Mega-Thread: Trump Focused Discussion

[Benggaul]

More likely they are terrified of having to spend resources in a Primary campaign. One of the huge advantages to being the incumbent is that your resources aren't split between a Primary campaign and a General campaign, and a serious rival would threaten that advantage.

The other major problem would be that any sort of rival, even a not very major one, that has significant pull over a subsection of the voter base would spark a major attack from Trump, risking alienating voters when they can least afford it. It is why I want to see Kasich run for the primary. He won't win, but Trump will lash out so hard at his branch of the party that it will risk alienating more republican voters.

Pretty much what happened in 2016 with Clinton v. Sanders.

Didn't really work out that way on the GOP side, though. Trump attacked every other candidate there in his usual vile way--including Kasich--and won their nom and enough EC votes in rural bumfucks to collapse, breathless and wheezing, into the White House.

[Thekri]

Pretty much what happened in 2016 with Clinton v. Sanders.

Didn't really work out that way on the GOP side, though. Trump attacked every other candidate there in his usual vile way--including Kasich--and won their nom and enough EC votes in rural bumfucks to collapse, breathless and wheezing, into the White House.

Yep, and they are very much hoping for a repeat of that with themselves out of the way. I don't think it would have a huge effect, but Trump's margins are razor thin (Read: Negative) in a lot of key states right now, and even really small demographics like Gay Republicans or Black Republicans could have a huge impact if they don't vote for him this time around. 1% of your voter base may not seem like much, but when your margins are that thin, it may be enough to lose key states like Florida, where the margins frequently land around the 1% mark.

[Thepersona]

Yep, and they are very much hoping for a repeat of that with themselves out of the way. I don't think it would have a huge effect, but Trump's margins are razor thin (Read: Negative) in a lot of key states right now, and even really small demographics like Gay Republicans or Black Republicans could have a huge impact if they don't vote for him this time around. 1% of your voter base may not seem like much, but when your margins are that thin, it may be enough to lose key states like Florida, where the margins frequently land around the 1% mark.

Add to that the amount of boomers that voted for dotard tang in 2016, and died since then (or will die between today and election day). Trump is really walkin on paper thin ice at this moment, and i cant see where he can get the voters he lost since he won the election, without cheating.

[Benggaul]

Yep, and they are very much hoping for a repeat of that with themselves out of the way. I don't think it would have a huge effect, but Trump's margins are razor thin (Read: Negative) in a lot of key states right now, and even really small demographics like Gay Republicans or Black Republicans could have a huge impact if they don't vote for him this time around. 1% of your voter base may not seem like much, but when your margins are that thin, it may be enough to lose key states like Florida, where the margins frequently land around the 1% mark.

Oh I agree that he needs to hold onto as many as he can. I'm very hopeful that he doesn't have enough of a "base" left after over 2 years of his brand of bullshit and that actual conservatives won't vote for him just because he has an "R" next to his name (he sported a "D" less than a decade ago--it's obviously all purely decorative to him). What's the saying? Hope for the best but prepare for the worst?

Add to that the amount of boomers that voted for dotard tang in 2016, and died since then (or will die between today and election day). Trump is really walkin on paper thin ice at this moment, and i cant see where he can get the voters he lost since he won the election, without cheating.

From what I've seen there are several still living boomers who REALLY regret voting for him the last time around. Death isn't the only redemption. :P haha

[Canpinter]

All i know for sure is this is going to be the nastiest election cycle in modern history, be prepared for trump to declassify anything he thinks might hurt biden from his time as vp.

[Breccia]

Add to that the amount of boomers that voted for dotard tang in 2016, and died since then (or will die between today and election day).

Actually...there's more. Suicide rates rose dramatically from 1999 to 2016 in rural America, and are 25% higher than urban areas. No, this is not Trump's fault but it is his problem.

The study cites...well...poverty, access to guns, but lack of access to health care, as reasons. Trump is...making those worse.

Hey, the second that the GOP actually put their money where their "mental health is the real problem" mouth is, they might actually save some of their own voters' lives.

- - - Updated - - -

Perhaps the darkest day ever for @noaa leadership. Don’t know how they will ever look their workforce in the eye again. Moral cowardice.

-- Rear Admiral Titley, former NOAA Chief

[Breccia]

Just for fun, I will now link other NWS Birmingham tweets.

Aug 31

The forecast track for #Dorian continues to shift a bit farther east. If this track verifies, we'll be looking at dry conditions here in Central AL. Those with interests along the East Coast, don't let your guard down! Some impacts will still be felt along the East Coast

Sept 1
(Trump lies, NWS corrects him)

Sept 2

Here's a quick glance at rainfall totals from August. Some locations had some beneficial rains, but not enough to eliminate all drought areas. We'll remain dry and hot through at least the next 7 days across Central AL.

