ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » USA Politics
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Reply
Old 26th October 2019, 12:51 PM   #81
kellyb
Penultimate Amazing
 
kellyb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 12,305
Originally Posted by Loss Leader View Post
Consider the founders for just a moment - Washington, Adams, Madison, Rutledge, Hamilton (by marriage), Morris (both of them).

These were all wealthy men, who considered themselves honorable gentlemen. Heck, Hamilton managed to get killed in a duel to protect his honor. They weren't quite European-style aristocracy. Some, like Franklin, had come from decidedly middle-to-poor roots. But they certainly weren't commoners.

And when they were thinking about who might hold the office of president, they did the absolutely normal human this to do: they looked around the room at the types of people who had the interest and resources to govern. Washington (who'd been called "Your Excellency" while fighting the Revolution) was a given. Adams and Madison were probably strong contenders. Hamilton had to be up there and Jefferson, who was in Paris, was certainly on the list.

These are not guys who would turn on the Constitution and begin riding roughshod over Congress. These were guys who felt an obligation to the very precepts of the union of states (as well as the right of states to govern their own matters).

And that's the type of people for which the presidency was intended. It wasn't until Andrew Jackson that people began to suspect that just about anybody could be president, no matter how unhinged. Luckily, after Jackson things went back to normal for a bit. And then the whole union fell apart spectacularly for a while but that's its whole own thing entirely.
They were well-educated men who grew up reading about Caligula, and had fought a bloody war because of a tyrant, about whom they said:

Quote:
He has plundered our seas, ravaged our Coasts, burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people.

He is at this time transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to compleat the works of death, desolation and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty & perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized nation.
...and they designed the country's Great Seal to have the motto "Rebellion to Tyrants is Obedience to God."

Washington wrote of the system they designed:

Quote:
That these Powers (as the appointment of all Rulers will forever arise from, and, at short stated intervals, recur to the free suffrage of the People) are so distributed among the Legislative, Executive, and Judicial Branches, into which the general Government is arranged, that it can never be in danger of degenerating into a monarcchy, an Oligarchy, an Aristocracy, or any other despotic or oppressive form; so long as there shall remain any virtue in the body of the People.
I think he was right in seeing that the real danger is not a single rogue executive. Congress and the judiciary can fix that problem, so long as the people aren't rotten, and so also elect a rotten congress, too. Which is, quite possibly, the actual problem we are facing.
__________________
The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts ~ Bertrand Russell
I am proud to say that Henry Kissinger is not my friend.
kellyb is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th October 2019, 12:54 PM   #82
Loss Leader
I would save the receptionist.
Moderator
 
Loss Leader's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Florida
Posts: 26,882
Originally Posted by acbytesla View Post
I disagree about Hamilton. He was super smart. But untrustworthy and a conniving almost psycho SOB.

You clearly haven't read much about Aaron Burr.


Quote:
You should read John Adams letters. Hamilton was his Vice President

Adams' Vice-President was Thomas Jefferson.


Quote:
and he thought Hamilton was a sleazy snake with aspirations of making himself the American monarch.

And Adams was so bad at being President of the Senate that they passed a rule that he wasn't allowed to speak. He was also the first one-term president. His best quality was his wife.
__________________
I have the honor to be
Your Obdt. St

L. Leader
Loss Leader is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th October 2019, 01:29 PM   #83
acbytesla
Penultimate Amazing
 
acbytesla's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 22,847
Originally Posted by Loss Leader View Post
You clearly haven't read much about Aaron Burr.
I've read enough. Burr was no saint either.

Originally Posted by Loss Leader View Post
Adams' Vice-President was Thomas Jefferson.
Yep, you're right. Don't know why I said it was Hamilton.

That was at the time when the loser in the Presidential election became VP. Imagine Hillary Clinton as Trump's VP.

Originally Posted by Loss Leader View Post
And Adams was so bad at being President of the Senate that they passed a rule that he wasn't allowed to speak. He was also the first one-term president. His best quality was his wife.
That isn't why the Senate did that. And Adams wasn't the only one who thought Hamilton was a sleazy, conniving and untrustworthy. And Adams became the first one term president because of his rift with with Hamilton. It should be noted that Jefferson who followed Adams as president was also a one term President. I highly recommend reading David McCullough's biography of John Adams.
__________________
Try
Science, not superstition.
Reason, not revelation.
Education, not epiphanies
Intellect, not ignorance.
.
acbytesla is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th October 2019, 07:49 PM   #84
Loss Leader
I would save the receptionist.
Moderator
 
Loss Leader's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Florida
Posts: 26,882
Originally Posted by acbytesla View Post
It should be noted that Jefferson who followed Adams as president was also a one term President.

