Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
hst2

Trump complains about constraints on executive power

50 posts in this topic

1 hour ago, Evil Yoda said:

I didn't exactly say nobody is smarter than them. I said you weren't. Because you completely fail to see how your attempt to shift power to the cities, exclusively, would cause the country to disintegrate as the people you choose to disenfranchise would quickly grow tired of it. And your reason for doing this isn't that you think city dwellers are smarter than rural dwellers. It's that they vote the way you want. Authoritarianism, which you decry in Trump, is okay with you when those who hold the "correct" ideas are in charge. And you're completely blind to it.

You defer to them and "their wisdom" as though they were deities. 

Your panic over a personally reasonable idea is perplexing.

So I wonder, since you feel that a majority in the Senate representing 30% of the population is fine because the idea was struck upon by men wiser than I or Larry Sabado, what would you say if it went down to 20%, or 10%? Is there a point, for you, at which our democratic government, created by men who denied most of the people of this country the right to vote, becomes illegitimate by virtue its exclusiveness? 

BTW - Does the Founders belief that the state legislatures should pick US senators make them smarter than me? Is my support for their direct election cause for the country to disintegrate because the people I am disenfranchising are growing tired of it and I think that city dwellers are smarter than rural dwellers.

Maybe I just believe in democracy. 

Edited by hst2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, EnochRoot said:

My Back Pages - by the Weatherman.

Right song, wrong artist. My Back Pages is a Bob Dylan classic. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, hst2 said:

You defer to them and "their wisdom" as though they were deities. 

Your panic over a personally reasonable idea is perplexing.

So I wonder, since you feel that a majority in the Senate representing 30% of the population is fine because the idea was struck upon by men wiser than I or Larry Sabado, what would you say if it went down to 20%, or 10%? Is there a point, for you, at which our democratic government, created by men who denied most of the people of this country the right to vote, becomes illegitimate by virtue its exclusiveness? 

BTW - Does the Founders belief that the state legislatures should pick US senators make them smarter than me? Is my support for their direct election cause for the country to disintegrate because the people I am disenfranchising are growing tired of it and I think that city dwellers are smarter than rural dwellers.

Maybe I just believe in democracy. 

And with that sentence you just demonstrated your bias and proved EY right with his assessment. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, hst2 said:

Maybe I just believe in democracy. 

And we have that. One house represented equally by state. One by population.

You believe in democracy as long as the outcome is what you want, and not a scintilla longer. Please don't pretend otherwise. You ignore completely any concern about what might happen to a country with larger groups of people represented by individuals elected exclusively by those who have little in common with them. Maybe you'd prefer it if the country broke up? Certainly you don't like much of what the country does, maybe you think if it was several smaller countries that would improve the world situation? I don't know.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, hst2 said:

You defer to them and "their wisdom" as though they were deities. 

Your panic over a personally reasonable idea is perplexing.

So I wonder, since you feel that a majority in the Senate representing 30% of the population is fine because the idea was struck upon by men wiser than I or Larry Sabado, what would you say if it went down to 20%, or 10%? Is there a point, for you, at which our democratic government, created by men who denied most of the people of this country the right to vote, becomes illegitimate by virtue its exclusiveness? 

BTW - Does the Founders belief that the state legislatures should pick US senators make them smarter than me? Is my support for their direct election cause for the country to disintegrate because the people I am disenfranchising are growing tired of it and I think that city dwellers are smarter than rural dwellers.

Maybe I just believe in democracy. 

"You already have it... er, wait... no, if you get it, the sky will fall! The country will break up! Dogs and cats living together!" :P

Edited by Calamari

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Evil Yoda said:

And we have that. One house represented equally by state. One by population.

You believe in democracy as long as the outcome is what you want, and not a scintilla longer. Please don't pretend otherwise. You ignore completely any concern about what might happen to a country with larger groups of people represented by individuals elected exclusively by those who have little in common with them. Maybe you'd prefer it if the country broke up? Certainly you don't like much of what the country does, maybe you think if it was several smaller countries that would improve the world situation? I don't know.

