Has U.S. Democracy Been Trumped?

[Gilithin]

Lawyer: And you say it - again this has become very famous in this video - "I just start kissing them. It's like a magnet. Just kiss. I don't even wait. And when you're a star they let you do it. You can do anything. Grab 'em by the pussy. You can do anything." That's what you said, correct?

Trump: Well historically that's true with stars.

Lawyer: True with stars that they can grab women by the pussy?

Trump: Well that's what it's...if you look over the last million years I guess that's been largely true.. Not always but largely true. Unfortunately or fortunately.

Lawyer: You consider yourself to be a star?

Trump: I think you can say that, yeah.

 

Could someone please explain how truly devout white Christians manage to rationalise this as the ideal morals for the highest office in the USA? It's genuinely very difficult for people outside of America to understand.

[Winstonm]

Lawyer: And you say it - again this has become very famous in this video - "I just start kissing them. It's like a magnet. Just kiss. I don't even wait. And when you're a star they let you do it. You can do anything. Grab 'em by the pussy. You can do anything." That's what you said, correct?

Trump: Well historically that's true with stars.

Lawyer: True with stars that they can grab women by the pussy?

Trump: Well that's what it's...if you look over the last million years I guess that's been largely true.. Not always but largely true. Unfortunately or fortunately.

Lawyer: You consider yourself to be a star?

Trump: I think you can say that, yeah.

 

Could someone please explain how truly devout white Christians manage to rationalise this as the ideal morals for the highest office in the USA? It's genuinely very difficult for people outside of America to understand.

If you can justify a superior being who has had a plan for every person ever born on earth and is invisible but will punish everyone who doesn’t believe he is real then justifying Trump is easy-the invisible magic man wants him to be president.

[pilowsky]

Trump was a means to an end.

In the USA 35-40% of the population are fervently anti-abortion.

They will vote for a ham sandwich if it promises to prevent abortion and allow children to buy guns.

 

In the UK and Australia a much larger proportion of the population are pro-abortion and anti-gun but more importantly, non-US anti-abortionists will not necessarily decide their vote just on that issue.

 

To say nothing of the dog-whistling about the southern border.

Australian conservatives ranting about "stopping the boats" and Tories promoting BREXIT to keep immigrants out fall into the same racist idea as the BS about building a wall to keep the alien rapists at bay.

 

No wonder the neo-NAZI's lap it up.

[kenberg]

We senior-and-then-somes have been discussing matters, trying to see what is going on. Not much success. Growing up in the 40s and 50s the predictions were that long before 2023 life would be very easy because of technological advances. Well, this was half right. Technology has advanced.

 

The economy: Apparently there is much worry across the country. Prices are going up. But that's not the whole story. I, and everyone else, noticed that every month economic numbers come out and economists are said to be caught unaware. See

https://www.washingt...ing-indicators.

for comments that I think are relevant.

And then there is the annual fight over the debt ceiling. Maybe we need a name change. If every year we do a budget, look to see how much it will increase the debt, and then raise the debt ceiling to accommodate that debt, we do not have anything that can reasonably be called a debt ceiling. Becky suggested calling it the debt elevator.

 

Immigration: AFAIK nobody has a plan. Probably because the goal depends on the day of the week. Save everyone whose lif is in danger in their home country? Get more immigrants working at Burger King? Get votes from the Latino community? To borrow a song title, this problem will go on until the 12th of never.

 

Covid: Have we actually done anything right?

 

Eisenhower was elected in 1952 because there was a war going on in Korea and the electorate figured he would know how to handle it. And he did.

 

The confidence that the everyday person has in our leaders is at an all-time low, or at least it is very low. See

https://www.washingt...ionism-economy/

Again I agree with many of the comments.

 

We have a mess.

[pilowsky]

I just heard a striking writer complaining about shrinking income because of changes in the way streaming organisations compensate them.

She said (inter alia) that:

 

 

"Our door is open but the ball is in their court"

"Our demands are extremely reasonable"

 

If they keep their door open and the ball is smashed back into their court it might hit someone in the living room causing unreasonable damage.

[johnu]

Eisenhower was elected in 1952 because there was a war going on in Korea and the electorate figured he would know how to handle it. And he did.