No, Jefferson served from 1801 to 1809. The next one-termer was John Quincy Adams (who lost to the first crazy person to become president).


Quote:
I highly recommend reading David McCullough's biography of John Adams.

I highly recommend, in all seriousness, Paul Collins' Duel with the Devil. It's very light and accessible reading. Nominally, it tells the story of the trial for murder of Levi Weeks in 1800. Weeks was represented by both Hamilton and Burr. That's fascinating in itself, but Collins does go into both Hamilton and Burr's lives in New York City. Both were feeling money pressures. One had just stolen from the city to found a bank. Great book; can't recommend it highly enough.

Also, a lot of my information comes from the musical Hamilton.
__________________
I have the honor to be
Your Obdt. St

L. Leader
Loss Leader is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th October 2019, 07:58 PM   #85
kellyb
Penultimate Amazing
 
kellyb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 12,305
Originally Posted by Loss Leader View Post
Also, a lot of my information comes from the musical Hamilton.
I can't tell if you're kidding or not.

https://thebaffler.com/salvos/hamilton-hustle-stoller

Quote:
What’s strange about all of this praise is how it presumes that Alexander Hamilton was a figure for whom social justice and democracy were key animating traits. Given how Democrats, in particular, embraced the show and Hamilton himself as a paragon of social justice, you would think that he had fought to enlarge the democratic rights of all Americans. But Alexander Hamilton simply didn’t believe in democracy, which he labeled an American “disease.” He fought—with military force—any model of organizing the American political economy that might promote egalitarian politics. He was an authoritarian, and proud of it.

To assert Hamilton disliked democracy is not controversial. The great historian Henry Adams described an evening at a New York dinner, when Hamilton replied to democratic sentiment by banging the table and saying, “Your people, sir—your people is a great beast!” Hamilton’s recommendation to the Constitutional Convention, for instance, was to have a president for life, and to explicitly make that president not subject to law.
Quote:
Indeed, most of Hamilton’s legacy is astonishingly counter-democratic. His central role in founding both the financial infrastructure of Wall Street and a nascent military establishment (which supplanted the colonial system of locally controlled democratic militias) was rooted in his self-appointed crusade to undermine the ability of ordinary Americans to govern themselves. We should be grateful not that Hamilton structured the essential institutions of America to fit his vision, but that he failed to do so. Had he succeeded, we would probably be living in a military dictatorship.
Quote:
During the next decade, as populists put constraints on big money, Hamilton fell into disrepute. In 1925, Franklin Delano Roosevelt, then just a lawyer, recognized Hamilton as an authoritarian, saying that he had in his mind after reading a popular new book on Hamilton and Jefferson “a picture of escape after escape which this nation passed through in those first ten years; a picture of what might have been if the Republic had been finally organized as Alexander Hamilton sought.” By 1947, a post-war congressional report titled “Fascism in Action” listed Hamilton as one intellectual inspiration for the Nazi regime. Hamilton’s name practically became an epithet among Democrats of the New Deal era, which makes it all the more surprising that he is the darling of the modern party.
Quote:
Within this context, it’s useful to recognize that Hamilton the play is not the real story of Alexander Hamilton; rather, as historian Nancy Isenberg has noted, it’s a revealing parable about the politics of the finance-friendly Obama era. The play is based on Ron Chernow’s eight-hundred-page 2004 biography of Hamilton. Chernow argues that “Hamilton was an abolitionist who opposed states’ rights, favored an activist central government, a very liberal interpretation of the Constitution and executive rather than legislative powers.” Hamilton, he notes, “sounds . . . like a modern Democrat.” The abolition arguments are laughably false; Hamilton married into a slaveholding family and traded slaves himself. But they are only part of a much broader obfuscation of Hamilton’s politics.
__________________
The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts ~ Bertrand Russell
I am proud to say that Henry Kissinger is not my friend.
kellyb is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th October 2019, 09:21 PM   #86
acbytesla
Penultimate Amazing
 
acbytesla's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 22,847
Originally Posted by Loss Leader View Post
No, Jefferson served from 1801 to 1809. The next one-termer was John Quincy Adams (who lost to the first crazy person to become president).
You're right. I looked this up before my last post and totally misread it.