Sept 3

Dry & Hot...that pretty much sums up the forecast for Central AL through the weekend. High temps will be several degrees above normal for the next 7 days.

Sept 4

The hotter than normal conditions continue. Highs will climb into the mid/upper 90s by this weekend. But, despite the heat, the lower humidity should keep heat indices below Heat Advisory criteria.

Dry & hot conditions continue across Central Alabama with highs in the mid to upper 90s this afternoon. Look for a bit of a drop off tomorrow as temperatures run ~5 degrees cooler, though sunny & dry regardless

Sept 5

Sunny & hot conditions continue today with temperatures in the 90s this afternoon. The relatively dry airmass and clear skies will help things cool off after sunset, however, as temperatures fall into the 60s overnight.

18 hours ago

We know the drill, it's sunny & hot across Central Alabama today. Expecting even warmer conditions into the weekend. If you have outdoor plans, particularly tomorrow, be sure to stay hydrated as heat indices will rise over 100 degrees across much of the area.

13 hours ago

With expected heat indices above 100 °F tomorrow afternoon, now is the time to make preparations if you have outdoor plans. Be sure to stay hydrated, and try to find ways to reduce overexposure (take breaks). This includes your furry friends as well!

They made no mentions of Trump, other than that one tweet correcting him, then forecast correctly nothing but hot dry days from then on out (Sept 1 itself had isolated thunderstorms, but that was well ahead of the hurricane of course).

I also found this precipitation measurement site that said AL got basically no rain through the days in question. Why yes, that's a NOAA.gov site.

[Ripster42]

Sears braces for more store closings as 250 people were just fired from the main headquarters, suggesting a larger shakeup is yet on the way.

Steel, oil, not much better.

In fact, 10,500 layoffs in August were blamed on the trade war.

Sears has been fucked forever. Don't think that has anything to do with trump.

Just imagine if instead of having a president who commits a felony publicly to try defending a stupid thing he said he just stops talking about it and everyone forgets it because it's not a big deal.

Not a felony.

Can we please stop talking about the weather? It's fucking stupid, yes. It's illegal, yes (misdemeanor). But it makes things like the turnberry largesse or the DB money laundering or the tax fraud or the ukraine extortion or the myriad of other investigations into actual corruption that are ongoing fly under the radar. I don't understand people sometimes. Trump is playing you fuckers like a violin. No one is going to give a shit about some doctored hurricane map when they're voting. They're going to care about blatant corruption if it's talked about sufficiently.

[s_bushido]

https://www.politico.com/amp/story/2...etreat-1484337

Cool, so now the US military, on the taxpayer dime, is making detours to Trump's Turnberry property in Ireland because...nobody actually knows.

But they're sure making curious stops there frequently and staying there, helping Trump decrease the amount of money he's losing at that property.

Seriously, what are the chances that literally any other president WOULDN'T have been impeached by now over this horseshit?

[s_bushido]

If we assume the President must come from either Dems or GOP? 50/50.

I see what you did there.

[Dontrike]

https://thehill.com/homenews/campaig...ecord-straight

And like selling plastic straws to "own the libs", the Trump campaign is now selling markers because...uh...they still refuse to admit that Trump was fucking wrong and keeps lying to pretend he never was.

Trump and his enablers are truly the most petty, pathetic human beings around.

I don't care that they made these markers, I care more that there are people that will absolutely buy these and there are a few that will buy cases of them in the hopes that after Trump leaves and/or dies they will suddenly be worth far more.

[Skroe]

Seriously, what are the chances that literally any other president WOULDN'T have been impeached by now over this horseshit?

Upon reflection, I honestly think the problem isn't even exactly Trump or the current Republican Party per se (this is not to excuse that they are at fault, bear with me).

The problem is systemic. It has to do with how Americans think about this country and how its run. And the fix, while clear, is going to require a shift in thinking by 330 million Americans, not to mention most of the population of the world that thinks of Americans in general.

The word of the Constitution is straightforward. What Federalist No. 51, 69 and 70 say on the role of the President is crystal clear. It is the based of the Governor of New York. It is the same in substance to the King of England, but "much inferior in substance".

The problem is since the Great Depression, we've become progressively worse at enforcing the rules we wrote for ourselves and abiding by limitations we designed for ourselves. We have set aside 150 years of general consistency of the role of the President, and as our country grew rapidly in wealth, population and interest, magnified the role of the President far beyond what even the King of Great Britain in 1787 could functionally do. Because even then, Parliament ran things and the king was theoretically powerful, but in practice a figure head.

