Donald Trump Demonstrating How Much Of Our Political System Is Based On Tradition & Custom, Not Rules
from the is-that-good-or-bad? dept
Perhaps one of the most common phrases I’ve seen in reference to various actions by Donald Trump and his transition team since the election in November is “this is not normal” or “this is not how things are done.” Those phrases keep popping up over and over again — often in somewhat horrified tones. Politico recently had a pretty good article demonstrating how the Trump transition team seems to not care one bit about the traditional way things are done:
President-elect Donald Trump has said he might do away with regular press briefings and daily intelligence reports. He wants to retain private security while receiving secret service protection, even after the inauguration. He is encouraging members of his family to take on formal roles in his administration, testing the limits of anti-nepotism statutes. And he is pushing the limits of ethics laws in trying to keep a stake in his business.
In a series of decisions and comments since his election last month — from small and stylistic preferences to large and looming conflicts — Trump has signaled that he intends to run his White House much like he ran his campaign: with little regard for tradition. And in the process of writing his own rules, he is shining a light on how much of the American political system is encoded in custom, and how little is based in the law.
And… that’s really quite interesting, because of how little many people — especially policy experts — have really stopped to consider how much of the way we do things is based on custom, and not actual rules. There are two ways of looking at this. First, there absolutely are serious problems with “the way things have always been done.” So there’s potential value in having someone who doesn’t feel hamstrung by traditions and customs that might not make sense. But, the flip side of that is that there are often really good reasons for the way many of these things are done. And, so far, the customs and traditions that Trump has been indicating he’ll ignore, are ones that do seem to be based on solid reasoning, rather than just silly legacy reasons. Intelligence reports, secret service protection, and anti-nepotism rules make sense.
It’s one thing to blow stuff up because they’re outdated and unnecessary — and another thing altogether to just blow them up for the sake of blowing them up, or even just out of convenience. But as a way of highlighting just how much of our system is held together based on legacy reasons, rather than actual rules, it’s fascinating.
Filed Under: customs, donald trump, politics, rules
Comments on “Donald Trump Demonstrating How Much Of Our Political System Is Based On Tradition & Custom, Not Rules”
Well, it is a republic with elections.
The rules are based on the assumption that the people will vote someone sane and invested in the public good into the highest office of the land. The whole electoral college abomination is supposed to be another safeguard against an uninformed constituency picking someone unsuitable for the job.
The system does not protect against the people choosing a megalomaniac sociopath.
When Benjamin Franklin was asked after the Constitutional Session what kind of political system the People were going to have, his reply was “A Republic, if you can keep it.”
It was a good run.
Re: Well, it is a republic with elections.
It’s hilarious to see yet another person irrationally freaked out and unwilling to accept the election.
Yes, its true that the results of a single election have doomed america. We are of course all doomed.
Re: Re: Well, it is a republic with elections.
Is it irrational? How so?
1) not endowed with reason or understanding
2) lacking usual or normal mental clarity or coherence
3) not governed by or according to reason
It is obvious to the casual observer that the poster
1) understands the situation and is reasonably concerned, so number one is out.
2) Said poster has not exhibited any signs of unusual or abnormal mental state, so number two is out
3) It is quite reasonable to be concerned about the situation, it would be strange to not be.
So, in conclusion – you are incorrect in your assertion that said poster is irrational. Perhaps you would like to choose another word to abuse.
Re: Well, it is a republic with elections.
Actually, the EC is much more than that. It’s also a representative of each state. We are not one nation with a bunch of counties and regions, We are a collection of states that are unified by a constitution. Each state votes and their EC representative then votes for that state in the presidential election. It ensures that no single population-dense state or region can perennially win the office. Our founders were far more forward thinking than those who simply find it convenient to blame anything but their candidate for a single election loss. For example, was the EC wrong in voting Obama into office?
Re: Re: It ensures that no single population-dense state or region can perennially win the office.
Where, in any democracy in the world, does that happen?
Seems the US has been using a bogeyman as an excuse to hobble its own practice of democracy.
Re: Re: Re: It ensures that no single population-dense state or region can perennially win the office.
These United States are not a Democracy… they are a Republic
Re: Re: Re:2 It ensures that no single population-dense state or region can perennially win the office.
And the next time I see somebody say that and actually have some kind of point to make, it’ll be the first.
Re: Re: Re:3 It ensures that no single population-dense state or region can perennially win the office.
I’ll make it: A Republic is better than a Democracy.
In a pure Democracy, the 50% +1 always override the 50% -1. Rights, freedoms, laws, all are at the mercy of the whims and passions of the majority vote.
In a Republic, the elected act as reasonable and objective rulers. They can see the bigger picture and act for what is right, even if the electorate isn’t ready for it.
Where the US went wrong is that they abandoned the Republican structures for Democratic ones, (Direct election of Senators; Electoral College rules that are ‘winner-take-all’ and forbidding ‘faithless’ electors; state-level government by referendum/proposition,) but only half-way. This has left most levels of US government as a limp hybrid, too many layers of Republic for transparency, too much mob-rule for reasoned, long-term legislating.
