Has U.S. Democracy Been Trumped?

[Cyberyeti]

Bridge players all love saying No Trump! :P

 

Hamman's law of politics ?

[johnu]

Did Brazil, Mexico, Slovenia and PRK congratulate the President-elect then?

I explicitly said "major world leaders", and the author of the article referred to "major world powers". Brazil actually is my favorite vacation spot, but it's economy has been in the toilet for a number of years and even the Brazilians I know would not say that Brazil is one of the world powers.

 

If I had said the Putin was the only leader of a country that had was still holding out hope for Trump, you would have had some kind of point. Since that's not what I said, you have nothing.

[Zelandakh]

I guess it depends what you mean by "major". Brazil has the world's 8^th largest economy by PPP GDP while Russia is 6^th while nominal GDP is 12^th versus 11^th. If major means for you specifically the top 6-7 (PPP) or top 11 (nominal) then your point holds. For everyone else, if you are including Russia then you should normally also include Brazil.

[akwoo]

I guess it depends what you mean by "major". Brazil has the world's 8^th largest economy by PPP GDP while Russia is 6^th while nominal GDP is 12^th versus 11^th. If major means for you specifically the top 6-7 (PPP) or top 11 (nominal) then your point holds. For everyone else, if you are including Russia then you should normally also include Brazil.

 

I think when you have a few thousand nukes you count as a major world power no matter what the state of your economy is.

[johnu]

I guess it depends what you mean by "major". Brazil has the world's 8^th largest economy by PPP GDP while Russia is 6^th while nominal GDP is 12^th versus 11^th. If major means for you specifically the top 6-7 (PPP) or top 11 (nominal) then your point holds. For everyone else, if you are including Russia then you should normally also include Brazil.

One place to start is the G7, as well as the strongest military powers in the world. Even if Russia had the 50th biggest economy, it is still the most disruptive country in the world and America's biggest threat in the world.

 

Brazil is still a developing country (used to be considered a 3rd world country when that designation was still used). With the Brazilian real in dropping almost 50% in value during 2020, and the economy in trouble even before Covid, it will be interesting to see where their economy ends up by the end of the year.

[Zelandakh]

One place to start is the G7, as well as the strongest military powers in the world. Even if Russia had the 50th biggest economy, it is still the most disruptive country in the world and America's biggest threat in the world.

Oh, right, now I get it. "Major" refers to how big of a threat a country represents to America. Got it. How silly of me not to have thought of that.

[johnu]

Oh, right, now I get it. "Major" refers to how big of a threat a country represents to America. Got it. How silly of me not to have thought of that.

You certainly think you are being clever. Since I must not know anything about world politics, maybe you can explain how the G7 countries are among the biggest threats to the US. I will be waiting for your enlightened reply.

 

And as far as Russia being a big threat to the US, Russia is a big threat to many other countries, including many in Europe, e.g Ukraine. As to whether other countries consider Russia to be their biggest threat, have you heard of NATO???

[Zelandakh]

You certainly think you are being clever. Since I must not know anything about world politics, maybe you can explain how the G7 countries are among the biggest threats to the US. I will be waiting for your enlightened reply.

 

And as far as Russia being a big threat to the US, Russia is a big threat to many other countries, including many in Europe, e.g Ukraine. As to whether other countries consider Russia to be their biggest threat, have you heard of NATO???

No, no, I agree with you completely. If you judge how "major" a world leader is according to their threat level to the US then Putin, Kim and Rouhani are clearly more important world leaders than Merkel or Johnson. :blink:

[johnu]

No, no, I agree with you completely. If you judge how "major" a world leader is according to their threat level to the US then Putin, Kim and Rouhani are clearly more important world leaders than Merkel or Johnson. :blink:

Your obtuseness is almost Trumpian. Putin is clearly more of a threat to Europe than the US since Russia doesn't need nukes to invade them. Look up Ukraine and Crimea if you still can't figure that out. Kim Jong-un is more of a threat to (especially) South Korea, Japan, SEA, and even China until he develops longer range missiles. Iran is more of a regional threat as long as it doesn't have operational nuclear missiles.

 

Feel free to continue misreading my comments in your efforts to embarrass yourself.