I am fascinated that your argument revolves so much around what you believe I think without any regard for facts.

So we are a nation held hostage by the pitch forks crowd, a tyranny of the minority, and it's all for the best because the nation would otherwise destroyed.

Okay.

But you still haven't defined how exclusive we should permit government power to becone before loses legitamacy as a democratic republic.

Or maybe it already has, but it doesnt matter because its all for the best. Peace at any price.

Edited by hst2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, hst2 said:

Not to mention a failure in the wake of the Great Depression.

You miss having children work shucking oysters rather than wasting tax dollars by sending them to school? 

Shucking oysters would be preferable to being blown up by an authoritarian playing judge, jury, and executioner but that is just basic human decency.   

As for the Great Depression, it would have arguably have been a garden variety one if not for the massive amount of meddling of authoritarians but does the centralization of power still appeal to you? 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, SemiAuto said:

Shucking oysters would be preferable to being blown up by an authoritarian playing judge, jury, and executioner but that is just basic human decency.   

As for the Great Depression, it would have arguably have been a garden variety one if not for the massive amount of meddling of authoritarians but does the centralization of power still appeal to you? 

 

Lord only knows what your first sentence is saying. Try shucking oysters for a living, let us know how "preferable" it is to going to *gasp* public school.

Funny thing is, the massive amount of government meddling in the command economy of the World war II built the largest middle class the world has ever seen

Classic liberalism - An archaic failure of policy and morality.

The flip side of the same rigid ideology coin as Soviet Communism.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Lord only knows what your first sentence is saying."   You still don't know even after being told about it numerous times.  Authoritarians love ignorance.   Your answer is lined to on the first page.  Again.

WWII didn't build the middle class.   Demobilization afterwards did.  It helped that the US won the war with its industries intact. 

You reject liberalism as a moral failure yet are thankful for authoritarians but complain about the results.  Your problem isn't liberalism.  Your problem is the rejection of it.   

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, hst2 said:

I am fascinated that your argument revolves so much around what you believe I think without any regard for facts.

So we are a nation held hostage by the pitch forks crowd, a tyranny of the minority, and it's all for the best because the nation would otherwise destroyed.

Okay.

But you still haven't defined how exclusive we should permit government power to becone before loses legitamacy as a democratic republic.

Or maybe it already has, but it doesnt matter because its all for the best. Peace at any price.

There is a large body of your writing here from which to extrapolate. You have posted tens of thousands of times. The general shape of your thinking is apparent from that. Why would you believe otherwise?

What else can I conclude when you dismiss the effect of disenfranchising the people who don't choose the candidates and ideas hst2 endorses?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, SemiAuto said:

It is pretty much a good thing that he sucks at his job.   It would most likely be worse if he were successful.

Good point. What is happening sort of reminds me of a comment made regarding the government shutdown some time back.

To paraphrase; 'Well maybe this shutdown is really not such a bad thing.......the idiots are not running around pushing their latest hare brained idea...everything is frozen....things just move along as they were....without 'stupidness' screwing things up.

Trump has managed to paralyze EVERYTHING....no major bills.....bills that come out are DOA on arrival...Executive orders are all mostly floating in court......GOP reps are busy CYAing so much that can't address anything...more and more dead wood or PITAs are retireing.....and so on and so on.

Trump said he would drain the swamp....yet he replaced it with the Love Canal and they can't do jack....ohhh those silly rules that our forefathers came up with....yup....they were dumb. ;)

Plus....we get the ultimate reality show...day in an day out. What is not to like. ;):lol:

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The thing not to like is that Trump might actually start getting his way.   It seems remote but I doubt I'd be happy with the results.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Evil Yoda said:

There is a large body of your writing here from which to extrapolate. You have posted tens of thousands of times. The general shape of your thinking is apparent from that. Why would you believe otherwise?

So wouldn't that make it really easy for you to back up your ad hominem about him?

Edited by Calamari

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, Calamari said:

So wouldn't that make it really easy for you to back up your ad hominem about him?

