Has U.S. Democracy Been Trumped?

[kenberg]

If you're going to provide your little lectures, please try to get the basic facts correct.

 

The quote was "Qu'ils mangent de la brioche"

 

Not sure where you learned French or baking, but "brioche" has nothing to do with leftover bread crusts

 

The Wikipedia goes on about this:

https://en.wikipedia...arie_Antoinette

 

"Let them eat cake" is the traditional translation of the French phrase "Qu'ils mangent de la brioche", supposedly spoken by "a great princess" upon learning that the peasants had no bread. Since brioche was a luxury bread enriched with butter and eggs, the quote would reflect the princess's disregard for the peasants, or her poor understanding of their situation.

 

While the phrase is commonly attributed to Queen Marie Antoinette,^[1] there is no record of her having said it. It appears in Jean-Jacques Rousseau's Confessions, his autobiography (whose first six books were written in 1765, when Marie Antoinette was nine years of age, and published in 1782). The context of Rousseau's account was his desire to have some bread to accompany some wine he had stolen; however, feeling he was too elegantly dressed to go into an ordinary bakery, he recollected the words of a "great princess".^[2] As he wrote in Book 6:

 

Enfin je me rappelai le pis-aller d'une grande princesse à qui l'on disait que les paysans n'avaient pas de pain, et qui répondit : Qu'ils mangent de la brioche.

^[2]

 

At length I recollected the thoughtless saying of a great princess, who, on being informed that the country people had no bread, replied, "Then let them eat pastry!"

 

Rousseau does not name the "great princess" and he may have invented the anecdote, as Confessions was, on the whole, not a very reliable autobiography.

 

 

And definitely nobody should take my word for either French translation nor French history. But possibly Marie Antoinette has been maligned in this quote. Fake News! Nonetheless, she did go to the guillotine. But not for any comments about bread, cake or pastry:

 

 

 

 

https://en.wikipedia...arie_Antoinette

 

 

 

 

During the Revolution, after the government had placed the royal family under house arrest in the Tuileries Palace in October 1789, several events linked to Marie Antoinette, in particular the June 1791 attempted flight to Varennes and her role in the War of the First Coalition, had disastrous effects on French popular opinion. On 10 August 1792, the attack on the Tuileries forced the royal family to take refuge at the Assembly, and on 13 August the family was imprisoned in the Temple. On 21 September 1792, the monarchy was abolished. After a two-day trial begun on 14 October 1793, Marie Antoinette was convicted by the Revolutionary Tribunal of high treason and executed by guillotine on the Place de la Révolution on 16 October 1793.

 

 

 

 

 

Also, George Washington did not confess to his father that he had cut down the cherry tree. I believe that crime remains unsolved.

[Zelandakh]

And definitely nobody should take my word for either French translation nor French history. But possibly Marie Antoinette has been maligned in this quote. Fake News!

Yes, most historians do not believe she really used those words. What that has to do with leftover bread crusts is beyond me though. A little like defending smearing your opponent as being in charge of a paedophile ring by saying that the whole thing was made up so not to worry about any details being wrong.

[ldrews]

If you're going to provide your little lectures, please try to get the basic facts correct.

 

The quote was “Qu'ils mangent de la brioche”

 

Not sure where you learned French or baking, but "brioche" has nothing to do with leftover bread crusts

 

Ah, how perceptive! You are right, I do not speak French and was parroting what I have read elsewhere. But go ahead, ignore the main thought and pick on the details.

[hrothgar]

Ah, how perceptive! You are right, I do not speak French and was parroting what I have read elsewhere. But go ahead, ignore the main thought and pick on the details.

 

No Larry,

 

The main point is that you constantly and mindlessly parrot "facts" that other people tell you.

You lack enough knowledge to know what is true and what is false.

You lack enough self knowledge to recognize that people treat you with derision because you go around lecturing your betters about things that you don't actually understand.

 

Yesterday it was the Presidential power to pardon

Today its an anecdote about Marie Antoinette

Tomorrow you'll probably be try to explain how we're all doomed unless we return to the gold standard or trying to explain bitcoin to me.

 

And I understand that this causes you to feel aggrieved because you like to think that you're smart and deserve respect.

 

Sorry mate. Perhaps its time to start swimming in a smaller pond...

[ldrews]

No Larry,

 

The main point is that you constantly and mindlessly parrot "facts" that other people tell you.

You lack enough knowledge to know what is true and what is false.

You lack enough self knowledge to recognize that people treat you with derision because you go around lecturing your betters about things that you don't actually understand.

 

Yesterday it was the Presidential power to pardon

Today its an anecdote about Marie Antoinette

Tomorrow you'll probably be try to explain how we're all doomed unless we return to the gold standard or trying to explain bitcoin to me.