I believe this is directly connected as to why many Americans can name Presidents in order from FDR, forward (and maybe including Herbert Hoover), but can't do Lincoln to FDR. It's because we've magnified the role of the President so much we've started to define "Administrations" as eras we live in, not unlike the way the Japanese traditionally define the eras they live by the name of their Emperor (Meiji, Taisho, Showa, Heisei, Reiwa, etc)

So of course we can't remove Trump via impeachment, anymore than we could remove Clinton. We couldn't remove anybody. This isn't just a mere matter of our national inability to punish powerful white men. We've centralized so much of our national civil religion on the President that to dispose of one borders on the unthinkable. I honestly don't think there is anything any President could do that would bring it about. Even if it got into the press Trump or some future President took bribes, I don't think we'd do it. Remember: Nixon resigned, but he probably, in the cold political calculus for himself (A) didn't need to and (B)would have survived if he fought it out.

Trump will be gone, but the problem will remain until the power of the Presidency is utterly broken, and vastly reduced in scope. The next Democratic President, if they are truly committed to Democracy, must sign legislation that will handcuff their successors on many, many matters, and transfer vast amounts of power back to the legislature where it belongs. This is more important than Healthcare, Climate Change, economic opportunity and anything else. This is about power being distributed among the many in the legislature rather than focused on the one executive, for expediency's sake.

Unitary Executive theory is bullshit. It originated in a response to the Great Depression and has only fraudulent claims to originalism. It must be broken via new legislation that moves the implications of unitary executive theory out of reach of future presidents without repealing the new laws.

Seperation of powers in this country has taken on something of a mythical status. The Supreme Court gained judicial review in a legal proceeding (Marbury v Madison) and even after it barely utilized judicial review for 50 years. It didn't have a building all its own until the 20th century. The President didn't have a standing staff until the 1850s. Departments, as we think of them came way, way, way later. Article I of the Constitution is about the Legislature. Historians believe that is on purpose. While the Founders intended all three branches to be able to check each other's power, the branches were not designed to be co-equal. The Legislature... the House and Senate were designed to be by far the post powerful. The first branch of government.

We have to get back to that. We need to weaken the Presidency to the point where describing him or her as a servant is more than just mere poetic language. We should not be afraid to dispose of a President anymore than we're afraid to dispose of the governor of any state. The President is just a man... empowered by an office he is entrusted with. If that power is transfered to another man or woman, it should not be a historic inflection point, or a cataclysm. It should be an eventual Thursday Newsday, and that's it.

Transfering powers to the Presidency has heightened claims of illegitimacy because every President since FDR has done ever more run arounds of Congress to advance their Agenda, and justified it on some moral or practical grounds. Maybe congress wasn't playing along. Maybe the opposition proved intractable. Maybe it was just quicker. That is no excuse. In a functioning system, legitimacy comes from the process, and our process says Congress creates policy, and writes and passes laws, the President signs them and executes them, and the Courts decide what the law is and isn't. It does not come from one man making an impassioned speak about why something matters, then takes unilateral action. Unilateral action is intrinsically illegitimate. It was PRECISELY the thing that considered the anti-Federalists and PRECISELY the thing the Federalist Papers that dealt with the Executive Branch attempted to assuage them over.

The power of the Presidency must be broken, if we're to truly learn anything from this dark era and move to ensure it never happens again. We, as a nation, have a serious problem with enforcing the rules, and a big part of that is we've become so afraid of consequences and so conflict adverse in general, we've put power in the hands of the present and simultaneously removed consequences. That must be undone.

If there is one thing the last few years - to a degree even pre-Trump - has convinced me of, it is the need for severity in enforcing the rules. We have to live by that axiom that rules drive our nation, not people. Because right now, people clearly have. They have really, ever since we didn't impeach Reagan for Iran Contra, or demand Clinton resign for an inappropriate relationship with a subordinate. If people break the rules, society brings the hammer down on them. No way out of it. No special dispensation. No dodging it. Enforcement of the rules must be severe. If society wants to show mercy - and just societies do - it does that via a legal proceeding. it does not do it pre-emptively as a form of conflict avoidance.

This is how we make sure there are no-more Trumps. But actually throwing the book at everybody from Corrupt Mike Pence, to the grifters looting the Department of the Interior, to holding the next bankers that commit securities fraud to account. Why again is Mark Zuckerberg not facing legal jeopardy over Cambridge Analytica? Precisely.