Re: Re: Re:4 In a pure Democracy, the 50% +1 always override the 50% -1.
So, instead, the 46.1% beats the 48.2%?
Re: Re: Re:5 In a pure Democracy, the 50% +1 always override the 50% -1.
Prefect example of how short sighted you are and why you like most Americans are too stupid to be voting. Meh, go read the founding fathers… and you might understand it better.
Re: Re: Re:6 In a pure Democracy, the 50% +1 always override the 50% -1.
Yeah, I’ve read the founding fathers.
And everything you’ve said is bullshit.
The EC wasn’t created as some sort of balancing act to make sure smaller states had representation in a single office. That balancing is achieved by the senate where every state gets two representatives.
No, the EC was created to appease slave holders, full stop. It is the only reason that the constitution counts slaves as 3/5ths of a person. They didn’t get a vote, not even 3/5ths of a vote. But that 3/5ths was counted towards determining how many electoral votes each state got. So slave-owners got a disproportionate number of electoral college votes.
No states use the same system internally – there are no county-level electoral colleges for the office of governor. Nor is there any other country in the world, democracy or "republic" that uses the same system. And that is despite the US being the primary model for all democracies that followed.
And that doesn’t stop the rural areas from getting their fair share (if not more) during election season. For example, Sarkozy campaigned in small towns and beat the metro-centric incumbent in 2012. And in 2014 the brazilian presidential race focused on swing states too.
The electoral college is fundamentally undemocratic. It violates the basic principle of 1-man 1-vote. Not just because it elevates the importance of swing-states, but also because the ratio of voters to electoral college votes varies by state. So some votes are literally worth more than others.
There is essentially no chance of the electoral college reform any time soon. But lets not fool ourselves, it is an undemocratic anachronism that was created as yet one more part of America’s peculiar institution.
Re: Re: Re:7 In a pure Democracy, the 50% +1 always override the 50% -1.
Actually, the slave owners wanted their slaves to be counted as 5/5ths of people for census purposes. It was the other side that demanded they be 3/5ths.
Re: Re: Re:8 In a pure Democracy, the 50% +1 always override the 50% -1.
Re: Re: Re:4 It ensures that no single population-dense state or region can perennially win the office.
“In a Republic, the elected act as reasonable and objective rulers. They can see the bigger picture and act for what is right, even if the electorate isn’t ready for it.”
Hahahahahahahaha, oh my! That was funny!
You don’t actually believe that do you? Because one would hard pressed to find any such thing anywhere on this planet. Humans have not the fortitude to support such a thing, they are weak, greedy little shits and you know it.
Re: Re: Re:4 It ensures that no single population-dense state or region can perennially win the office.
Are you arguing for an oligarchy? While you seem to know your Plato, his philosopher kings is a myth in reality. In a political environment like today, the class struggle will forever make his visions impossible.
While I agree that there are too many elections and too little time for the public to understand the choices, I don’t think the notion of Platos thinking is applicable as a guide for what a modern republic is or should be… Today you need professional judges and professional prosecuters and not the crappy second sorting politicians sucking up to lawmakers you get today. As soon as you have that, the lawmakers can start again to focus on lawmaking and stop that kind of statutory corruption you get from the 3 powers overlapping so extensively…
Re: Re: Re:3 It ensures that no single population-dense state or region can perennially win the office.
More lying again.
I know for a fact you have been told multiple times. It is not everyone elses fault you have a learning/memory disability.
Re: Re: Re:2 It ensures that no single population-dense state or region can perennially win the office.
A republic is a government form with indirect democracy and a president as opposed to a monarch.
The rest of the common stories you hear about “republic” are a weird collection of conservativism, oligarchy and confederation ideas.
Re: Re: Re:2 These United States are not a Democracy... they are a Republic
So was GW Bush lying when he went on about promoting democracy?
Re: Re: Re:3 These United States are not a Democracy... they are a Republic
Yes… or as they are calling it now Fake News… he was promoting the MIC
Re: Re: Re:4 These United States are not a Democracy... they are a Republic
Or, he could’ve been misunderestimating the situation.
Re: Re: Re:2 It ensures that no single population-dense state or region can perennially win the office.
It really pisses me off when someone says "we’re a republic, not a democracy" as if that made any sense.
Thus
Now you could argue that the US is showing it’s not really a democracy…
Re: Re: Re:3 It ensures that no single population-dense state or region can perennially win the office.
Re: Re: Well, it is a republic with elections.
And it did a great job in this campaign between two people from New York.
No, because it matched the popular vote.
Re: Well, it is a republic with elections.
Last I checked the people didn’t choose Trump. Nearly 3 million more people chose voted for the other candidate over Trump.
The unrepresentative electoral college is what chose him.
Re: Re: Well, it is a republic with elections.
The system was not designed to protect you idiots from yourself.
Re: Re: Re: Well, it is a republic with elections.
