game.....care more....

 

 

See Taleb who writes on this issue and I quote often.

------------------

------------------

 

 

btw most of these chat regarding banks is pure nonsense.

 

 

1) If the banks are too large to fail

2) make the banks smaller......sigh

 

many ways to do this... for example

1) forbid branch banking

2) forbid branch banking

 

I wrote a paper on branch banking decades ago when I was a child....sigh

[Zelandakh]

Same argument when it comes to BOD

.

[barmar]

Same argument when it comes to BOD, you want members who have skin in the game, not members who are "independent". ONe major reason is "independent" dr. are not asdependent as those who own a large amount of the company.

You probably want a mix. Dependent directors may be biased towards short-term results. Or they may make decisions that are best for them personally, not the company as a whole (e.g. higher executive compensation).

[blackshoe]

Fourth: When it comes to public spaces, No concealed carry. No open carry for that matter. You don't gt to carry a gun at the store, at school, at church, walking down the street, ...

Or when criminals are shooting at you.

[hrothgar]

Or when criminals are shooting at you.

 

Comment 1: Never once in my life have I been involved in a situation when criminals have been shooting at me

Comment 2: If I am in a position where criminals are shooting at me, I don't want to be tempted to return fire. I want to be focused on getting the hell out of dodge.

 

I'm sure that it is possible to craft some elaborate hypothetical where my life would be better if I were carrying a gun.

However, on average, my life is going to be a hell of a lot better if the number of people carry guns decreases sharply.

And at the end of the day, I'm a lot more interested in playing the odds than catering to your paranoid delusions.

[cherdano]

Or when criminals are shooting at you.

Since you have such strong opinions about this, I am sure you can point to data to back this up. Say, in countries with lax firearm regulations, there are fewer people killed by criminals with guns?

[hrothgar]

Since you have such strong opinions about this, I am sure you can point to data to back this up. Say, in countries with lax firearm regulations, there are fewer people killed by criminals with guns?

 

At the very least, I expect that Ed will reference any numbers of science fiction stories from the 1950s...

[Winstonm]

If you accept there is a true war on terror as I mentioned years years ago...this is a 60 year fight.

 

I accept many forum posters do not think we are at war.

 

If you think this is just a police action ok ok ok.

 

 

Many ask what does victory look like.

 

victory = a significantly better political outcome than what we have now.

 

War=politics

 

Mike,

You make this a binary choice when it is multi-faceted. I agree that it will take years to alter the course of events that lead to terrorism - maybe 60 years. But a country cannot make "war" on a tactic and an ideology - there are limits to military power. If North Korea invaded South Korea, we would and should go to "war" with that country's military and political power to remove them from occupied territories - but when a band of disaffected people from all over the globe create a network of anger and self-sacrifice there is not much a country can do but to try to alter the reason for the disaffection.

 

Starving people do no become terrorists, mainly because they are too concerned with survival. Terrorism is an ailment of the dismal non-starved, who are persuaded that the ideology of self-sacfirice is greater than the worth of any one individual, that either the past or the future offers the "perfect society" but conditions of "today" must be destroyed.

 

Terrorism at its heart is an issue of magical thinking. Changing the thinking of those who believe that nothing is right with the present cannot be done with military might.

 

(See column by David Brooks, How Radicals Are Made, New York Times, 12-8-15, page A29)

 

So, to conclude, even assuming you are right that it will take 60 years to end the present terrorism, that does not mean that there is a "war", only that there is a need to offer hope for personal growth and fulfillment. Once that need is fulfilled with better outcomes, the terror will die from within. To think there can be "victory" against an ideology re-enforced by cultural inadequacies is as much "magical thinking" as is the thinking of the terrorists.

[kenberg]

The cited column by Brooks refers to The True Believer, from 1951. I remember when this was a popular discussion. No doubt it is worth reading as we try to understand, but each case is different. Here is what Brooks has to say at the end:

 

 

The correct response is still the same, however. First, try to heal the social disintegration that is the seedbed of these movements. Second, offer positive inspiring causes to replace the suicidal ones. Third, mass movements are conquered when their charisma is destroyed, when they are defeated militarily and humiliated. Then they can no longer offer hope, inspiration or a plausible way out for the disaffected.

 

Of these three, it is difficult for us to heal social disintegration in a far away region of the world and I am not so sure how we could accomplish the second goal either. That leaves the third.

 

Of course this is me quoting Brooks who is in turn giving his thoughts on Hoffer's book of a half century plus ago, so we should, as always, be restrained. However I do think the psychology is important. It is surely true that it is easier to get converts to a cause that is seen as succeeding than it is to get converts to a cause that is seen as failing.

[barmar]

It is surely true that it is easier to get converts to a cause that is seen as succeeding than it is to get converts to a cause that is seen as failing.