[Zelandakh]

Feel free to continue misreading my comments in your efforts to embarrass yourself.

The only embarrassment I see here is someone seriously equating the phrase "major world leader" with how dangerous the country is for the USA and spending 3 posts on backing that up. :lol: :lol: :lol:

[y66]

DACA Is Restored After Court Rules DHS Head Served Illegally by Michelle Hackman at WSJ:

 

WASHINGTON—A federal judge in New York invalidated Trump administration rules narrowing the program that protects immigrants living in the U.S. since childhood without legal permission, ruling the restrictions were improperly issued.

 

The ruling Saturday restores the program, called Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, or DACA, to near-full operation, after multiple attempts by the Trump administration to end or curtail it. That means, for the first time since September 2017, new applicants who weren’t previously eligible, typically because they were too young, may now apply.

 

The DACA program was created by the Obama administration in 2012 to protect the young immigrants, known as Dreamers, who have been living in the country without legal permission since childhood, and has been the subject of legal battles for the past three years.

 

In June, the Supreme Court ruled the Trump administration’s first attempt to end the program didn’t follow the proper procedure required for federal policy-making.

 

The following month, acting Homeland Security Secretary Chad Wolf issued a memorandum narrowing the program to existing applicants, who would be offered renewals of only one year, rather than two, and closing the program to any new candidates. The move was intended as an intermediate step while the administration considered whether to make another attempt to end the program entirely, as the Supreme Court had allowed it could do.

 

That memo was the subject of the latest round of litigation. The judge, Nicholas G. Garaufis of the Eastern District of New York, ruled it was improperly issued because Mr. Wolf hadn’t been properly appointed to his acting position.

 

The ruling is the fifth to find that Mr. Wolf is serving illegally in his acting role, following a Government Accountability Office report that found Mr. Wolf and his predecessor, Kevin McAleenan, both had been improperly appointed under federal law on job vacancies.

 

“Wolf was not lawfully serving as acting secretary of Homeland Security…when he issued the Wolf Memorandum,” Judge Garaufis, who was appointed by former President Bill Clinton, concluded in a 31-page opinion.

 

Judge Garaufis said the ruling applies to anyone who might qualify for DACA under the 2012 memo establishing the program, issued by then-Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano.

[Winstonm]

It appears that the Republicans have been successful in turning the clock in American back to the 50's: The 1850's, that is.

 

 

 

The largest militia group in the US will refuse to recognise President-elect Joe Biden as the nation's duly elected leader when he is sworn in on 20 January 2021.

 

The Oath Keepers, an armed right-wing organisation that boasts tens of thousands of members with law enforcement and military backgrounds, was one of several groups to demonstrate in Washington over the weekend at the "Million MAGA March" in support of Donald Trump, whom news networks project has lost the 2020 election.

 

"I think about half this country won't recognise Biden as legitimate. They won't recognise this election," Stewart Rhodes, who founded the Oath Keepers, told The Independent on Saturday in the nation's capital.

 

"What that means is that everything that comes out of his mouth will be considered not of any force or effect, anything he signs into law we won't recognise as legitimate. We'll be very much like the founding fathers. We'll end up nullifying and resisting," Mr Rhodes said.

 

 

 

 

Yippee Ki-Yay Motherf*ckers!

[barmar]

And now, with no penalty, does this mean that it is no longer a tax? And if so, is in tow an unconstitutional mandate?

Ok, I can make an argument. In my youthful days I sometimes had tax withheld from my paycheck. Then, at the end of the year, I would get it all returned because my total income was such that I owed no taxes. That is, I had a tax of zero dollars. With that logic, if "logic" is the right word, a tax that has been reduced to zero can still be considered a tax. So no problem.

Well, yuk. The thought that this could all come down to whether the penalty was a tax or a fine was bad enough, and now if we have to argue whether reducing the tax/fine to zero changes its status is depressing.

My guess is that they'll say that the amount of the tax is ephemeral, Congress can increase and decrease it from year to year. The law doesn't change if some years they happen to change it to zero -- it's just a temporary reprieve.

