Nov 2023 Mod notice:
There may be other, more specific, threads about some aspects of US politics, but this one tends to act as a hub for all sorts of related news and information, so it's usually one of the busiest OTC threads.
If you're new to OTC, it's worth reading the Introduction to On-Topic Conversations
and the On-Topic Conversations debate guidelines
before posting here.
Rumor-based, fear-mongering and/or inflammatory statements that damage the quality of the thread will be thumped. Off-topic posts will also be thumped. Repeat offenders may be suspended.
If time spent moderating this thread remains a distraction from moderation of the wiki itself, the thread will need to be locked. We want to avoid that, so please follow the forum rules
when posting here.
In line with the general forum rules, 'gravedancing' is prohibited here. If you're celebrating someone's death or hoping that they die, your post will get thumped. This rule applies regardless of what the person you're discussing has said or done.
Edited by Mrph1 on Nov 30th 2023 at 11:03:59 AM
![]()
Trump isn't an example of the tyranny of the majority in the first place, and is in fact pretty much the best possible example of why limiting democracy to curb the "excesses" of the "unwashed" masses is generally even worse than the alternative.
The American political system was designed to privilege white rural landowners—who the founders of the Republic considered to be the people best suited to governance—over all other voters, and in Trump we see the system working precisely as intended.
edited 26th Apr '17 4:10:15 PM by CaptainCapsase
![]()
Precisely my point. People looking at Trump as an example of why popular mobilization is bad and we should let the "best and the brightest" run society are engaging in some serious historical revisionism.
Go back and read the various writings of the framers on the topic of democracy then, Madison in particular. They specifically designed the system to privilege rural landowners over city dwellers, and that's precisely what it's done with Trump. His cabinet of plutocrats and strongmen is entirely consistent with the principles upon which America was founded; the country was intended to be run by the rural landlords and the captains of industry.
edited 26th Apr '17 4:16:01 PM by CaptainCapsase
When Warren talks like a populist, my hackles rise and I want to bite her. When she talks like someone who listens to sensible economists, then I'm interested.
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"That's the thing . People are angry on the right and left. Staying the course does not fix that. Identify the problem and then fix it. Or else things are going to implode. Actually you could even see the Tea Party and Trump as the start of that implosion.
Sorry, dude, I don't buy this idea that the unwashed masses are possessed of some unique insight into how to run nations. Most of the time, what they want is informed by ignorance and the carefully crafted illusions of those in power.
edited 26th Apr '17 4:16:21 PM by Fighteer
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"There was a train robbery in California by 40 to 60 teens: http://www.sfgate.com/crime/article/BART-takeover-robbery-50-to-60-teens-swarm-11094745.php
In more news that won't surprise anyone, all 100 Senators just got out of their big special meeting today, and... did and learned absolutely nothing, as it turns out. It was less of a meeting and more of a briefing, and what they were briefed on wasn't anything they didn't already know. Or in other words, it really was a glorified photo-op.![]()
edited 26th Apr '17 4:25:21 PM by kkhohoho
@Fighteer: That's not what I'm arguing, I'm arguing that rule by "experts"* is generally even worse than the alternative, due to the nasty of habit of said people diverting as much of societies output into their own pockets as they can get away with.
* Which is to say rule by economic elites since the actual intellectual class is simply too small and lacking in resources to control society.
edited 26th Apr '17 4:33:02 PM by CaptainCapsase
Warren elaborated on the comments from her book uring a recent interview with VOX. She explained that money in Washington comes from more sources than the contributors and lobbyists that make headlines.
"It's bought-and-paid-for experts who testify before Congress and are quoted in the press," Warren told Vox. "It's think tanks that are funded by shadowy money and always have a particular point of view that just seems to help the rich and the powerful get richer and more powerful."
She's my realistic and ideal presidential candidate.
Nobody who seriously looks at modern society can claim that we don't have a very distinct and quite rigid class hierarchy (which is further stratified and subdivided by things like race and gender), and "elites" is generally the best short hand for the class of people at the top of that hierarchy.
edited 26th Apr '17 4:22:09 PM by CaptainCapsase
Moderate House Republicans, mostly in the Tuesday Group, are signaling they are against the amended AHCA.
Senate Republicans remain firmly opposed to AHCA despite the amendment.
I hope the Tuesday Group does vote against the Bill, because they have enough members to kill it in its sleep. But we'll see if the House even bothers trying to bring it to the floor...
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
I'm sorry, I thought you were all for people with huge amounts of interest in catering to the Great White Male
and nothing else.
Salon editorial can go fellate itself, but that's a nice soundbite.
edited 26th Apr '17 4:22:36 PM by Krieger22
I have disagreed with her a lot, but comparing her to republicans and propagandists of dictatorships is really low. - An idiot@Madskillz: By any criteria you care about, Warren is yet another elite leading you around by your ignorance. I'm sorry; there is nobody "pure" enough for you.
edited 26th Apr '17 4:23:06 PM by Fighteer
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"I know they're the same face and gender but there's quite a bit of difference between white working class people and rich corporate CE Os.
The establishment is not monolithic though.
Just as one example, take The Economist. They are as much an establishment journal as it gets - they're big on "the free market can solve anything". Their opinion pages backed Obama and later Clinton, not Trump.
Bloomberg? Former mayor of NYC, owns a media empire based on finance news? Keynote speaker at the DNC. Also can't personally stand Trump.
Every business that benifits from NAFTA? (Which by the way, is a major reason relations with Mexico have been as good as they have been the past couple decades?) Probably not a fan of Trump.
Businesses working on renewable/green energy and resources? Not fans of Trump.
Businesses like Google and Microsoft and Amazon whose business would be hurt by weakening Net Neutrality? Not fans of Trump.
Mad, much of your stance is based on the premise that the interests of business and elites are always opposed to the interests of the common people. Closer to the truth is that it's a co-dependent relationship. Whether the relationship is exploitative or not depends on how the business is run and exploitative business is not infinitely sustainable. Where business interests align with ours, we ought to take advantage of that. Where there are competing interests like in the net neutrality debate, we should back the side that aligns on the side of good. And if money turns the wheels in Washington, well, we need all the help we can get right now. Judge the politicians on what they do with that money and don't assume politicians and money interest working together in automatic bad faith.
BTW, I have earmarked a couple of the scholarly papers in your earlier post for later reading. I probably won't have time to get all through them tonight.
edited 26th Apr '17 4:28:07 PM by Elle