 

And I understand that this causes you to feel aggrieved because you like to think that you're smart and deserve respect.

 

Sorry mate. Perhaps its time to start swimming in a smaller pond...

 

Excuse me, were you just lecturing me?

[ldrews]

No Larry,

 

The main point is that you constantly and mindlessly parrot "facts" that other people tell you.

You lack enough knowledge to know what is true and what is false.

You lack enough self knowledge to recognize that people treat you with derision because you go around lecturing your betters about things that you don't actually understand.

 

Yesterday it was the Presidential power to pardon

Today its an anecdote about Marie Antoinette

Tomorrow you'll probably be try to explain how we're all doomed unless we return to the gold standard or trying to explain bitcoin to me.

 

And I understand that this causes you to feel aggrieved because you like to think that you're smart and deserve respect.

 

Sorry mate. Perhaps its time to start swimming in a smaller pond...

 

hrothgar, are you a liberal? It seems to be a common characteristic of liberals to accuse others of the very sins that they themselves are committing. If so, it would explain the hostility you express to someone who does not share your views.

[RedSpawn]

hrothgar, are you a liberal? It seems to be a common characteristic of liberals to accuse others of the very sins that they themselves are committing. If so, it would explain the hostility you express to someone who does not share your views.

It seems to me that BOTH Republicans and Democrats are afflicted with significant levels of hypocrisy. Also, I haven't seen any convincing statistical evidence by behavioral scientists that suggests that one political party is more prone to this vice than the other.

[hrothgar]

Excuse me, were you just lecturing me?

 

No. I was calling you stupid.

Next time, I'll use smaller words and a more simple sentence structure.

 

Sorry.

[hrothgar]

hrothgar, are you a liberal? It seems to be a common characteristic of liberals to accuse others of the very sins that they themselves are committing.

 

I have been accused of a variety of sins. Lack of empathy and being an asshole normally top the list.

Being an idiot, grossly misinformed, lacking basic information...

 

That hasn't happened so far.

[Winstonm]

A recap from 538 through the lens of historical precedent.

 

The difference from all the others is that this crime was committed against the judiciary and the judiciary brought the charges to compel compliance. Without the power to compel, the judicial system is powerless and the rule of law becomes a meaningless phrase.

 

"The rule of law" refers to the concept that a nation should be governed by laws rather than the ideas of individuals. When the president interferes with the ability of the judicial system to compel compliance, he attacks the separation of powers.

[mike777]

Our local US congressman, a trump conservative, held a townhall meeting at our neighborhood High School.

 

two thoughts

 

1) very big room, smallish crowd est. 250

2) many called for trumps impeachment, they wanted the guy to vote for impeachment or suggested they would get rid of the congressman.

[mike777]

The difference from all the others is that this crime was committed against the judiciary and the judiciary brought the charges to compel compliance. Without the power to compel, the judicial system is powerless and the rule of law becomes a meaningless phrase.

 

"The rule of law" refers to the concept that a nation should be governed by laws rather than the ideas of individuals. When the president interferes with the ability of the judicial system to compel compliance, he attacks the separation of powers.

 

Winston nothing new here. For hundreds of years the 3 branches of govt have been in battle for power, nothing new here.

[Winstonm]

Winston nothing new here. For hundreds of years the 3 branches of govt have been in battle for power, nothing new here.

 

Sure, there has always been this wrestling match for power - but none so far has reached the level of totalitarianism as the Arpaio pardon, IMHO.

[mike777]

All I can suggest it to take a deep breathe and relax, it really has been worse in the past than this pardon. We shall survive Trump...

 

See Lincoln...See Jackson....See FDR... see Nixon....etc etc...

[Winstonm]

All I can suggest it to take a deep breathe and relax, it really has been worse in the past than this pardon. We shall survive Trump...

 

See Lincoln...See Jackson....See FDR... see Nixon....etc etc...

 

I understand that, Mike. But it seems not everyone understands that taking a legal action and adhering to the "rule of law" are not synonymous.

[RedSpawn]

All I can suggest it to take a deep breathe and relax, it really has been worse in the past than this pardon. We shall survive Trump...

 

See Lincoln...See Jackson....See FDR... see Nixon....etc etc...

Agreed.

 

In the matter of Trump. . .this too shall pass.

 

http://trump-today.news/usa/2017/trumpism-this-too-shall-pass/

[ldrews]

I understand that, Mike. But it seems not everyone understands that taking a legal action and adhering to the "rule of law" are not synonymous.

 

And what is your definition of "adhering to the rule of law"?