[barmar]

The only important thing to know is that the ex Manchurian President has absolutely zero authority to influence the federal government. Instead of being the sociopath and whackjob president who can screw up people's lives, he will be the sociopath and whackjob private (and hopefully imprisoned) citizen who has no more influence than the sociopaths and whackjobs on Fox Propaganda Channel. or other ultra right fringe outlets.

The problem is that he still has a base of followers that believe everything he says, and the GOP depends on their votes and activism.

 

One of the arguments given for while Republican leaders are indulging Trump in his challenges to the election is that they need his support to win the Georgia run-off elections. And even though he won't have any official authority after he leaves office, they might still go along with him so he doesn't turn his base against them.

 

He won't be as dangerous as he has been for the past 4 years, but he'll still have plenty of ability to much with the system.

[kenberg]

 

And now, with no penalty, does this mean that it is no longer a tax? And if so, is in tow an unconstitutional mandate?

Ok, I can make an argument. In my youthful days I sometimes had tax withheld from my paycheck. Then, at the end of the year, I would get it all returned because my total income was such that I owed no taxes. That is, I had a tax of zero dollars. With that logic, if "logic" is the right word, a tax that has been reduced to zero can still be considered a tax. So no problem.

Well, yuk. The thought that this could all come down to whether the penalty was a tax or a fine was bad enough, and now if we have to argue whether reducing the tax/fine to zero changes its status is depressing.

 

 

 

My guess is that they'll say that the amount of the tax is ephemeral, Congress can increase and decrease it from year to year. The law doesn't change if some years they happen to change it to zero -- it's just a temporary reprieve.

 

 

This might illustrate both a problem and an opportunity.

 

 

If you interviewed a hundred people, randomly chosen from a phone book, I would be surprised if you found even three who could give a clear summary of the argument(s) before the court. But you would find a great many who are worried about the virus. Of course there will be some, there will always be some, who let political views dominate their thinking. But when I was young, people worried about polio. Those who voted for Eisenhower worried about polio and those who voted for Stevenson worried about polio. Yes, there were the John Birchers, they were crazy. But most people were not like that.

 

 

We are right now in a terrible situation. The virus is moving quickly, we are in a transition between government leaders what a mess. I suspect that there are more than a few people out there who usually vote R but are now very open to the idea that the incoming administration and the outgoing administration need to deal with this. We might not convert Rs to Ds, but can we get Rs to make their voices heard about the need for a cooperative power transfer? Of course it should always go that way but we have extra reasons for wanting it now. Put aside the issue of who voted for whom, and get working on a cooperative transfer of power, and right now. That couold have pretty broad appeal I think. Not to everyone. No one claims everyone. But then we never claim everyone for anything.

 

I know I am sometimes seem as hopelessly naïve. Ok, naïve has its good points sometimes.

 

 

 

[Winstonm]

The problem is that he still has a base of followers that believe everything he says, and the GOP depends on their votes and activism.

 

One of the arguments given for while Republican leaders are indulging Trump in his challenges to the election is that they need his support to win the Georgia run-off elections. And even though he won't have any official authority after he leaves office, they might still go along with him so he doesn't turn his base against them.

 

He won't be as dangerous as he has been for the past 4 years, but he'll still have plenty of ability to much with the system.

Obama touched on this subject in a recent interview - and the point is that there is no consensus any longer on our facts. There is a reason for that, and Richard (Hrothgar) posted this on another thread but it needs repeating: https://www.vox.com/...-misinformation

 

That article helps explain this one: https://www.nybooks....acys-afterlife/

 

As we are now seeing, the difference for a democracy is existential. A tactic of maneuvering to hold power against the wishes of the majority of voters is contingent, opportunistic, reactive. It is innately time-limited. It will advance when it can and retreat when it must. But when the tactic becomes the strategy, there can be no retreat. A program of consolidating the means by which a minority can gain and retain power must try to institutionalize itself, to become so embedded that it can withstand the majority’s anger. To do that, it must not merely evade the consequences of losing the popular vote in this or that election. It must, insofar as it can, make those elections irrelevant

 

This is the most important thing to understand about the postmortem Republican Party. The logic is not that a permanently minority party may move toward authoritarianism but that it must. Holding power against the wishes of most citizens is an innately despotic act.