I have few hopes for the next President, other than it to be not-trump. McConnell being majority leader in the Senate basically assures that. But I do hope one that finds bipartisan support in the legislative branch is one that takes all the powers of the President accumulated since 1932, and burns them to in a gigantic bonfire.

Maybe then folks will start looking to their State Houses and Governors to solve their problems, rather than largely ignoring those crucial races... you know... as the founders clearly intended. Because this is part of the even larger problem of Americans ongoing terrible habit of wanting to Federalize things that would largely be better done, quicker implimented and more accountable, if done at the state level. How are we ever to achieve that if we treat the federal government - and the President the most - as the end all, be all. That's why I said there must be a shift in thinking. Already, State laws, State agencies and local government affect the lives of Americans vastly more than the Federal Government and Federal agencies/departments do. That will always be the case. But we don't treat it like that. We take it for granted, and think way too much about Washington DC and not enough about Boston, Tallahassee, Albany or Sacramento.

In the final analysis, we are here because three generations of Americans since World War II gave into the temptation of the centralization of power that, of all things, the founders were most wary of. The way out of this disaster - the only way we cure our cancer - is we embrace the wisdom of distributing power as widely as possible, and decentralizing government to every degree we're able, in order to protect Democracy in principle, foster democratic (small d) involvement, and institute changes with actual legitimacy.

This is what we should do. But am I hopeful we'll do it? No I am not. I predict the second Biden, Sanders or Warren are in office, Democrats will give into the same temptations. They will say "the Healthcare crisis is so bad, that we're going to make an exception of to the rules".

And they will be wrong for it. Not only in approach, but in priorities, because the greatest threat to this country is not Healthcare, or Climate Change, or Terrorism, or China, or the Budget. The greatest and most fundamental threat to the United States that our democracy hangs by a thread because three generations of Americans have talked a good game and gave themselves plenty of pats on the back, but been largely terrible at practicing it... whenever it's their turn in power gently pushing us one step closer to autocracy little by little.

But I look forward to President Biden putting that aside so we can expediently get grandma more pills or some stuff. Maybe Special Adviser to the President for Ideas Elizabeth Warren will produce a stunning 50 point plan for that.

[Elegiac]

Upon reflection, I honestly think the problem isn't even exactly Trump or the current Republican Party per se (this is not to excuse that they are at fault, bear with me).

The problem is systemic. It has to do with how Americans think about this country and how its run. And the fix, while clear, is going to require a shift in thinking by 330 million Americans, not to mention most of the population of the world that thinks of Americans in general.

-snip-

It's a nice thought, but good luck with that.

Humans by their nature tend to identify more readily with individuals than with abstract things be they ideologies or organizations, which is why religions that focus specifically on amorphous divine forces tend not to be as popular as ones with individual deities to venerate or worship. See; Mahayana Buddism. By virtue of that, people focus on the individual who can be best said to represent the institution of the American republic, regardless of their actual constitutional and political functions.

Like you and I both know that checks and balances and the solidity of rule by law rather than rule by men are important, but do you really think anyone who isn't at least somewhat of a political scientist a) is familiar with the concepts and why they're important, or more importantly b) gives enough of a shit to learn in the first place?

Moreover, we should seriously consider whether or not that a system that allowed things to get to this point is worth preserving since, by and large, the only people the Constitution has really seemed to work for over the course of the republic's existence is wealthier white men. This isn't to be taken as a blanket indictment of the American idea or even its culture. But the country absolutely needs a come to Jesus moment about just how fundamental questions of race and class are in the construction of the American system.

Even if we should happen to think it worth trying to repair, the shift away from the confederate model towards something more unity precedes FDR - and every time it has happened, it's been in response to a deep crisis that the system as it exists has been unable to grapple with. We *still* haven't successfully settled the questions raised during the Civil War, for Allah's sake, and those chickens were hatched back at the foundation of the country. I really understand the hesitation to question the system. There are absolutely valid reasons for being concerned about the abuses of tyranny - even within the US itself, shown in slavery and Jim Crow.

But those very things should be reasons for us to question how much democracy we have actually had, and who has ultimately benefited from the system as it stands.

From one upper class white dude to another, I implore you to check your privilege, man.

[Skroe]

It's a nice thought, but good luck with that.

Oh of course.

Humans by their nature tend to identify more readily with individuals than with abstract things be they ideologies or organizations, which is why religions that focus specifically on amorphous divine forces tend not to be as popular as ones with individual deities to venerate or worship. See; Mahayana Buddism. By virtue of that, people focus on the individual who can be best said to represent the institution of the American republic, regardless of their actual constitutional and political functions.