 

AFAIK, the Democrats also wanted Eisenhower to be their candidate, so he was extremely popular among all Americans.

[kenberg]

AFAIK, the Democrats also wanted Eisenhower to be their candidate, so he was extremely popular among all Americans.

 

Yes, that's the way I remember it. In '52 I was a 13-year-old Adlai Stevenson supporter but I also had an "I Go Pogo" button in support of a cartoon 'possum.

 

As I have mentioned before, I came home from a Boy Scout meeting and found my parents watching Joe McCarthy on tv explaining that Stevenson was a communist. I suppose that some people believed this but no one that I knew did.

Very important: Joe McCarthy was the Wisconsin McCarthy. The Minnesota McCarthy was Eugene McCarthy. We Minnesotans want that clearly understood.

Kevin McCarthy? Well, there is something about witches bringing demons up from the Underworld.

 

Anyway, people overwhelmingly supported Eisenhower because they Liked Ike, not because they thought Stevenson was a commie.

[pescetom]

Anyway, people overwhelmingly supported Eisenhower because they Liked Ike

Not because he was an avid bridge player?

[kenberg]

Not because he was an avid bridge player?

 

You might be right. Karen Walker wrote a short piece about Ike and bridge:

http://advocate.dist...m/jun09/ike.htm

 

My thoughts about the world being simpler "back then" apply to bridge bidding also.1H-2S(strong jump shift)-3S-4NT(straight Blackwood) -5D(one Ace)-6S.

 

Of course he was also an avid golf player.

 

I started golf when I was 13 or 14. My Boy Scout Troop ran scores at the Keller Open in 1953, won by Tommy "Thunder" Bolt (I was 14), but also in 52. It looked like fun so I went to the Salvation Army and bought some clubs, a bag, and some balls. I played at the Highland Park course in the early hours before the groundskeepers arrived to chase me away.

 

I really think that life was simpler when I was young.

 

Anyway, people did indeed like Ike. As politics go, it's not so clear that anyone likes anyone these days.

[Gilithin]

Of course he was also an avid golf player.

Out of interest, did he ever pay out 5 million dollars for raping a woman? I hear that's what all the cool golfers are doing this year.

 

Anyway, people did indeed like Ike. As politics go, it's not so clear that anyone likes anyone these days.

It seems to me that US politicians like those that give them money and dislike those that run against them. It's more or less the American dream transposed to a social life.

[pilowsky]

Hard to believe I know, but Trump just lost another court case.

[Winstonm]

Hard to believe I know, but Trump just lost another court case.

The chilling part is: no one cares.

[Winstonm]

From The Onion:

 

AUSTIN, TX—In an effort to provide students with everything they need to know about sexual development, sexual intercourse, and pregnancy, an updated sex ed curriculum instituted Wednesday across Texas instructed children how to stone whores. "The new and improved sex education guidelines will provide comprehensive information on how to identify harlots and execute them for their disgusting, lustful ways," said Texas Commissioner of Education Mike Morath, adding that the course would teach students at both the middle school and high school level why loose, sexually deviant women were a scourge on society, and why they must pay the ultimate price. "Many students may be confused about their bodies, and why they feel such seething hatred toward the two-faced sluts who have irrevocably wronged them. But by the end of the six-week class, students will be armed with the knowledge necessary to safely encircle a woman, throw rocks at her with great accuracy, and yell 'Death to whores!' until she finally succumbs to an excruciatingly painful death. We will go over the female anatomy and which are the most sensitive points to hit with a rock." Morath also told reporters that the lessons would include a section on gender and sexuality, as well as tools and techniques for rounding up members of the LGBTQ+ community and sending them to death camps.

It's spooky when satire is difficult to recognize.

[johnu]

From The Onion:

 

It's spooky when satire is difficult to recognize.

 

Even worse when satire doesn't come close to being as ridiculous as real life QOP words and actions.

[pilowsky]

I don't think satire has an impact on the unconverted, frankly. It's not even preaching to the converted; it's titillating the converted. I think the people who say we need satire often mean, 'We need satire of them, not of us.'