[kenberg]

I said I was naïve but I don't admit to being a complete babe in the woods. The problems are real. The question is what to do. I am thinking that right now, with the virus spreading rapidly again, there might be some people out there who don't vote the way I vote and perhaps do not even much think the way I think but who nonetheless are up for some cooperative behavior. Sure, I have known many in my life, not all of them conservatives, who simply are not up for any such thing. But then some are, or at least in the past some have been. Perhaps we can work with them. The key would be, as it often is, to focus on an important area of common interest while ignoring other areas, perhaps some of them very basic, where there is disagreement.

 

It sometimes seems that we have ruled out that approach. Too bad. I am not yet ready to crawl into a hole and give up.

[Winstonm]

I said I was naïve but I don't admit to being a complete babe in the woods. The problems are real. The question is what to do. I am thinking that right now, with the virus spreading rapidly again, there might be some people out there who don't vote the way I vote and perhaps do not even much think the way I think but who nonetheless are up for some cooperative behavior. Sure, I have known many in my life, not all of them conservatives, who simply are not up for any such thing. But then some are, or at least in the past some have been. Perhaps we can work with them. The key would be, as it often is, to focus on an important area of common interest while ignoring other areas, perhaps some of them very basic, where there is disagreement.

 

It sometimes seems that we have ruled out that approach. Too bad. I am not yet ready to crawl into a hole and give up.

 

Without consensual facts, we are all in a hole regardless. The lack of consensual facts is a direct result of a coordinated effort by the conservative media. As O'Toole noted in the article I linked to above, holding power as a minority is an innately despotic act. Using Russian intelligence techniques in that end becomes a patriotic virtue if you believe in that side - and that there is no consensual set of facts.

[y66]

I enjoyed the Fintan O'Toole piece that winstonm linked even if it is a little long-winded. Another excerpt:

 

The dominant power in the land, the undead Republican Party, has made majority rule aberrant, a notion that transgresses the new norms it has created. From the perspective of this system, it is Biden, and his criminal voters, who are the deviant ones. This is the irony: Trump, the purest of political opportunists, driven only by his own instincts and interests, has entrenched an anti-democratic culture that, unless it is uprooted, will thrive in the long term. It is there in his court appointments, in his creation of a solid minority of at least 45 percent animated by resentment and revenge, but above all in his unabashed demonstration of the relatively unbounded possibilities of an American autocracy. As a devout Catholic, Joe Biden believes in the afterlife. But he needs to confront an afterlife that is not in the next world but in this one—the long posterity of Donald Trump.

[barmar]

This might illustrate both a problem and an opportunity.

 

 

If you interviewed a hundred people, randomly chosen from a phone book, I would be surprised if you found even three who could give a clear summary of the argument(s) before the court. But you would find a great many who are worried about the virus. Of course there will be some, there will always be some, who let political views dominate their thinking. But when I was young, people worried about polio. Those who voted for Eisenhower worried about polio and those who voted for Stevenson worried about polio. Yes, there were the John Birchers, they were crazy. But most people were not like that.

 

 

We are right now in a terrible situation. The virus is moving quickly, we are in a transition between government leaders what a mess. I suspect that there are more than a few people out there who usually vote R but are now very open to the idea that the incoming administration and the outgoing administration need to deal with this. We might not convert Rs to Ds, but can we get Rs to make their voices heard about the need for a cooperative power transfer? Of course it should always go that way but we have extra reasons for wanting it now. Put aside the issue of who voted for whom, and get working on a cooperative transfer of power, and right now. That couold have pretty broad appeal I think. Not to everyone. No one claims everyone. But then we never claim everyone for anything.

 

I know I am sometimes seem as hopelessly naïve. Ok, naïve has its good points sometimes.

Unfortunately, the people who believe Trump when he says that the D's stole the election also believe him when he says that Covid-19 is not that serious. So it's unlike when you were young and just about everyone was worried about polio -- there's a large enough faction that think that Covid-19 is a left-wing media hoax, like climate change.

 

This is indeed a terrible situation. We can't put all the blame on Trump (climate change denial has been going on for years), but he definitely took advantage of the division and exacerbated it.