Like you and I both know that checks and balances and the solidity of rule by law rather than rule by men are important, but do you really think anyone who isn't at least somewhat of a political scientist a) is familiar with the concepts and why they're important, or more importantly b) gives enough of a shit to learn in the first place?

I generally think "people" are on the level of the average Zebra. But a functional society isn't built upon the whims of the lowest common denominator. Were that the case, among many other things, all forms of brutality by the state that is presently outlawed, would be normalized.

Consider the untold truth about torture: "ticking clock scenarios" are reverse engineered BS that exist because some subset of Americans wants to justify the fact they simply want to inflict pain on people they think deserve it. That whole bit about extracting information? Baloney. And large number of Americans supported it for years.

It is not up to the lowest common denominator to construct the system. This is a legacy the patrician system this country was founded by. After all what were the framers? What have most of our political leaders ever been? The elite. The educated. The wealthy (to one degree or another). It is a difficult balance to strike: a commitment to democracy but a realization that "the people" at large almost never know what the right course of action is (see: Brexit).

The best system we have yet produced is a system whereby they, through regular free and fair elections, select people who do know or can find out, and make the right decision on their behalf.

What I am saying is perfectly compatible with how our system worked when we were far less educated and wealthy than we are today. So that is no excuse. I'm describing a back to basics, in a sense.

Moreover, we should seriously consider whether or not that a system that allowed things to get to this point is worth preserving since, by and large, the only people the Constitution has really seemed to work for over the course of the republic's existence is wealthier white men. This isn't to be taken as a blanket indictment of the American idea or even its culture. But the country absolutely needs a come to Jesus moment about just how fundamental questions of race and class are in the construction of the American system.

Yeah no. It's not. It has nothing to do with our present problems. Really. Is there a problem in application of the rules? Oh most certainly. That is beyond dispute. How many black boys have had their lives ruined for modest criminal offenses while white boys have been let off easy because they come from good christian homes and have a future ahead of them where they can do better? Countless. Hell Paul Manafort basically just got that treatment, and he's an old fart.

That's not "the system" at work. That's in this case, shitty judges who don't apply the rules fairly.

The problem I have with blaming it on the system is it basically removes indivudal and collective responsibility in favor of pinning it on some amorphous concept that we treat like is a force of nature, rather than something we control. And we've had quite enough of that. Every American who was alive at the time and supported the Iraq War, deserves blame for the Iraq War and all 2700 dead Americans and 400,000 Iraqis. Not the bush Administration. Americans weren't snookered. About 75% of Americans, mad about 9/11, wanted to beat someone up more substantial than the Taliban and feel strong again, so they cheered the Iraq War then rewarded Bush with a second term. Every American who lived on credit, bought a house they couldn't really afford, and indulged themselves on dangerous loans deserves blame for the Financial Crisis. "The Banks" did their part to be predatory as hell. But Americans as a whole were willing prey who rewarded politicians who allowed greater deregulation, and then embraced living in the now, to hell with future debts.

Even with gun control. People want to blame the NRA? Republicans? The fact of the matter is, as it stands, the gun debate is over, and the gun nuts won. Adam Lanza blew away a couple dozen of kids in an elementary school, and a 7 years later, _not_one_thing_ was done. The gun nuts are willing to let a a few dozen kids die, every year, as an offering to the blood god, in order to continue living their paranoid fantasies and indulging in their hobby. If gun control were actually important to Americans as a whole, Americans should be expected to do something about it. Instead we settle on listening to politicians go "ehhhhh yes but this is why we can't blah blah blah mental illness".

That's not the system doing that. That's 330 million people who generally speaking, don't give a fuck about their fellow man outside of their family and immediate friends; who will live like supreme opportunists and take every scrap of anything they can get; and have no compunction about treating the life and the world they live in like it's a fire sale and everything must go.

That's how we get slowness on climate change action.
That's how our national gluttony leads to national obesity.
That's how Donald Trump is president for 3 years and the biggest protest against him happened the day after his inauguration despite rising discontent.

Oh and this coming election? Get ready for about 62% to 63% of eligible voters to show up. A good 35-38% or so are going to find some excuse to stay home.

So you can blame culture if you want. You can give the American people, who engage in most of the seven deadly sins on semi-regular basis, the excuse.... that it's some force of nature that screws them.

The truth of the matter is, I believe that there is no system... no system man, machine or god above could create... that would work for these people until they start to face their problems and own how they got there without blaming others, but themselves. Starting with the excuses they make on a regular basis as to why they don't care.