What ad hominem? It's not an insult to restate his position and I did not use insults to do so.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Don't be deceitful, you know what ad hominem is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, SemiAuto said:

"Lord only knows what your first sentence is saying."   You still don't know even after being told about it numerous times.  Authoritarians love ignorance.   Your answer is lined to on the first page.  Again.

WWII didn't build the middle class.   Demobilization afterwards did.  It helped that the US won the war with its industries intact. 

You reject liberalism as a moral failure yet are thankful for authoritarians but complain about the results.  Your problem isn't liberalism.  Your problem is the rejection of it.   

 

 

Archaic liberalism lives ignorance. A side benefit to having children shucking oysters rather than going to school. In your political world, the children are "free." Free to negotiate their own salaries and working conditions. What rubbish.

One thing is beyond dispute, the middle class, built during and after WWIII, did not happen due to the failed policies of archaic liberalism.

Republicans have had some success in bringing it back since Reagan became president in 1980. The middle class has been in decline ever since, leading us tk another Gilded Age.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Evil Yoda said:

There is a large body of your writing here from which to extrapolate. You have posted tens of thousands of times. The general shape of your thinking is apparent from that. Why would you believe otherwise?

What else can I conclude when you dismiss the effect of disenfranchising the people who don't choose the candidates and ideas hst2 endorses?

And the majority with 30% representation in the senate is not a form of disenfranchisement?  It is as though you are arguing against yourself. You argue apgainst my idea because I am a liberal and it would benefit liberals. It is as though you would oppose women voting because the idea came from a woman, or Blacks voting because the idea came from Blacks. Perhaps the voice of the majority in a representative democracy is simply the point. Yes, we do not want a tyranny of the majority. But you seem fine with a tyranny of the minority.

You want to allude to my past posts in general while ignoring my specific posts now.

I have pointed out that my thoughts on this are not based on the ideas of a liberal like me. You ignore it. Younignore the point that the direct election of senators disenfranchise country voters, because state-wide gerrymandering gives them a greater voice in the legislature, where senators used to be selected. 

You will not answer, you cannot answer the question of how low must the representation of the majority go in the senate before representative democracy lose its legitimacy?

Edited by hst2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, hst2 said:

Archaic liberalism lives ignorance. A side benefit to having children shucking oysters rather than going to school. In your political world, the children are "free." Free to negotiate their own salaries and working conditions. What rubbish.

One thing is beyond dispute, the middle class, built during and after WWIII, did not happen due to the failed policies of archaic liberalism.

Republicans have had some success in bringing it back since Reagan became president in 1980. The middle class has been in decline ever since, leading us tk another Gilded Age.

You really have no idea.   You're arguing against something you don't understand because the facts got in the way.   Shucking oysters would be preferable to being blown up by an authoritarian playing judge, jury, and executioner but that is just basic human decency.  If you can't figure out which authoritarian was doing that then liberalism is not the ignorant part. 

I'll agree that the middle class is suffering these days... at the expense of a government driven by greed and captured by fat cat special interests.   This is not liberalism.  It is the centralization of wealth and power that liberalism opposes and that you reject. 

 

 

Edited by SemiAuto

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, SemiAuto said:

Shucking oysters would be preferable to being blown up by an authoritarian playing judge, jury, and executioner but that is just basic human decency.   

As for the Great Depression, it would have arguably have been a garden variety one if not for the massive amount of meddling of authoritarians but does the centralization of power still appeal to you? 

 

A garden variety panic? Sure.

Probably a lot like the long depression of late 19th century. Thankfully, we took steps to stabilize the banks, pump up the economy, and establish some basic regulation of the various markets.

You're constant hyperbole makes it increasingly difficult to take you seriously.

Starting in 1935 we had GDP growth rates of 10.9, 8.9, 12, and 5 percent.

Austerity measure led to a recession in 1938 but we had 8 percent GPD growth in 1939.

Or maybe the austerity measures is the meddling you're referring to.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, SemiAuto said:

You really have no idea.   You're arguing against something you don't understand because the facts got in the way.   Shucking oysters would be preferable to being blown up by an authoritarian playing judge, jury, and executioner but that is just basic human decency.  If you can't figure out which authoritarian was doing that then liberalism is not the ignorant part. 