[mike777]

Wandering between two worlds, one dead.

The other powerless to be born.....

 

 

 

Arnold

[Zelandakh]

And what is your definition of "adhering to the rule of law"?

It seems you are confused about the phrase. A society in which a king is above the law (divine right) is completely lawful but does not follow the rule of law principle. Similarly, a society that uses laws to oppress its people in favour of a ruling elite (rule by law). A key principle of the rule of law in all of its various forms is that government officials are accountable and can be punished when they abuse their position. This is the specific point that is under discussion here.

[RedSpawn]

The Huxtables were the exception. How many babies are born out of wedlock? How many families are single parent homes?

 

Again if we are going to have a race discussion as a first step lets define and use a standard of measurement to define race or is race self defined not something we are born to and unchangeable

 

I mean we all have ancient ancestors from Africa...

http://blackdemographics.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/1969-to-2014-Black-Household-Income-Chart-wht-500.jpg

 

This chart breaks African-American incomes into quartiles, so while the Huxtables are the exceptions since few African-Americans are households of lawyers and doctors, 50%+ of African-American households are making $35,000+ annually. We have to focus the spotlight heavily on the bottom two income quartiles and find out why the bottom 50% appear to remain on the bottom 50% over DECADES! Quite honestly, I think we need to really look at the very bottom quartile (less than $15K) without judgment or condemnation and find out what the hell is going on to cause generational cycles of poverty over 1/2 a century.

 

By stratifying the data appropriately and asking those tough questions about the bottom quartiles, I think the government can come up with policy decisions that don't race bait and cave in to stereotypes. There is a "out of wedlock" issue going on that needs to be addressed but it is the effect of a larger policy issue at play.

http://blackdemographics.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/2012-Black-Family-income.jpg

[ldrews]

It seems you are confused about the phrase. A society in which a king is above the law (divine right) is completely lawful but does not follow the rule of law principle. Similarly, a society that uses laws to oppress its people in favour of a ruling elite (rule by law). A key principle of the rule of law in all of its various forms is that government officials are accountable and can be punished when they abuse their position. This is the specific point that is under discussion here.

 

So, what I hear you saying is that if President Trump takes actions that are fully lawful, i.e., are permitted or not prohibited by existing law, but enough people consider it to be an abuse, then President Trump is not following the "rule of law". Is that correct?

[Zelandakh]

So, what I hear you saying is that if President Trump takes actions that are fully lawful, i.e., are permitted or not prohibited by existing law, but enough people consider it to be an abuse, then President Trump is not following the "rule of law". Is that correct?

Could you perhaps point out to me where you think I wrote that - I do not recall anything even remotely along those lines. While you are doing it, perhaps you can also give your opinion on whether you consider it a good thing for everyone in a land, including government officials, to be held accountable for their actions. As I recall, this was #1 on the list of desirable outcomes for the "draining the swamp" pledge. But perhaps I misunderstood and in fact the desire was merely to replace one swamp with another one and holding government officials accountable (the rule of law) only applies to Democrats.

[ldrews]

Could you perhaps point out to me where you think I wrote that - I do not recall anything even remotely along those lines. While you are doing it, perhaps you can also give your opinion on whether you consider it a good thing for everyone in a land, including government officials, to be held accountable for their actions. As I recall, this was #1 on the list of desirable outcomes for the "draining the swamp" pledge. But perhaps I misunderstood and in fact the desire was merely to replace one swamp with another one and holding government officials accountable (the rule of law) only applies to Democrats.

 

OK, so what is your definition of "rule of law". How does someone know if they are following it or not?

 

I personally think everyone should be held legally accountable for violations of laws. I personally think that politicians should be held accountable for their actions via the ballot box, or in the case of the egregious actions, impeachment. I personally don't want to confuse the two.

[ldrews]

perhaps you can also give your opinion on whether you consider it a good thing for everyone in a land, including government officials, to be held accountable for their actions.

 

The most recent case of someone not following the "rule of law" for me is Hillary Clinton and her email server. Apparently Comey drafted a memo exonerating Hillary Clinton some time before interviewing many key witnesses and completing the investigation in a normal manner. Comey's decision to not prosecute, even with credible evidence, based on his judgement that "no reasonable prosecutor" would bring a case against Hillary. All of this indicates to me that "the fix was in". This is a case of an individual being held to be above the law, not accountable. This, to me, is a case of not following "the rule of law".

[hrothgar]

The most recent case of someone not following the "rule of law" for me is Hillary Clinton and her email server. Apparently Comey drafted a memo exonerating Hillary Clinton some time before interviewing many key witnesses and completing the investigation in a normal manner.

 

What is the evidence for this claim