Originally Posted by Loss Leader View Post
I highly recommend, in all seriousness, Paul Collins' Duel with the Devil. It's very light and accessible reading. Nominally, it tells the story of the trial for murder of Levi Weeks in 1800. Weeks was represented by both Hamilton and Burr. That's fascinating in itself, but Collins does go into both Hamilton and Burr's lives in New York City. Both were feeling money pressures. One had just stolen from the city to found a bank. Great book; can't recommend it highly enough.

Also, a lot of my information comes from the musical Hamilton.
I'll check out the book. I hear the musical is great. But Hamilton's undemocratic positions were well known. His feud with Adams was well known. He was a war monger with a brilliant military, business and political mind. He betrayed Adams well because Adams did not trust him and hated him. He and Adams were both members of the Federalist party with strong disagreements with Thomas Jefferson even though Adams and Jefferson were previously good friends. And even though Hamilton and Adams were part of the Federalist party, Hamilton openly campaigned for Jefferson and Burr.
__________________
Try
Science, not superstition.
Reason, not revelation.
Education, not epiphanies
Intellect, not ignorance.
.
acbytesla is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th October 2019, 06:38 PM   #87
Loss Leader
I would save the receptionist.
Moderator
 
Loss Leader's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Florida
Posts: 26,882
Originally Posted by acbytesla View Post
I'll check out the book.

You and anyone who just has an interest in reading a little history in a book that weighs less than a refrigerator absolutely should.


Quote:
I hear the musical is great.

Don't hear about the musical, hear the musical:

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the ISF. The ISF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.
I AGREE



Quote:
But Hamilton's undemocratic positions were well known.

Yeah, I know Hamilton wasn't big on trusting the populace with power, despite coming from humble roots himself. I know he wanted the President to serve for life. But some of his "anti-democratic" tendencies tend to prove my point.

His federal banking system was designed to take some of the power of the purse away from elected individuals. But I think Hamilton firmly believed that the office of the president would be held by an honorable, well-bred man - by a man who would value honor and patriotism above all else. And I don't think Hamilton or any of the signers of the Constitution could imagine a president who wasn't also a noble man (though not a nobleman).

In fact, nothing in the Constitution demanded a popular vote for any federal position. The signers envisioned a ruling class that perpetuated a ruling class. Popular voting? Andrew Freaking Jackson? They'd have fainted dead away.
__________________
I have the honor to be
Your Obdt. St

L. Leader

Last edited by Loss Leader; 27th October 2019 at 06:43 PM.
Loss Leader is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th October 2019, 07:38 PM   #88
kellyb
Penultimate Amazing
 
kellyb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 12,305
Originally Posted by Loss Leader View Post
But I think Hamilton firmly believed that the office of the president would be held by an honorable, well-bred man - by a man who would value honor and patriotism above all else. And I don't think Hamilton or any of the signers of the Constitution could imagine a president who wasn't also a noble man (though not a nobleman).
I think you're closer to right about what Hamilton believed, but not the rest of them.

The rest of them shot his ideas down for a reason.

But even Hamilton thought Burr was the opposite of noble:


https://www.washingtonpost.com/opini...a02_story.html

Quote:
“He is of a temper to undertake the most hazardous enterprises because he is sanguine enough to think nothing impracticable, and of an ambition which will be content with nothing less than permanent power in his own hands,” he wrote Bayard. “The maintenance of the existing institutions will not suit him, because under them his power will be too narrow & too precarious; yet the innovations he may attempt will not offer the substitute of a system durable & safe, calculated to give lasting prosperity, & to unite liberty with strength. It will be the system of the day, sufficient to serve his own turn, & not looking beyond himself.”

“The truth,” Hamilton wrote, “is that under forms of Government like ours, too much is practicable to men who will without scruple avail themselves of the bad passions of human nature.

Hamilton’s view of Burr would later become universal. Jefferson would come to see his former running mate as “one of the most flagitious [villainous] of which history will ever furnish an example.


The founding fathers were somewhat obsessed with aspiring presidents who were wannabe tyrants.
__________________
The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts ~ Bertrand Russell
I am proud to say that Henry Kissinger is not my friend.