And let me tell you, as part of my gig at the PAC, this has been the most frustrating element I've come across. The apathy. That's the data that it's gathered. That so many Americans operate on the level of a caged goat. It's not economic or educational. It's not that they just feel ignored or forgotten. It's an egocentricsm that has translated itself into a legitimate "i don't give a fuck" mindset.

The part of my role at the PAC I support is with voter turnout. To get people out the door on voting day. And you know, I'm just a volunteer - it ain't my real job - but the thing I keep pushing for is something mechanical... technological to get people out the door and vote on voting day. Texts to remind them, an app to inform and harass them to do it. Something of that sort. Heard the goat out of the cage, into the field so it graze. Relying on an individual to inspire a person to do that through their message is stupid and will fail in the face of Trump's cult.

Even if we should happen to think it worth trying to repair,

I mean the system has produced the richest and most advanced society in world history. The world's only superpower. A 230 year old large scale implimentation of democracy. Etc. Etc. we can go down the list.

The system isn't at fault. The people living in it abusing it because they think it justified is.

And your alternatives are limited. Most European countries are mess and have systems which have pushed them into terminal decline. Our system is generally superior to theirs in the ways that matter (and no, the God of healthcare doesn't trump everything). Then there is China and Russia, the other big alternative models.

America has its problems. Many, many problems. Problems I've written about here for years. We're a sick country. But we're also humanity's only hope to perpetuate the era of liberty that pushed authoritarianism to the brink. Europe will not do it. We falter in that, and the time since 1945 will have been a historical sidetrack, in a human history where the one unilaterally ruled over the many.

the shift away from the confederate model towards something more unity precedes FDR - and every time it has happened, it's been in response to a deep crisis that the system as it exists has been unable to grapple with. We *still* haven't successfully settled the questions raised during the Civil War, for Allah's sake, and those chickens were hatched back at the foundation of the country. I really understand the hesitation to question the system. There are absolutely valid reasons for being concerned about the abuses of tyranny - even within the US itself, shown in slavery and Jim Crow.

I'm not sure what you're trying to make here. That's it's going to be messy? Yes. It's going to be very messy.

We need the mess. We're not going to get fit through comfort. Through blaming the wrong things (as you have here) and coming up with excuses why it's not the fault of the people living in the country the way that their country is. And right now we are extraordinarily unfit.

Responsibility. America is basically incapable of it right now. We don't hold ourselves responsible for our individual problems as people. We don't hold our public figures responsible for their failures. We don't hold our collective society responsible for even our recent catastrophes of choice.

You want to change the system? Give it 30 years, and I promise you, the same rot will creep in and it won't do any better at responding to it. Because the problem isn't with the system. It's with the actors in it applying the system.

But those very things should be reasons for us to question how much democracy we have actually had, and who has ultimately benefited from the system as it stands.

From one upper class white dude to another, I implore you to check your privilege, man.

Considerable and improving democracy. Perfect and fair? No. But it's always been a process. And it's never reached and endpoint.

And I won't check it because there is nothing to be apologetic for. Progress earned without tragedy, outrage and failure will never stick. That's the best way people and societies learn. Through hardship.

[Elegiac]

Oh of course.

I generally think "people" are on the level of the average Zebra. But a functional society isn't built upon the whims of the lowest common denominator. Were that the case, among many other things, all forms of brutality by the state that is presently outlawed, would be normalized.

Consider the untold truth about torture: "ticking clock scenarios" are reverse engineered BS that exist because some subset of Americans wants to justify the fact they simply want to inflict pain on people they think deserve it. That whole bit about extracting information? Baloney. And large number of Americans supported it for years.

I quite agree. And as further support for your argument, this exact reason is why I've had such compunctions about direct democracy as a form of government since it invariably produces outcomes that are neither nuanced nor based on expert opinions. Like California's budget, for example.

My contention is that the American system as it was set up did not in fact have the fundamental goal of ensuring that even if a hierarchy was necessary, that people of merit would be able to ascend through it because most of the people that designed that system were not interested in that. The entire edifice of Enlightenment thought is the product of a certain social class in a certain time period, and that advancing their interests happened to be of eventual benefit to most people should be considered incidental, at best.

Government, like all fields of human endeavour, is iterative. The American experiment itself is literally a reaction to a previous paradigm of rulership and administration. I ultimately contend that the idea of the United States has always been fundamentally divorced from its reality, and that the former is still worth preserving as an institution. But that requires, in so many words, making a push for a more perfect union.