I'll agree that the middle class is suffering these days... at the expense of a government driven by greed and captured by fat cat special interests.   This is not liberalism.  It is the centralization of wealth and power that liberalism opposes and that you reject. 

 

 

That's sort of the Libertarian M.O. isn't it? "Mere mortals simply don't understand. Everyone is wrong I am right. Voters are suckers. Politics is beneath me."

Its kind of a sickness, made all the more troubling by a pathological need to make it about individuals because the ideas fail.

Get help.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just as I predicted the last time around.  "I suspect this is why Obama needs to be airbrushed out of history. He authoritarianism is inconvenient to the narrative of Trump being the authoritarian."   It is like how Stalin used to remove people who fell out of favor with him from photos.   Authoritarians do this.   Yet I'm the one who needs help?   Nope.

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 hours ago, hst2 said:

And the majority with 30% representation in the senate is not a form of disenfranchisement?  It is as though you are arguing against yourself. You argue apgainst my idea because I am a liberal and it would benefit liberals. It is as though you would oppose women voting because the idea came from a woman, or Blacks voting because the idea came from Blacks. Perhaps the voice of the majority in a representative democracy is simply the point. Yes, we do not want a tyranny of the majority. But you seem fine with a tyranny of the minority.

You want to allude to my past posts in general while ignoring my specific posts now.

I have pointed out that my thoughts on this are not based on the ideas of a liberal like me. You ignore it. Younignore the point that the direct election of senators disenfranchise country voters, because state-wide gerrymandering gives them a greater voice in the legislature, where senators used to be selected. 

You will not answer, you cannot answer the question of how low must the representation of the majority go in the senate before representative democracy lose its legitimacy?

No, I am asserting that if the cities were conservative and the rural areas liberal, we wouldn't hear a peep from you. Because I remember you arguing against Texas gerrymandering (correct) but not having a problem with Maryland gerrymandering (wrong). That's how I know your argument is coming from a place of partisanship and not a place of what you think is fair. Indeed, I suspect that what you think is fair is that liberals make all the decisions.

There isn't a tyranny of the minority. The cities have plenty of power in the House. You repeatedly ignore that. The Senate is only 1/2 of the legislature, and no bill can reach a president without both houses passing it. Or reconciling it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
58 minutes ago, Evil Yoda said:

No, I am asserting that if the cities were conservative and the rural areas liberal, we wouldn't hear a peep from you. Because I remember you arguing against Texas gerrymandering (correct) but not having a problem with Maryland gerrymandering (wrong). That's how I know your argument is coming from a place of partisanship and not a place of what you think is fair. Indeed, I suspect that what you think is fair is that liberals make all the decisions.

There isn't a tyranny of the minority. The cities have plenty of power in the House. You repeatedly ignore that. The Senate is only 1/2 of the legislature, and no bill can reach a president without both houses passing it. Or reconciling it.

Texas gerrymandering has been ruled racist by the courts. Maryland's has not.

I guess you will never say at what point, 10%, 15%, 20% representation in the senate will call into question representative democracy.

And that's a shame. It suggests you're unwilling to consider the consequences of your ideas.

The House, with its size of 435 members for past 100 years while the population has grown significantly, is becoming like the senate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/10/2017 at 10:26 PM, FatBoy said:

Right song, wrong artist. My Back Pages is a Bob Dylan classic. 

I know who wrote the song. :lol:

The weatherman was a reference to a song of his (Subterranean Homesick Blues)...

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, hst2 said:

Texas gerrymandering has been ruled racist by the courts. Maryland's has not.

I guess you will never say at what point, 10%, 15%, 20% representation in the senate will call into question representative democracy.

And that's a shame. It suggests you're unwilling to consider the consequences of your ideas.

The House, with its size of 435 members for past 100 years while the population has grown significantly, is becoming like the senate.

But is gerrymandering in Maryland fair? You claim I dodge questions I answered while dodging questions yourself.

The Senate isn't allocated by population. The House is. I've made that clear. I hope. I really don't know how to make it clearer. I don't want that changed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0