Last edited by kellyb; 27th October 2019 at 07:41 PM.
kellyb is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th October 2019, 07:49 PM   #89
dudalb
Penultimate Amazing
 
dudalb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Sacramento
Posts: 45,910
I recommend "Alexander Hamilton" by Ron Chernow as the best,most balanced biography of Hamilton.
Hamilton was no saint, but Burr was a relentless self promotor, who stabbed Jefferson in the back with his attempt to become Presidient. One of very few things that Jefferson and Hamilton agreed upon was that Burr was totally self seeking and untrustworthy.
And then was Burr's conspiracy in the West after he left the vice presendency.,one of the most bizarre stories in Ameican History.
__________________
Pacifism is a shifty doctrine under which a man accepts the benefits of the social group without being willing to pay - and claims a halo for his dishonesty.

Robert Heinlein.

Last edited by dudalb; 27th October 2019 at 07:50 PM.
dudalb is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th October 2019, 10:09 PM   #90
Loss Leader
I would save the receptionist.
Moderator
 
Loss Leader's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Florida
Posts: 26,882
Originally Posted by dudalb View Post
And then was Burr's conspiracy in the West after he left the vice presendency.,one of the most bizarre stories in American History.

So, briefly for those unfamiliar: Burr determined that land then controlled by Mexico or by nobody was so saturated with American ranchers that they would want to seize what is now Texas for themselves. And he tried to lead an army to establish that objective (and maybe conquer Mexico or the American west, it's all very unclear).

The great thing about all of that was Burr was right. Those Texans did want independence from Mexico and they fought and died to achieve it, forming their own "independent" country for a brief time before just admitting they were part of the US. Burr was right. He was just three decades too early.

Burr was also on the right side of history in supporting the Revolution long before that could be said out loud.

He was on the winning side of history every time and he's still remembered chiefly as a traitorous Hamilton-killing monster. That's how bad a guy he was.
__________________
I have the honor to be
Your Obdt. St

L. Leader
Loss Leader is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th October 2019, 11:59 PM   #91
Brainster
Penultimate Amazing
 
Brainster's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 17,025
Originally Posted by kellyb View Post
I can't tell if you're kidding or not.

https://thebaffler.com/salvos/hamilton-hustle-stoller
My old buddy, Matt Stoller! I'm willing to concede him a lot of his facts--he's good on those.

Quote:
Military officers presented a petition to Congress for back pay. Congress tried to pass a tax to pay the soldiers, while also withholding payments owed to bondholders. Hamilton blocked this move. Indeed, according to Hogeland, “when a motion was raised to levy the impost only for the purpose of paying army officers, Hamilton shot it down: all bondholders must be included.”
Yes, let's not pay those greedy bondholders. All Hamilton did here is establish the basis for international finance. It's easily his signature achievement.
__________________
My new blog: Recent Reads.
1960s Comic Book Nostalgia
Visit the Screw Loose Change blog.
Brainster is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th October 2019, 04:36 AM   #92
Belz...
Fiend God
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the details
Posts: 86,105
Originally Posted by Craig4 View Post
We don't need a "deep state". We need what we have, a civil service loyal to the institutions of governmet, committed to the rule of law and willing to speak truth to power.
Isn't that synonymous, to Trump and his cultists?
__________________
Master of the Shining Darkness

"My views are nonsense. So what?" - BobTheCoward


Belz... is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th October 2019, 08:49 AM   #93
acbytesla
Penultimate Amazing
 
acbytesla's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 22,847
Originally Posted by Brainster View Post
My old buddy, Matt Stoller! I'm willing to concede him a lot of his facts--he's good on those.

Yes, let's not pay those greedy bondholders. All Hamilton did here is establish the basis for international finance. It's easily his signature achievement.
It was Hamilton's idea for the federal government to assume all of the individual states' debt to help establish credit.
__________________
Try
Science, not superstition.
Reason, not revelation.
Education, not epiphanies
Intellect, not ignorance.
.
acbytesla is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th October 2019, 01:02 PM   #94
ponderingturtle
Orthogonal Vector
 
ponderingturtle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 48,090
Originally Posted by dudalb View Post
I see the GOPERS here continue to be totally blind to why Trump is a clear and present danger to Democracy in America.
And I think it is willful, deliberate blindness or maybe they secretly want America to become a one party authoritarian state...provided it's the rifht people in control.
Trump is really far more a symptom that a cause of all that though, that has been the direction of republicans for quite some time.
__________________
Sufficiently advanced Woo is indistinguishable from Parody
"There shall be no *poofing* in science" Paul C. Anagnostopoulos
Force ***** on reasons back" Ben Franklin
ponderingturtle is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th October 2019, 07:55 PM   #95
Loss Leader
I would save the receptionist.
Moderator
 
Loss Leader's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Florida
Posts: 26,882
Originally Posted by ponderingturtle View Post
Trump is really far more a symptom that a cause of all that though, that has been the direction of republicans for quite some time.