Such a well constructed argument, it simply defies any sort of retort.
Re: Re: Well, it is a republic with elections.
The EC is very much a representative of the people of their state. You should bone up on the presidential elections process.
Re: Re: Re: Well, it is a republic with elections.
They prefer the bone headed approach to everything. Far too many people lack even the most basic understanding how the government is supposed to work. Even while reading the constitution they cannot figure it out.
How is it that a few people from back in the day had this shit figured out but we whom stand on their shoulders have nary a clue?
Re: Re: Re:2 Well, it is a republic with elections.
Case in point: Donald Trump
Re: Re: Re:3 Well, it is a republic with elections.
Trump is indeed a product of that ignorance.
Re: Re: Re:2 Well, it is a republic with elections.
Too many lawyers these days… which has created a bunch of wimps that want an “easy” button
Re: Re: Well, it is a republic with elections.
The electoral college is a compromise intended to do more good than harm. It shifts the weight of votes in a certain manner in order to have more qualified votes cast for the actual presidential election and to represent regional interests without “overrepresenting” regions with large populace. As a compromise, it changes the priorities. The end result still requires the majority of the represented votes. This can be tampered with somewhat with gerrymandering, but the presidential election is much less gerrymandered than the House elections.
And you still need significant localized majorities to make gerrymandering work.
A significant amount of people, significant according to the principles of the electoral college and the preceding primaries, wanted Trump.
Not 50%, but certainly a much larger percentage than what is considered “worrying” in voting percentages for xenophobic parties in Germany.
Hitler did not have a popular majority when he started, but he managed pressuring out a parliamentary majority for the Entitlement Act.
And in the end, getting a majority at the right representative level is all that counts.
Re: Re: Re: Well, it is a republic with elections.
There is so much wrong with this.
“The electoral college is a compromise intended to do more good than harm.”
It’s a compromise intended to give the slave states and states that restricted the vote in other ways a say in presidential elections that is disproportionate to their voting population. Some of that was concern over keeping the voting franchise male and landed, but overwhelmingly it was to enable slavery.
‘It shifts the weight of votes in a certain manner in order to have more qualified votes cast for the actual presidential election and to represent regional interests without “overrepresenting” regions with large populace.’
Like the nonsense about the civil war being over “state’s rights”, this argument was created long after-the-fact and reflects what people had wished were the intentions of the time, when the real intentions were, clearly stated at the time, to enable slavery.
And while it doesn’t over represent large states, it grossly over represents small states. A presidential vote in North Dakota has 50 times the weight of one in California.
“As a compromise, it changes the priorities. The end result still requires the majority of the represented votes.”
That’s. Just. Wrong. Over half the US population lives in the ten most populous states. The smaller 40 have around 45% of the population and enough electoral votes to elect the president (Maine splits its electoral votes, but is small enough not to change this analysis.) A candidate could win the 40 smallest states with small majorities, get insignificant votes in the largest states and take the presidency with around 24% of the vote. That’s extreme, but possible.
“And you still need significant localized majorities to make gerrymandering work.”
You do realize that if you look at voting preference by counties, there aren’t really Red states and Blue states so much as Red counties and Blue Counties right? And urban, ie Blue, areas are by definition “significant localized majorities.”
“A significant amount of people, significant according to the principles of the electoral college and the preceding primaries, wanted Trump.”
If you ignore the larger number of voters who voted for Clinton, and the smaller but significant numbers who voted for Johnson and Stein, (those Johnson votes BTW are largely Republicans who explicitly did not want Trump), and then ignore anything else that doesn’t fit your existing worldview, then yes, you don’t have to admit any flaws with the current system or ever change your mind about anything.
“Hitler did not have a popular majority when he started, but he managed pressuring out a parliamentary majority for the Entitlement Act.”
The key votes to give Hitler dictatorial power occurred after the burning of the Reichstag while the parliament was meeting in the nearby Berlin Opera house. Nazi paramilitary groups guarded the entrances and kept opposition lawmakers out, beating some, blocking others. I’m not sure what Godwin’s law says about this.
“And in the end, getting a majority at the right representative level is all that counts.”
You can only say that if you don’t really think Democracy is a good idea. Many conservatives don’t.
Re: Re: Re:2 Well, it is a republic with elections.
“Like the nonsense about the civil war being over “state’s rights”, this argument was created long after-the-fact and reflects what people had wished were the intentions of the time, when the real intentions were, clearly stated at the time, to enable slavery.”
You apparently have a learning disability. All wars are only ever about economic might/prosperity or power/ego. Things like slavery, land, rights, taxes, blah blah blah… are always ancillary to the two intertwined root causes of war. Lincoln is on official record for stating that he would not free a single slave to keep the nation together. Not only that, but it took far longer than the Civil Fucking War to give them the liberty they deserved!
Re: Re: Re:3 Well, it is a republic with elections.
How did the founding fathers rationalize their approval of enslaving others while at the same time crafting the declaration of independence?