Probably, although the notion of "if only we had more help we could turn the tide" can also be very attractive. As long as the movement has occasional successes (like the Paris and San Bernardino attacks), it won't be seen as hopeless.

 

And killing the leaders of the movement is likely to help only temporarily (while the organization regroups), and their martyrdom will probably energize the followers.

 

This is a VERY difficult problem -- very few traditional warfare methods apply.

[kenberg]

Probably, although the notion of "if only we had more help we could turn the tide" can also be very attractive. As long as the movement has occasional successes (like the Paris and San Bernardino attacks), it won't be seen as hopeless.

 

And killing the leaders of the movement is likely to help only temporarily (while the organization regroups), and their martyrdom will probably energize the followers.

 

This is a VERY difficult problem -- very few traditional warfare methods apply.

 

I agree entirely

[hrothgar]

FWIW, if I were unlucky enough to be asked to deal with the situation in Iraq / Syria, here's what I'd do:

 

1. Start a serious diplomatic discussion with the Turks and explain to them that there is going to be an independent Kurdish state on the Turkish Southern border. Tell the Turks that the US is willing to assist Turkey with (voluntary) populations exchanges and other direct investment to smooth over the transition, however, Kurdistan (or whatever they want to call it) is happening.

 

2. Start similar discussions with the Iranians around partitioning Iraq into a Sunni state and a Shia state. I personally think that Iraq needs to be partitioned regardless, however, it might be possible to use the emergence of a Shia rump state in Iraq as a bargaining chip to get them to cut Assad loose.

 

Why go through all this? It's quite simple...

 

I don't thing that you can create genuine stability unless both the Sunni and the Shia have the opportunity to create their own destinies and, sadly, I don't think that this is possible within a multi-sectarian state. I think that the best chance for a lasting peace is giving the various sides room to build in.

 

In the mean time, whatever does collesque out of the Sunni regions of Iraq and Syria will have a strong Shia state to the East, a strong Kurish state to the North, and the Turks to the North West. We'll need to spend a bunch of money to support Jordan, however, that's far cheaper than another land war in Iraq.

[PassedOut]

Thanks to Trump, fringe news enters the mainstream

 

Alex Jones may be America’s most successful conspiracy theorist. On his website, Infowars.com, and his daily radio program heard on more than 100 stations nationwide, Jones regularly promotes a variety of ­beyond-the- fringe ideas: alleged government conspiracies in the Oklahoma City bombing in 1995 and the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001; fluoride-in-the-water health scares; suspicions that the moon landings were faked; doubts about President Obama’s place of birth and birth certificate.

 

Jones, in short, may be Donald Trump’s kind of guy.

 

The ranting radio host and the leading Republican candidate shared a microphone, and some common ground, last week in what may have been a dubious first — the first time a leading presidential candidate has been interviewed by a media figure from the far extremes. “Your reputation is amazing,” Trump assured Jones, after Jones assured Trump that most of his listeners supported his candidacy. “I will not let you down.”

I remember rolling my eyes when Karl Rove famously dismissed the "reality-based community" this way: "We're an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality." I shouldn't have...

[kenberg]

It is time for the Republican leadership to make two statements.

 

1. If Mr. Trump does not become the nominee, we release Mr. Trump from his pledge to support the party nominee. In fact we prefer that he does not.

2. If Mr. Trump should become the party nominee, we take no position on whether party members are expected to endorse him.

 

 

They could add a third statement:

3. At some point, enough is enough.

[Winstonm]

I think it is important to realize that all this national "Republican crazies" news is being created by a small fraction of the general public who are polled - voters who are registered Republican and expect to vote in the primaries - and of that small group right now 35% favor Trump. That is not a significant number of people. Why is this minority creating such special consideration when we turn on the t.v. or radio?

 

While the Republican Party has painted itself into a corner by having a significant wingnut base that must be mollified, the reporting of the primaries is more than an indictment of the Republican Party. I see it more of an indictment of modern journalism - passing off he said/she said contradiction as actual news, and showing poll numbers as if they were meaningful to a national election. There have always been crazies within parties, both Republican and Democratic - George Wallace comes immediately to mind - although there may be more support for crazy now than 40 years ago due to the decrease in educational standards in the US and the drop in those who can afford college. Still, the crazies are the minority.

 

I actually hope someone truly nutty wins the Republican nomination, as I think it would be by witnessing the results of a national election between say, Clinton vs Cruz, a good indication of how deeply goes the trouble within the U.S. I would expect a landslide akin to the demolition of Barry Goldwater by LBJ in 1964 as I still believe that the vast majority of Americans are rational beings who reject extremism, even the current crop of fanatical Republican Taliban.