Yeah no. It's not. It has nothing to do with our present problems. Really. Is there a problem in application of the rules? Oh most certainly. That is beyond dispute. How many black boys have had their lives ruined for modest criminal offenses while white boys have been let off easy because they come from good christian homes and have a future ahead of them where they can do better? Countless. Hell Paul Manafort basically just got that treatment, and he's an old fart.

That's not "the system" at work. That's in this case, shitty judges who don't apply the rules fairly.

These are proximate examples and symptoms of a problem that dates back to the country's foundation. A system, mind you, that was set up with the concession of allowing the holding of humans as property, and that concession has coloured everything since from the Civil War, to Jim Crow, to the New Deal, to Civil Rights, and even up to today.

What is now being made apparent to the public regarding police brutality and legal discrimination is a function of improved communications. That has been the persistent reality for minorities in this country since day 1.

The problem I have with blaming it on the system is it basically removes indivudal and collective responsibility in favor of pinning it on some amorphous concept that we treat like is a force of nature, rather than something we control. And we've had quite enough of that. Every American who was alive at the time and supported the Iraq War, deserves blame for the Iraq War and all 2700 dead Americans and 400,000 Iraqis. Not the bush Administration. Americans weren't snookered. About 75% of Americans, mad about 9/11, wanted to beat someone up more substantial than the Taliban and feel strong again, so they cheered the Iraq War then rewarded Bush with a second term. Every American who lived on credit, bought a house they couldn't really afford, and indulged themselves on dangerous loans deserves blame for the Financial Crisis. "The Banks" did their part to be predatory as hell. But Americans as a whole were willing prey who rewarded politicians who allowed greater deregulation, and then embraced living in the now, to hell with future debts.

Even with gun control. People want to blame the NRA? Republicans? The fact of the matter is, as it stands, the gun debate is over, and the gun nuts won. Adam Lanza blew away a couple dozen of kids in an elementary school, and a 7 years later, _not_one_thing_ was done. The gun nuts are willing to let a a few dozen kids die, every year, as an offering to the blood god, in order to continue living their paranoid fantasies and indulging in their hobby. If gun control were actually important to Americans as a whole, Americans should be expected to do something about it. Instead we settle on listening to politicians go "ehhhhh yes but this is why we can't blah blah blah mental illness".

That's not the system doing that. That's 330 million people who generally speaking, don't give a fuck about their fellow man outside of their family and immediate friends; who will live like supreme opportunists and take every scrap of anything they can get; and have no compunction about treating the life and the world they live in like it's a fire sale and everything must go.

That's how we get slowness on climate change action.
That's how our national gluttony leads to national obesity.
That's how Donald Trump is president for 3 years and the biggest protest against him happened the day after his inauguration despite rising discontent.

Oh and this coming election? Get ready for about 62% to 63% of eligible voters to show up. A good 35-38% or so are going to find some excuse to stay home.

So you can blame culture if you want. You can give the American people, who engage in most of the seven deadly sins on semi-regular basis, the excuse.... that it's some force of nature that screws them.

The truth of the matter is, I believe that there is no system... no system man, machine or god above could create... that would work for these people until they start to face their problems and own how they got there without blaming others, but themselves. Starting with the excuses they make on a regular basis as to why they don't care.

And let me tell you, as part of my gig at the PAC, this has been the most frustrating element I've come across. The apathy. That's the data that it's gathered. That so many Americans operate on the level of a caged goat. It's not economic or educational. It's not that they just feel ignored or forgotten. It's an egocentricsm that has translated itself into a legitimate "i don't give a fuck" mindset.

The part of my role at the PAC I support is with voter turnout. To get people out the door on voting day. And you know, I'm just a volunteer - it ain't my real job - but the thing I keep pushing for is something mechanical... technological to get people out the door and vote on voting day. Texts to remind them, an app to inform and harass them to do it. Something of that sort. Heard the goat out of the cage, into the field so it graze. Relying on an individual to inspire a person to do that through their message is stupid and will fail in the face of Trump's cult.

This is couched in the assumptions that the American system and, more specifically, its economic structure is not designed to encourage political apathy and resistance to any efforts to change in the face of entrenched interests.

People are generally a lot less selfish than you give them credit for; the problem is that we live in a culture where from the word go, everything we have and do is considered to be in competition with everyone else or having to come at someone else's expense.

This is not some "kum bah yah" crap either, this is a specific assessment of how Americans perceive the world culturally and economically. I've had the rare pleasure of experiencing the argument from both lenses.

I mean the system has produced the richest and most advanced society in world history. The world's only superpower. A 230 year old large scale implimentation of democracy. Etc. Etc. we can go down the list.