I think it's been the direction of the republic, not necessarily just Republicans. It will be up to history to determine if Trump's election was a leading or trailing indicator of how we manage our democracy.
__________________
I have the honor to be
Your Obdt. St

L. Leader
Loss Leader is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th October 2019, 05:11 AM   #96
BobTheCoward
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 17,879
Originally Posted by Loss Leader View Post
I think it's been the direction of the republic, not necessarily just Republicans. It will be up to history to determine if Trump's election was a leading or trailing indicator of how we manage our democracy.
My mom remembers when members of all levels ofq government cooperated with a terrorist group to engage in ethnic oppression.

America has never been good.
BobTheCoward is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 31st October 2019, 08:21 AM   #97
luchog
Neo-Post-Retro-Revivalist
 
luchog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: The Emerald City
Posts: 16,132
Originally Posted by Ron Obvious View Post
I've been hearing that one for literally EVER single administration since at least Reagan from the opposition party. Democrats said it about Reagan & both Bushes, Republicans said it about Clinton and Obama.

American politics are so ******* paranoid and hysterical when there's really very little de facto difference between the two major parties.

The big difference there is that, unlike all the others who were targets of this rhetoric, Trump has in fact made noises to that effect. He has repeatedly made indirect but very clear threats about some sort of uprising if he's not re-elected in 2020, and has openly stated that he is not in favour of limits on his term in office. Sources close to Trump, most notably Michael Cohen and Roger Stone, have confirmed that Trump has no intention of peacefully relinquishing power.

Yeah, there's been a lot of "crying wolf" in the past; but it's increasingly clear that we do, in fact, have some type of rabid, mangy wolf in office right now.
__________________
When you say that fascists should only be defeated through debate, what you're really saying is that the marginalized and vulnerable should have to endlessly argue for their right to exist; and at no point should they ever be fully accepted, and the debate considered won.
luchog is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 31st October 2019, 11:29 AM   #98
ponderingturtle
Orthogonal Vector
 
ponderingturtle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 48,090
Originally Posted by Loss Leader View Post
I think it's been the direction of the republic, not necessarily just Republicans. It will be up to history to determine if Trump's election was a leading or trailing indicator of how we manage our democracy.
Trump is the new normal.

And while maybe not just republicans, as far as I can remember they always seem to be in the lead in the breakdown of bipartisanship and unity of purpose if not agreement on how to get there. For the past 30 years or so at least.
__________________
Sufficiently advanced Woo is indistinguishable from Parody
"There shall be no *poofing* in science" Paul C. Anagnostopoulos
Force ***** on reasons back" Ben Franklin

Last edited by ponderingturtle; 31st October 2019 at 11:33 AM.
ponderingturtle is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 31st October 2019, 11:30 AM   #99
ponderingturtle
Orthogonal Vector
 
ponderingturtle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 48,090
Originally Posted by luchog View Post
The big difference there is that, unlike all the others who were targets of this rhetoric, Trump has in fact made noises to that effect. He has repeatedly made indirect but very clear threats about some sort of uprising if he's not re-elected in 2020, and has openly stated that he is not in favour of limits on his term in office. Sources close to Trump, most notably Michael Cohen and Roger Stone, have confirmed that Trump has no intention of peacefully relinquishing power.
Yes but those are jokes like how we should have a president for life, drain the swamp, or that we would build a wall. You have to remember you shouldn't take him so literally.
__________________
Sufficiently advanced Woo is indistinguishable from Parody
"There shall be no *poofing* in science" Paul C. Anagnostopoulos
Force ***** on reasons back" Ben Franklin
ponderingturtle is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd November 2019, 12:47 PM   #100
Giordano
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 15,822
Deep State = people who know what they are doing
Giordano is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd November 2019, 12:58 PM   #101
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 38,954
Originally Posted by Giordano View Post
Deep State = people who know what they are doing
Name one. Name one single "deep state" person whom you know and trust, who answers to you in an election year.
theprestige is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd November 2019, 01:26 PM   #102
acbytesla
Penultimate Amazing
 