I'm fond of quoting Peter Cook, who talked about the satirical Berlin cabarets of the '30s, which did so much to stop the rise of Hitler and prevent the Second World War."

[Winstonm]

Tom Lehrer:

 

“Once all the Germans were warlike and mean

but that will never happen again

we taught them a lesson in 1917

and they’ve hardly bothered us since then “

[barmar]

Why should either side give in in the debt ceiling negotiation?

 

Biden has been trying to broker a deal between Republicans and Democrates over the debt ceiling (they claim some progress is being made, but I worry that they're just saying it to avoid the appearance of stagnation). But other than actually wanting to prevent a default (ha!), I don't see why either side should give in. If we go over the brink, both sides can blame the other, likely scoring political points with their bases.

 

Biden has accused McCarthy of "holding the American economy hostage" by including spending reduction conditions in the House's bill to raise the debt ceiling. But Republicans could just as easily say that the Democrats are just as much to blame by not making what they claim are reasonable spending cuts. How does anyone win in a standoff like this?

 

Generally, the President usually gets the brunt of the blame whenever there's an economic downturn, even if it's actually due to Congress's failure. So even if they can blame each other, Biden has more to lose in the final political reckoning. Why should the GOP back down?

 

It's a game of chicken, but it seems like one of the players is driving an old clunker that they wouldn't mind crashing, while the other is driving a fancy sports car.

[Gilithin]

Cancel the Top 10% tax cuts. That is one of the largest recent spending increases and does not significantly benefit the vast majority of the country nor do anything for defending the country.

[kenberg]

Why should either side give in in the debt ceiling negotiation?

 

Biden has been trying to broker a deal between Republicans and Democrats over the debt ceiling (they claim some progress is being made, but I worry that they're just saying it to avoid the appearance of stagnation). But other than actually wanting to prevent a default (ha!), I don't see why either side should give in. If we go over the brink, both sides can blame the other, likely scoring political points with their bases.

 

Biden has accused McCarthy of "holding the American economy hostage" by including spending reduction conditions in the House's bill to raise the debt ceiling. But Republicans could just as easily say that the Democrats are just as much to blame by not making what they claim are reasonable spending cuts. How does anyone win in a standoff like this?

 

Generally, the President usually gets the brunt of the blame whenever there's an economic downturn, even if it's actually due to Congress's failure. So even if they can blame each other, Biden has more to lose in the final political reckoning. Why should the GOP back down?

 

It's a game of chicken, but it seems like one of the players is driving an old clunker that they wouldn't mind crashing, while the other is driving a fancy sports car.

 

I have mentioned before that I played an impromptu game of chicken when I was 15 or maybe 16. I was in my Plymouth, my friend Neil was in his Ford, we just by luck found ourselves at opposite ends of a city block coming in opposing directions. We both, what the hell why not, moved to the center of the street and stepped on the gas. How close did we come? Very, very close. The explanation is that we were adolescent males.

 

But! Even as adolescent males, we agreed that it was a tie and we had absolutely no interest whatsoever in doing it again.

 

That makes us a good deal smarter than the idiots we have in our capital. It's a recurring event in D.C.

 

If Neil and I had collided, who would have been to blame? The answer is obvious, is it not?

[pilowsky]

Well, surely there are fine people on both sides?

[johnu]

Biden has accused McCarthy of "holding the American economy hostage" by including spending reduction conditions in the House's bill to raise the debt ceiling. But Republicans could just as easily say that the Democrats are just as much to blame by not making what they claim are reasonable spending cuts. How does anyone win in a standoff like this?

 

Sure, the QOP could and probably will say that the Democrats are just as much to blame, and they would be totally wrong as they usually are. As you might guess from the name, the debt ceiling is for obligations that the US has already authorized. By not raising the debt limit, the US would be defaulting on its debt with potentially disastrous consequences and no upside. The entire holding the economy hostage by the QOP is purely a political act, which is only possible because the QOP doesn't really want to govern and don't care if they turn the US economy upside down.

 

If the QOP wants to cut spending, they can do so when the budget is being debated.

[pilowsky]

In the words of "the Specials"

Stop your messing around;

Better think of your future,

Time to straighten right out,

Creating problems in town.

Rudy,

A message to you, Rudy.