I'm on the Jared Diamond and Barbara Tuchman train of "geographic determinism" here mate, sorry.

There were some excellent political and social decisions along the way, but America had the luxury of space and natural wealth.

The system isn't at fault. The people living in it abusing it because they think it justified is.

And your alternatives are limited. Most European countries are mess and have systems which have pushed them into terminal decline. Our system is generally superior to theirs in the ways that matter (and no, the God of healthcare doesn't trump everything). Then there is China and Russia, the other big alternative models.

America has its problems. Many, many problems. Problems I've written about here for years. We're a sick country. But we're also humanity's only hope to perpetuate the era of liberty that pushed authoritarianism to the brink. Europe will not do it. We falter in that, and the time since 1945 will have been a historical sidetrack, in a human history where the one unilaterally ruled over the many.

-snip-

You mistake my meaning.

I'm not saying we should be embracing an alternative system; I'm saying that, once again, we need to make the alternative. Call me idealistic but I think we've reached a point in our technological and administrative prowess where we don't need to force a decision between guns or butter.

You've said yourself that the world order as we understand it was crafted as a result of American policy; policy which, ultimately, I don't find to be contingent on its specific political and economic structure, but rather as a result of their philosophical underpinnings. The Marshall Plan was good politics, but its basis is ultimately that the measure of a nation's prosperity isn't how rich its rulers are but how well off its citizens are.

Neither of us want to live in a Chinese-style authoritarian panopticon where people are in constant terror of government reprisal. But at the same time, the challenges set to crop up in the near future are not something that the moderate, liberal democracy of the 20th century is equipped to handle.

I guess what I'm saying is I think the laboratory of democracy needs to invent a new way to do things. What specific form that will take...I couldn't tell you anymore than a mercantilist might tell you how quantitative easing works.

[D Luniz]

Sears has been fucked forever. Don't think that has anything to do with trump.

*snip*

ya, they are sueing Lampert and Treasury Sec Mnuchin for theft
so while not Trumps fault, it might be for one of his "best people"

[Paranoid Android]

Did I ever mention this administration might be corrupt?

The House Oversight Committee is investigating whether U.S. military expenditures have been propping up Trump's Turnberry resort. A peculiar refueling stop in Glasgow by a U.S. Air Force crew tipped them off. https://t.co/C2KoCEnHI3

https://twitter.com/politico/status/...806482432?s=19

In short US military aircraft who flew supplies from US to Kuwait would make a stop over in Glasgow, Scotland.

What happens to be in Glasgow, Scotland? A Trump business property which these crews apparently have been staying at.

The Pentagon has yet to answer why.

From the article.

Taken together, the incidents raise the possibility that the military has helped keep Trump’s Turnberry resort afloat — the property lost $4.5 million in 2017, but revenue went up $3 million in 2018.

https://www.politico.com/amp/story/2...mpression=true

Of course this does not mean the US taxpayer has made up the difference, but would be nice to see the expenses.

I suppose this is where I should state the obvious, that if any Presidency had a government agency or yunno, the US military spend money at their business. I would think that might be corruption.

Edit Alright I read this on twitter.

Contract with DOD to begin refueling services at this airport near the Trump golf course in Scotland was signed in 2016, while Obama was still in office


So idk if this reporter is saying they are not staying at Trump's hotel or not. But, it does look as though Trump did not make the order for the stopover, since it was under Obama.

[Breccia]

Once again, it's time for Guess the Speaker!

These are the people risking their lives flying into hurricanes and putting out forecasts that save lives. Never before has their management undercut their scientifically sound reasoning and forecasts.

What is very important is when the NWS issues a hurricane warning or flash flood warning—it’s very important [that] everyone is on the same page. It’s hard enough to convince people to evacuate or take cover. If you have confusion, it could be very bad. Are people not going to believe the Hurricane Center or our forecasts now?

Never ever before has their management thrown them under the bus like this

"Um, someone at NWS?"

Close enough. The head of the National Weather Service Employees Organization, representing thousands of NOAA workers, gave an interview which was basically "what the fuck, yo?" for fifteen minutes.

Oh, and since Dan Sobien (the above-mentioned union head) was willing to put his face, name, and reputation on the line by doing an interview and having that made public, I ask: who signed the NOAA statement?

I'll wait.

[Blur4stuff]

I'd like to imagine at least some Trump supporters are bothered by his willingness to fuck with weather warnings. Especially those who have been impacted by hurricanes/other in the past.

[Wyrt]

Seems the party of "law and order" doesn't care that their president committed a crime to cover up the stupidest lie ever.