“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”
Perhaps they did not consider the slaves to be human? They did not want slaves to vote, but wanted them to count in the overall population numbers used to determine representation in congress. Isn’t this a bit hypocritical? I would call it a douche bag move, perhaps you are all in favor?
Re: Re: Re:4 Well, it is a republic with elections.
First, they did not want the non-slave citizens to vote either: the voting was for the electoral college with an expected higher level of education concerning state matters. The voting process has democratic elements but is not geared towards doing the will of the people but towards finding a good enough representative of its economic needs.
And a slave produces and consumes resources. You need streets and food to feed them. So the voting process was designed to reflect economic needs and power.
Nowadays we reach that target by giving the rich the narrative in the media and letting the hoi polloi choose their own butchers. Washington and Madison just underestimated people’s well-affordable gullability (and to be fair, they did not have the same kind of networks and media available at the time) or they might have gone for more direct forms of democracy.
Re: Re: Well, it is a republic with elections.
People should change the rules before the game is played. Crying about it when it doesn’t go your way doesn’t reflect well on you.
Re: Re: Re: Well, it is a republic with elections.
…uh, okay. And how are the rules supposed to get changed without anybody complaining about them?
Re: Re: Re:2 Well, it is a republic with elections.
You seemed to have missed the key point. Change the rules before the game is played. A democracy/republic is to help ensure a peaceful transition of power. Going against the system after the vote does the exact opposite.
Re: Re: Re:3 Well, it is a republic with elections.
How old is the constitution again?
Re: Re: Re:3 Well, it is a republic with elections.
Are you looking at congress when saying that?
Re: Re: Re:3 Well, it is a republic with elections.
…are you operating on the assumption that there’s not going to be another election in 4 years?
Re: Re: Re: Well, it is a republic with elections.
People should play the game before the rules are established.
Re: Well, it is a republic with elections.
That’s not fair to Trump! He’s taking the whole Republic thing seriously and you should see the remodelling of the White House into a frathouse soon enough.
Re: Well, it is a republic with elections.
Remember, Hitler was elected.
Re: Re: Well, it is a republic with elections.
Not by a majority of the people, actually. But he still had to pressure parliament into passing the Entitlement Act. The U.S. has proactively granted an increasing amount of appalling and unconstitutional unchecked powers to the office of the president, probably in order to rival the Russian strong-man presidency.
I expect Trump’s popular support to rise at first while he dismantles the American constitutional guarantees and political system since he now is in control of the narrative.
The genetic setup of people doesn’t change all that fast, and the descendants from European origin constituting the bulk of the white U.S. populace have in their home countries managed to culminate a continent-wide surge of fascism and nationalism and xenophobia that may have peaked in Germany but still was omnipresent.
So there is little reason not to expect history repeating itself. Particularly since Trump does not even have to manufacture a power grab as opposed to his historical precursor: the power has been cumulatively grabbed for his office before he even starts on the job, for a considerable number of years now.
Re: Re: Well, it is a republic with elections.
Godwin’s law in action. Of course Trump is exactly like Hitler. He will start building the concentration camps on January 21. Soon only white males will be all that is left. But I don’t buy the hype from the left so I am sleeping pretty well.
Re: Re: Re: Well, it is a republic with elections.
Well, that and as a white male you’re not too worried about it even if they’re right.
Re: Re: Re:2 Well, it is a republic with elections.
Seriously dude, if you think any of that is even remotely going to happen you should check into some mental health care. Don’t believe the media hype, remember they were colluding with the DNC and Hillary to rig the election. They have proven themselves untrustworthy. Go out and actually meet some conservatives and you will find they are very much just like you. Or remain in your bubble of FUD.
Re: Re: Re:3 Well, it is a republic with elections.
Yup, just another circus barker spouting off about the mental health of anyone who has concerns about current events.
So just listen to your new gaslighter-in-chief and keep yer damn mouths shut. Get back to work you lazy little idiots and you had better act like you are enjoying yourselves.
Re: Re: Re:2 Well, it is a republic with elections.
Oh yea… no white man/woman or group of white men/women ever died to help any minorities. We are all 100% racist to the core, so racist we there are more white killing blacks and blacks killing white… o wait… shit I have that backwards.
Keep forgetting, in order for a minority to keep their “oppressed card” they are required to never recognize the sacrifices made by their white brothers and sisters.
Re: Re: Re:3 Well, it is a republic with elections.
“no white man/woman or group of white men/women ever died to help any minorities”
I went back and re-read the post to which you replied … did not find the above .. wth
Not sure where your silliness originates, but in a world without shades of gray it becomes a bit frustrating, so I guess it is somewhat understandable but not excusable.
Re: Re: Re: Well, it is a republic with elections.
Re: Re: Well, it is a republic with elections.
There was no Hitler. There were no Nazis. There is no such history to be repeated.
Re: Re: Re: Well, it is a republic with elections.
Ah, but we can start such a history.
Perhaps, when in office, Trump will deliver a “I have a dream” speech. I am pretty sure that Trump’s dream will be significantly different from that of Martin Luther King, though.