A message to you.

Stop your fooling around,

Time to straighten right out

Better think of your future

Else you'll wind up in jail.

Rudy,

A message to you you, Rudy,

A message to you.

Stop your messing around,

Better think of your future.

Time to straighten right out,

Creating problems in town.

And here's a link to the complaint lodged in NYC where amongst many other things:

132. He also asked Ms. Dunphy if she knew anyone in need of a pardon, telling her thathe was selling pardons for $2 million, which he and President Trump would split. He toldMs. Dunphy that she could refer individuals seeking pardons to him, so long as they did not gothrough "the normal channels" of the Office of the Pardon Attorney, because correspondencegoing to that office would be subject to disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act.

[Winstonm]

Calling it negotiations on the debt ceiling is absurd. It is hostage taking. Congress has already agreed to the amount of spending. Raising the debt ceiling to accomodate is a perfuntory duty. It's like agreeing with the lawn boy to cut your lawn for $50 but when he comes back to collect his pay you tell him he has to trim your hedges and paint your house for the same $50 or you won't do it.

[kenberg]

I have been trying to think of a constructive approach to the debt ceiling. Maybe this is a start:

 

Let's say a year runs from June 1 to May 31. Say we are now at the end of year X and about to start year X+1. The oft-repeated argument is that we have spent the money for year X and so we must raise the debt ceiling to accommodate it. This is correct, as far as it goes. Suppose we were to do this: We will soon be passing a budget for year X+1. We could, in preparation for that, set a debt ceiling now for year X+1. After setting the debt ceiling for year X+1 we would make every effort to design the budget so that we would, at the end of year X+1, be within the limit that was set. Of course, the unexpected could happen, but we would agree to give it our best shot to hold our spending in year X+1 to stay within the debt ceiling that was set for year X+1 at the end of year X.

 

This would give the phrase "debt ceiling" some actual meaning. As it is now, the argument goes "Of course we have to adjust the debt ceiling to accommodate the year X, that had already happened". The en we set a budget for year X+1, expecting that at the end of year X+1 we will say "Of course we have to adjust the debt ceiling to accommodate the year X+1, that had already happened".

 

Perhaps we should not have a debt ceiling, one could argue for that. But as it goes not, we have a pretend debt ceiling. It goes "Sure we have a debt ceiling, but it's no problem, we just adjust it every year to cover whatever it is that we spent" That is a totally phony debt ceiling.

 

Short version: A debt ceiling that absolutely must be adjusted to cover whatever is spent and in no way controls what is spent is not seriously a debt ceiling. If my suggestion is not practical then the folks who are claiming to be our representatives need to find a way that is practical.

[johnu]

Let's say a year runs from June 1 to May 31. Say we are now at the end of year X and about to start year X+1. The oft-repeated argument is that we have spent the money for year X and so we must raise the debt ceiling to accommodate it. This is correct, as far as it goes. Suppose we were to do this: We will soon be passing a budget for year X+1. We could, in preparation for that, set a debt ceiling now for year X+1. After setting the debt ceiling for year X+1 we would make every effort to design the budget so that we would, at the end of year X+1, be within the limit that was set. Of course, the unexpected could happen, but we would agree to give it our best shot to hold our spending in year X+1 to stay within the debt ceiling that was set for year X+1 at the end of year X.

 

The problem with that analysis is that it's not just year X that's the problem. It's the accumulated debt and interest for years X-1, X-2, X-3, X-4, X-5, etc., etc. The last debt ceiling increase in 12/2021 was $2.5 trillion (total $31.4 billion) to January 2023. By comparison, the US spending budget was only $6.3 trillion with a spending deficit of $1.5 trillion in 2023. The debt limit increase is currently about 40% of the total spending budget. What programs do you want to cut? The 3 biggest budget items are health services (inc Medicare,etc), pensions (e.g Social Security), and the military which are more than 2/3 the total US budget. And there's the problem. Nobody wants to cut anything (except other people's programs), and just keeping budget items the same is actually a decrease because of inflation.

 

By comparison, the Trump tax giveaway cost about $2 trillion and tax rates are historically low, but the QOP is hysterical in refusing to increase taxes.