acbytesla's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 22,847
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
Name one. Name one single "deep state" person whom you know and trust, who answers to you in an election year.
What the hell do you mean? My experience is government workers do their jobs and are responsible to the laws and regulations. Which is what your want. Want to change their actions? Change the laws. No one said, we didn't need elected officials.
__________________
Try
Science, not superstition.
Reason, not revelation.
Education, not epiphanies
Intellect, not ignorance.
.
acbytesla is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd November 2019, 01:32 PM   #103
Giordano
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 15,822
Originally Posted by acbytesla View Post
What the hell do you mean? My experience is government workers do their jobs and are responsible to the laws and regulations. Which is what your want. Want to change their actions? Change the laws. No one said, we didn't need elected officials.
^Exactly!
Giordano is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd November 2019, 01:45 PM   #104
Giordano
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 15,822
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
Name one. Name one single "deep state" person whom you know and trust, who answers to you in an election year.
Excuse me?? I am speaking of the organization, it's continuity, and the many very skilled people who operate within it and are committed as patriots and through their honor. Who for decades have helped put into practice the policy goals of each administration while warning and advising the political appointments above them of the possible strategies and possible concerns based on their experience and in depth knowledge.

Do you deny their existence? From what I have seen from when these people come up in the news, and my knowledge of the high standards applied to applicants, the state department has much the same right to be proud of their people as the military of theirs.

Name one I know and who answers to me? What are you talking about?
Giordano is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th November 2019, 01:43 PM   #105
ChristianProgressive
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 1,837
Originally Posted by tanabear View Post
Trump was elected to the Presidency in the same manner as every other President. But somehow it was only his election that is a threat to our "democracy".
So every other holder of the office was elected in an election fatally tainted by foreign interferance (with the collusion of one party), including hacking of election systems, dark money, gerrymandering and other voter suppression?
__________________
"As it was in the days of Noah, so will it be at the coming of the Son of Man." - Matthew 24:37

"And when these things begin to come to pass, then look up, and lift up your heads; for your redemption draweth nigh." - Luke 21:28
ChristianProgressive is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th November 2019, 01:45 PM   #106
ChristianProgressive
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 1,837
Originally Posted by Venom View Post
65 million voters would beg to differ
__________________
"As it was in the days of Noah, so will it be at the coming of the Son of Man." - Matthew 24:37

"And when these things begin to come to pass, then look up, and lift up your heads; for your redemption draweth nigh." - Luke 21:28
ChristianProgressive is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th November 2019, 01:51 PM   #107
ChristianProgressive
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 1,837
Originally Posted by Loss Leader View Post
In law school, we actually discussed whether the bureaucracy formed a fourth branch of government. The belief at the time was that maybe it did. Now I think that it definitely should. The power that almost all presidents wielded was done with an eye towards tradition and propriety. A whole lot of our system really rests on the assumption that the president will behave within tolerances. Now it has been amply demonstrated that with executive orders and friendly appointments, the president has far more power than the other branches - especially in that he is able to act the most quickly.

I support limiting those powers. It's not a deep state and it's nothing new. It's just putting into law what had previously been mere tradition.
Worse, it assumes that Congress itself will function as intended, which this fascist regime has shown cannot be depended upon.
__________________
"As it was in the days of Noah, so will it be at the coming of the Son of Man." - Matthew 24:37

"And when these things begin to come to pass, then look up, and lift up your heads; for your redemption draweth nigh." - Luke 21:28
ChristianProgressive is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th November 2019, 05:38 AM   #108
Belz...
Fiend God
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the details
Posts: 86,105
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
Name one. Name one single "deep state" person whom you know and trust, who answers to you in an election year.
I work in government. I don't answer to the voters. I answer to my superiors. They answer to theirs, who answer to theirs etc. until we get to parliament, who DO answer to the voters.
__________________
Master of the Shining Darkness

"My views are nonsense. So what?" - BobTheCoward


Belz... is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th November 2019, 06:02 AM   #109
Garrette
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 14,770
Originally Posted by Belz... View Post
I work in government. I don't answer to the voters. I answer to my superiors. They answer to theirs, who answer to theirs etc. until we get to parliament, who DO answer to the voters.
When I was in the military and was told (as I sadly but frequently was) by some angry civilian "I'm a taxpayer! You work for me!" my preferred response was "I'm a taxpayer, too, so I'm self-employed."