Re: Re: Re: Well, it is a republic with elections.
Cool.
There was no Reagan
lol, let the hilarity ensue.
Re: Well, it is a republic with elections.
Re: Re: Well, it is a republic with elections.
Well, I’m a little older than you at 62, but Jimmy Carter might qualify, and you might remember him. Bit of a political and social clutz, perhaps, and there was the whole brother Billy thing, but his heart certainly was invested in the public good. And significantly, he is still working for the public good, even though he has no political need to do so.
Re: Re: Re: Well, it is a republic with elections.
Eisenhower was damn well invested in the republic. The Supreme Court ruled that segregation in the South was unconstitutional but the South was not going to change it.
So he sent the army down to desegregate the schools.
Obama never would have done anything as uncompromising as that, and Obama is black (or whatever political correct term is supposed to be there).
Reagan was a clown and a puppet but he was seriously invested in his job, and I’ll grant the same for the elder Bush.
At some level, incompetency becomes indistinguishable from malice, and the Republican line degraded in that manner. Bill Clinton was competent in doing his job while catering for side interests of his own.
The last few presidents of either nomination have almost exclusively be serving side interests, and depending on their intelligence, usually a lot more side interests of other people rather than themselves.
And Trump has campaigned very clearly pointing out that he’ll serve only his own interests and that anybody else may pray for enough trickle-down from that to survive.
So there is quite a variety. I think Carter and Eisenhower might have been of somewhat similar calibre, but Carter did not even have his own party behind him, so he became a lot more effective after leaving the office.
Re: Well, it is a republic with elections.
“The rules are based on the assumption that the people will vote someone sane and invested in the public good into the highest office of the land.”
We didn’t have that option this year.
Re: Re: Well, it is a republic with elections.
There were primaries, you know.
Re: Re: Re: Well, it is a republic with elections.
Is that the process in which each party eliminates anyone who tries to put the country before the party?
Re: Well, it is a republic with elections.
Well, the founding fathers also thought only those that could vote were white, male and land owners. How ironic.
Re: Re: Well, it is a republic with elections.
Don’t forget that Jefferson, one of the founders of the Democratic party, owned and raped slaves. And the Dems have been at it ever since. Now they just use economic policy to keep people down.
Re: Re: Re: Well, it is a republic with elections.
Well, I’d say that comparing economic policy to rape is gross, and suggesting that the actions of one leader in the past are representative of an entire party today is absurd, but if that’s the route you want to go, well, I don’t have to go back 200 years to name a child molester who served as the highest-ranking Republican in the US government.
Re: Re: Re:2 Well, it is a republic with elections.
First, only comparing slavery of the past to the economic slavery of the present. Second, having one bad individual in the past is not the same as the lefts ideology that has lasted for 200+ years. The left spent 200 years fighting equality. They do it now with economics.
Re: Re: Re:3 Well, it is a republic with elections.
Congrats! That’s the most stupid thing I’ve read in a long, long time.
Re: Re: Re:3 ... having one bad individual in the past ...
Did you not know that most of the Founding Fathers were slave-owners?
Re: Re: Re:4 ... having one bad individual in the past ...
And your point is? Do you realize the first Republican president was Abraham Lincoln, the Great Emancipator? Do you realize after the civil war, the Dems spent the next 100 years fighting equality and voting rights for the blacks? And like I said, when they saw the writing on the wall, they shifted tactics and now do it with economic policy.
Re: Re: Re:5 ... having one bad individual in the past ...
Do you realize that Lincoln offered to let slavery continue if the southern states would not secede? Do you realize that Lincoln then only proclaimed and end to slavery after the civil war had already begun in order to economically weaken the confederacy?
“My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery.”
– Abraham Lincoln, August 22, 1862
Re: Re: Re:4 ... having one bad individual in the past ...
Did you also not know that many founding fathers felt that they should be free?
http://www.revolutionary-war.net/slavery-and-the-founding-fathers.html
Look at the words of the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence. ALL MEN are Created Equal! They worked with what they could manage during their times and the conditions and prejudices they had to wrestle.
Re: Re: Re:5 Did you also not know that many founding fathers felt that they should be free?
And yet they parted ways with Britain not long after a crucial court case about the rights of black people.
And the mother country had doutlawed slavery by 1800, while the US hung on to them for well over another half-century.
Re: Re: Re:3 Well, it is a republic with elections.
And the rape analogy?
Re: Re: Re:3 Well, it is a republic with elections.
Deflect & project .. good job.
Re: Re: Re:2 Well, it is a republic with elections.
“I’d say that comparing economic policy to rape is gross”
Most economic policy is rape, figuratively anyway.
Re: Re: Re:3 Well, it is a republic with elections.
And most political incorrectness is genocide, figuratively anyway.
Words have meanings. They are intended to convey information. Arbitrary swapping them “figuratively” is not doing anybody a favor.
And I know that this sort of argument was presented in Matthew 5:21–25 but it still doesn’t help in any way.