[pilowsky]

http://i.imgur.com/1h8vGG8.png?1

[kenberg]

Unfortunately, the people who believe Trump when he says that the D's stole the election also believe him when he says that Covid-19 is not that serious. So it's unlike when you were young and just about everyone was worried about polio -- there's a large enough faction that think that Covid-19 is a left-wing media hoax, like climate change.

 

This is indeed a terrible situation. We can't put all the blame on Trump (climate change denial has been going on for years), but he definitely took advantage of the division and exacerbated it.

 

I agree.

 

But still I ask, what do we do?

 

There is not one single answer, of course not.

 

And how did it happen? No doubt there will be many theories, many papers, probably quite a few Ph.D. theses. Surely technology has played a role. I can sit in comfort here and berate people that I will never meet. There is a danger in that. But still, what to do?

 

It must, in part, depend on what you think of people. There are many people who know more about politics than I do. But there are also many who know less, at least in part because they have a job and kids rather than being a retired guy with few demands on his time. I am suggesting that we go a little easy on condemning them to hell. If we offer an open door, some will walk through it.. And, of course, some won't.

 

I do understand that our current president has contributed greatly to our problems. I do get that. My posts are not in denial of that.

[pilowsky]

In the USA in 2020 the total number of eligible voters was 239,247,162.

 

Incredibly, despite the ravages of COVID19 and the worst economic depression in history and a President straight from a reality television show, about 60,000,000 of these apparently sentient beings chose not to exercise their right to express an opinion.

 

What did Sir Thomas More say? "Qui tacet consentiret": the maxim of the law is "Silence gives consent". In other words, These non-voters are tacitly approving the status quo.

 

In 2020 there was an extraordinary voter turnout in the USA. For the first time ever around 70% of the eligible population decided to show an interest in who represents them.

 

Voting in America is a peculiar thing. When an American votes, it's because they believe that there should be no taxation without representation.

 

Hilariously, the whinging and hand-wringing that is going on in America at the moment can all be traced back to the Declaration of Independence. Let's be clear, the much-vaunted 'D of I' was, in fact, a complaint about taxes.

 

The (white slave-owning, property-owning male) Americans of the day were complaining that the British were levying taxes on them but were not allowing them to elect members of their parliament.

 

This makes quite a lot of sense when you remember that the British don't even have enough room in the Palace of Westminister to fit their own members of Parliament. The whole Gormenghastian edifice in London is crumbling around their ears. Guy Fawkes would have done them a favour.

 

The Americans did not want 'freedom' when they declared independence. What they wanted was money. They also wanted slaves. The British didn't need slaves. In Britain, 'people know there place'. If they forget their place, they have to go to Australia, or Essex, or into coal mines in the North of England. There may also be an area called Scotland but I'm not too sure. Women of course didn't count.

 

This year 73,125,673 Americans voted for Trump. That's exactly 30.5%. I once stood for parliament in the safest conservative seat in the state of South Australia at a time when my friend was desperate to find a candidate to stand. Australia has compulsory voting.

 

The Labor party was really on the nose because the State Bank had just collapsed. I managed to garner more than 30% of the vote. Even when the ***** hits the fan a corpse can get 30% of the vote.

 

Even in a country where everything is so appallingly Gerrymandered and up means down and the words 'alternative facts' are spoken without a trace of irony. you can still get 30% of the vote if you're a major party candidate.

 

It's meaningless.

 

It's the people that didn't vote that baffle me. what were they thinking? Who are they?

 

 

[Winstonm]

I agree.

 

But still I ask, what do we do?

 

There is not one single answer, of course not.....There is a danger in that. But still, what to do?

 

 

I'm not clear if you - or we, all of us - understand just how big of question this is. How do you unwind the results of the educational morass where the sciences are only suggestions no more valid than the book of Genesis, generational racism, voter apathy, and a concerted effort to rule as the minority regardless of what happens to the country?

 

The problems are so huge by now that they may well be unsolvable.

[pilowsky]

I'm not clear if you - or we, all of us - understand just how big of question this is. How do you unwind the results of the educational morass where the sciences are only suggestions no more valid than the book of Genesis, generational racism, voter apathy, and a concerted effort to rule as the minority regardless of what happens to the country?

 

The problems are so huge by now that they may well be unsolvable.

 

Are you suggesting I have to write that bloody book again!