Particularly because people just love using that kind of argument in order to magnify the splinters in other people’s eyes, never in their own.
Re: Re: Re:4 Well, it is a republic with elections.
You really are incorrigible.
"fascinating" is one way to put it
another is that this whole thing is one giant fucking facepalm.
Mike is such a Trump shill!
we won't know for a year
I’m really disappointed with a lot of his choices. But what’s new. I didn’t like Obozo’s choice, or bushies choices either. I want him to go in and rock the boat, I just hope he doesn’t capsize the damn thing.
I still think we’re better off with him vs clinton.
We had a choice:
The Gangster, or the Moron.
How can you win with that choice?
Re: we won't know for a year
In your choice analogy, which one is which?
Re: Re: we won't know for a year
“In your choice analogy, which one is which?”
One is a gangster moron and one is a moron gangster, your choice.
Re: Re: we won't know for a year
Both candidates were horrifying because one tells the truth about what they will do while the other tells a lie about what they will do.
Re: Re: Re: we won't know for a year
The benchmark of truth is different for everyone.
Hillary has already proven that she will work against the people without question while acting like she is and playing much lip service to silence sycophantic followers.
Trump has yet to prove that he is really acting in our best interests yet. He claims to be wanting to drain the swamp while it appears he is making selections from that swamp.
Re: Re: Re:2 we won't know for a year
Well, Trump did not say just whither he will be draining the swamp, and it looks like the White House will be sporting quite a few exceedingly muddy carpets.
Re: Re: Re:2 we won't know for a year
He claims to be wanting to drain the swamp while it appears he is making selections from that swamp.
He’s draining the swamp and refilling it with overflow from the cesspool.
Something to consider...
Intelligence reporting has become too politicized as all this, "Russia hacked the election," bs is proving. The Obama administration and the media claims that a phishing scam is the same as brute-force password hacking or using zero-day exploits, to me demonstrates very convincingly that there’s politicization. But then if you consider the fact that a phishing is a scam that requires an ignorant participant, the fact the media and the democrats brush that under the carpet highlights the politics at play here. And don’t even get me started on how if all this were real, the CIA wouldn’t at all divulge it, because it could clue the Russians into how the information was acquired. Instead it would happen behind closed doors, and there’s a huge potential Trump would be arrested for treason and put on trial, because there’s zero chance the Russian would expose themselves to the potential consequences of such an act without some quid prop quo.
As for the Secret Service, given the animosity of the bureaucracy toward Trump coupled with the fact the Secret Service has proven vis-a-vis its attempts to smear those in the legislature through leaks, having an extra layer of protection against the bureaucracy might be a wise move for Trump.
And after dealing with the Clinton’s since 1993, and the, "two for the price of one," attitude from the press and democrats during the 1990s and on, I can’t get too worked up over nepotism.
Re: Something to consider...
No, it proves that the media now use the word "hack" to mean anything bad done with a computer. There’s nothing political about it now, any more than there was eight years ago when they called it "hacking" when some guy got into Sarah Palin’s e-mail account by guessing the answer to one of her security questions.
…that’s…not how evidence works.
I’ll agree that "the CIA said so" is not sufficient evidence to prove that a thing happened. But you’re suggesting that the CIA saying so is actually evidence that a thing didn’t happen, and dude, come on, that’s not what evidence is.
Re: Re: Something to consider...
No, it doesn’t prove that at all. I can find plenty of news articles from the past that clearly distinguish phishing scams from other things like trojans, worms, zero-day exploits, brute force cracks, and DDoS attacks. No, sir, it proves something else entirely which I’ll get to in a minute, but first…
Let me say, I could have been a little clearer in my original post, so I can be magnanimous and say it’s my fault you are confused. In my defense, my comment was an extemporaneous one, which I typed while on my break at work, and I was in a hurry… But I digress.
The most important sentence in my original comment was the first sentence, and it was, "Intelligence reporting has become too politicized as all this, "Russia hacked the election," bs is proving." Now, if I were to reword that, it would say, "Intelligence agencies have become too politicized and this, ‘Russia hacked the election,’ bs is proving it." I left room for you to create your own interpretation of what I meant by, "Intelligence reporting."
When I say, "intelligence reporting," I’m emphatically pointing my finger at the Obama administration, but you could include the media, because at no time throughout all this has the media pointed out that they’re reporting on the Obama administration position, and it’s coming from Obama’s political appointees. Everyone of those people sitting in the front of the camera making claims about knowing what Putin thinks are all political appointees who wanted to serve Obama and serve at his discretion.
Maybe that explains the, "I just had to swallowed my pride again," look on Clapper’s face in yesterday’s hearings.
https://1drv.ms/i/s!AvCtpBztJjZBmFsJA9j4RYUHH5Vk
No, the fact is, we have Obama administration political appointees at the intelligence agencies going in front of cameras and saying things our intelligence agencies typically never would say. But what do actual CIA agents, like Ishmael Jones (alias) have to say about all this…
That’s a nice segue to your closing comment…
Well, sir, that’s how it works in the world of spies. You realize the CIA coined the phrase, "Can neither confirm nor deny…" Do you know why?
The CIA and our intelligence agencies don’t reveal information with the level of specificity Obama’s cadre of political appointees have given, because our intelligence agencies don’t want to give America’s enemies any clue to what kind of assets, human or otherwise, are in place. If the information is publicly revealed at all, it’s only after the asset is no use.
The only reason to send these political appointees out to say this was because there was a political decision by the Obama administration to do this, because the fact is, there’s zero evidence Russia changed vote totals in favor of Trump, and any actual influence Russia had on the election is conjecture at best, but of course our enemies would always love to sow seeds of doubt and confusion.
The Obama administration, the DNC, the Clintons, and the media have a white hot hate for Donald Trump, and they are trying to poison the well. After inauguration you can count on the same group claiming a cover up when it’s later concluded there was nothing to any of this, but politics.
In effect, the entire left wing is making happen what Russia wanted to see, because the left too d*mned petty to admit defeat, and would rather destroy and ransack the place, literally and figuratively, than give up power respectfully.
Don’t forget how the Clinton’s left the White House in 2001, and if you’re too young to remember, just Google it.
https://1drv.ms/i/s!AvCtpBztJjZBl3aNEX4r6Zceqh9g
Re: Re: Re: Something to consider...
Sorry for the hellish run on sentences… Had to type that out fast before going out… so, yeah, I’m sorry, sir.
It's not like the laws matter for much either.
Not when a mid-level staff lawyer can write a secret memo and cause a law to be applied the opposite of how it’s written.
Not when the Supreme Court can on one hand decide something should have been in the Constitution, so we can rule as if it’s there. (Griswold and it’s ‘penumbras’)
Not when the Congress abdicates their Constitutional role re: declaring war, and just ‘resolves’ to let the President do what he wants.
Re: It's not like the laws matter for much either.
Nail on the fucking head!
Interesting
Amazing that people classify Obama or Ms. Clinton as “bozo”, “moron”. Neither of them are stupid, they were both outstanding scholars when young and remarkably successful in what they set out to do. (Plus it takes remarkable almost to the point of crazy self-confidence to think you can run and win the highest office in the land.
The O’s point is that for everyone else, politics is a career. If they burn too many bridges, offend too many people, their career is over. If a Cruz or Rubio or Perry pissed off most of the Republican party, then where do they get the support in 2020 or 2024? That’s why they were relatively nice to each other, and why Hillary and Bernie were relatively nice to each other.
For Trump, it was a diversion. He could lie, cheat, and whine, say offensive things, call a war hero “not a war hero”. (Hint, Don – it’s not being captured that made him a hero – it was putting himself in the position where he could be killed to do his duty that made him the hero – oh, and not giving in to torture and deprivation to break.)
So Trump can mock his Republican opponents, do whatever he feels like, ignore protocol, be rude and offensive, ignore basic conflict of interest principles. Absolute worst case, he does something so egregious that he’s fired! (impeached). Unlike Nixon, he won’t go quietly to a small estate on the other side of the country, he’ll carry on what he did before 2015 – and probably get a boost from his diversion into politics.
(I also wonder whether the Democrats would block any attempt to impeach, simply to ensure that Donald keeps screwing up and Pence doesn’t get a chance to clean up the doggy-doo before 2020.)
As for tradition vs. rules – remember that when Washington set the precedent of 2 terms, as soon as someone instead held on to the job like a pope, congress fixed the problem.
So Trumptard has nothing to lose, he can do whatever he wants and worst case, he’s already made a mark on history, he takes his baseball in his tiny hand and goes home. the only question is how deep a gouge it will be.
Trump's private security.
To protect him from the secret service?
I'll wait for the let down
I’ll wait for Trump to officially let me down/break his promises before I dismiss him as a lying POS. I assume it will be as short of a wait as it was for Obama.
Re: I'll wait for the let down
You held your ears while he announced his cabinet choices?
I agree with Masnick’s points, both that there are broken "traditional" processes that should be tossed and that there are traditions with good reasons for existing and which may be harmful to ignore.
The problem is that we will only hear about the latter. It’s only news when Trump (and this would be true of anyone doing something differently) ignores a tradition that seems to rest on "common sense" and not when he ignores one that does no good or actually discourages beneficial change. It’s news to say, "Hey, he’s throwing gold into the dumpster!" But, even if it were 80% of what was going on, it’s not news to say, "He’s throwing garbage into the dumpster."
Re: Re:
If you don’t mind a president that will toss out 1oz of gold for every 4oz of garbage, of course you’ll find the press biased.
The truth is that even a “mere” 20% of bat shit insane decisions is more than enough to tank a country.
Re: Re:
I don’t agree at all that we never hear about him breaking with traditions that should be broken with. Ask anybody who likes or supports him why they do and you’ll get a list — he’s not a politician, he’s not politically correct, etc.
People like him because of his lack of decorum; they like him because he doesn’t behave in ways that politicians are expected to. No, not everybody, of course — I’m in the "he’s a dangerous monster" camp, myself — but if you can’t find anyone willing to explain the traditions he’s flouted that they think deserve to be flouted, I can only conclude that you haven’t looked very hard.
Re: Re: Re:Trump the iconoclast
So in other words, if we’re lucky we’re getting Andrew Jackson or Teddy Roosevelt, if we’re unlucky we’re getting Warren Harding or Herbert Hoover.
Or this could be the last hurrah of the unsustainable natural resource exploitation moguls.
There have been other presidents who disregarded traditions, only for those traditions to become laws. FDR and term limits would be the most famous example. And the anti-nepotism statutes you refer to weren’t around back when Kennedy nominated his brother as AG.
Course, I think FDR was one of our greatest presidents and RFK one of our greatest AG’s. Sometimes flouting tradition has its benefits.
I don’t think the Trump Administration is going to be one of those times, but maybe he’ll surprise me.
Re: Re:
May you live in interesting times...
…and we do. I am quite interested in seeing what a Trump presidency will mean. I am also quite interested in seeing how the lifelong politicians deal with his changes.
If only there were some way to codify these traditions and customs into law...
As much as I don’t like Trump and think he’s unqualified for the job, I think he is doing a great service to our political system. He’s essentially “fuzz testing” the government. And if Congress embraced this way of thinking and acted on the information they are being given, they would get off their partisan asses and start passing some legislation that formally codifies the valuable customs into law.
Re: If only there were some way to codify these traditions and customs into law...
Kinda like how the neocons “fuzz-tested” the middle east with the invasion of Iraq. Eventually it kicked off the Arab Spring. And look how well that turned out.
Civil society does not automatically self-organize out of chaos. It takes a lot of effort and planning, its far easier for it all to go wrong than it is to get it even close to functional. Kicking it over and expecting it to right itself is delusional.
Re: Re: If only there were some way to codify these traditions and customs into law...
I think you have it backwards.
Traditions and customs are law – they are then codified into legislation.
In any case, civil society has actually done a really damn good job of self-organizing out of chaos without a lot of effort and planning. In fact, the societies with the most planning tend to be the ones that are the shittiest to live in – take the SU, Cuba, NK for examples.
Even the Euro socialist countries are various shades of shit to be a citizen of (even though they can be lovely to vacation in or live in as a USG employee free of the tax burden) as there are so many planners with the authority to use force to coerce you to obey their plans that trash gets taken away 3 times a month, you can get an ASBO (or equivalent) requiring you to give the police 24 hours of notice before you have sex – even though you’ve been to trial and the prosecutor admits there’s not enough evidence to convict you of a crime.
Hell, you can get arrested for a mean Twit or teaching your dog to ‘heil Hitler’.
Re: Re: Re: If only there were some way to codify these traditions and customs into law...
[Sad but True]
Intel agencies: "The Russians ate our homework"
The US is too lazy to secure its own networks, and the Russians make a convenient scapegoat.
Being elite means never having to admit that you don’t know anything, Jon Snow.
I plan on disregarding tradition also. I will not be reading the 140 character State Of The Union Address in 2018.
Donald Trump didn't invent email
It’s time to stand up to Trump. He may believe he knows more about email than Dave Crocker and Ray Tomlinson, but that’s delusional. Donald Trump didn’t invent email or any significant feature thereof.
What’s weird (not really) about this hoopla is – didn’t Obama do the same thing to Bush’s appointees?
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/44/2008/12/obama-gives-political-ambassad.html
Trump and hillary are the perfect examples of why you dont give YOUR/MY guy and/or, YOUR/MY goverment, unlimited power, because the next guy might be a hillary or a trump.
Its one of the reasons for restrictions on a government, great power doesnt automatically translate to great responsibility……limit the power, limit the potential damage, and try to remember why you limited the power in the first place, when your/my ‘guy’ gets in
Half the the things we have, we shouldnt, and half the things we need, we dont have
Examples being
We shouldnt have introduced and mass produced w.m.d’s into the world, our “enemies” should’nt have it, and, neither should we, and what we do need are honest, just, good natured, politicians, preferably before the system looses all credibility
Why “enemies”, …….because were all human beings, and we should all be on the same fucking side……..it doesnt help that theres an unhealthy amount of fictional/non fictional portrayal of the worst side of the human condition in our media,
1-the same news events reported multiple times over multiple days giving the impression of more then one event
2- it gets too a point where media will have to answer for the problem that is “Life imitating art” and not “Art imatating life”
Let it Burn
When it comes to the fat, bloated, feckless government… let it all burn!
Our founding fathers’ ideas of a limited federal government is has long since went the way of the dodo bird.
There are now so many laws and regulations (which are effectively laws but called something else so the executive branch can create them instead of the legislative branch), that all of us are guilty of violating at least a dozen laws.
Burn it down to the ground.
Re: Let it Burn
Anarchy doesn’t scale.