Note that it was only my preferred response, not my actual response. I recall actually saying it only once. The other times I remained more professional.
__________________
My kids still love me.
Garrette is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th November 2019, 06:37 AM   #110
Armitage72
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Posts: 3,455
Originally Posted by Garrette View Post
When I was in the military and was told (as I sadly but frequently was) by some angry civilian "I'm a taxpayer! You work for me!" my preferred response was "I'm a taxpayer, too, so I'm self-employed."

Note that it was only my preferred response, not my actual response. I recall actually saying it only once. The other times I remained more professional.

I remember one of Dave Berg's comics in Mad Magazine in which a belligerent man was refusing to follow instructions from a police officer.
"You can't tell me what to do!! I'm a taxpayer!! You work for me!!"
"Great. Can I have a raise, boss?"
"... I'll be moving along."
Armitage72 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th November 2019, 08:08 AM   #111
rockysmith76
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Jul 2019
Posts: 375
Originally Posted by ChristianProgressive View Post
65 million voters would beg to differ
which in a population of 300 million is still a minority vote.
rockysmith76 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th November 2019, 08:10 AM   #112
rockysmith76
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Jul 2019
Posts: 375
Originally Posted by ChristianProgressive View Post
Worse, it assumes that Congress itself will function as intended, which this fascist regime has shown cannot be depended upon.
Deep state is a terrible idea, 99% of bad government is Career bureaucrats and Politicians so embedded that the bureaucracy trumps "doing the job". Typical liberal obsession on regulating everything because.... liberal nonsense.
rockysmith76 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th November 2019, 08:22 AM   #113
Armitage72
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Posts: 3,455
Originally Posted by rockysmith76 View Post
which in a population of 300 million is still a minority vote.

If all 300 million of those people had voted, that would be the case, but we're talking about 65 million out of 127 million.
Armitage72 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th November 2019, 08:42 AM   #114
rockysmith76
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Jul 2019
Posts: 375
Originally Posted by Armitage72 View Post
If all 300 million of those people had voted, that would be the case, but we're talking about 65 million out of 127 million.
the thread premise is still a very, very bad idea
rockysmith76 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th November 2019, 08:45 AM   #115
phiwum
Penultimate Amazing
 
phiwum's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 12,237
Originally Posted by rockysmith76 View Post
the thread premise is still a very, very bad idea
It's not clear to me what the premise is.

If it's that non-appointed bureaucrats should work against the policies of presidents they disagree with, then it's a bad premise.

If it's that non-appointed bureaucrats will sometimes be in a good position to see that policies are unconstitutional and to raise red flags that partisan appointees will not, then it's a perfectly reasonable premise.
phiwum is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th November 2019, 08:54 AM   #116
rockysmith76
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Jul 2019
Posts: 375
Originally Posted by phiwum View Post
It's not clear to me what the premise is.

If it's that non-appointed bureaucrats should work against the policies of presidents they disagree with, then it's a bad premise.

If it's that non-appointed bureaucrats will sometimes be in a good position to see that policies are unconstitutional and to raise red flags that partisan appointees will not, then it's a perfectly reasonable premise.
Its that embedded bureaucrats become more embedded and the bureaucracy takes on a life of it's own that defeats the entire premise suggested by the OP.
rockysmith76 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th November 2019, 10:22 AM   #117
Lurch
Muse
 
Join Date: Sep 2016
Posts: 959
Originally Posted by rockysmith76 View Post
Its that embedded bureaucrats become more embedded and the bureaucracy takes on a life of it's own that defeats the entire premise suggested by the OP.
A beurocracy is comprised of working people like you and me, who may cycle through departments or divisions in the progression of their careers. But the collective experience and established practices tend to act as an inertial brake against jarring or radical change. Particularly as the elected ruling class (nominally) serve at the pleasure of the electorate, and can have relatively fleeting impact.

It's not unlike some ancient town's council of elders tamping down the rash impulses of a power-hungry upstart.
Lurch is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th November 2019, 10:30 AM   #118
rockysmith76
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Jul 2019
Posts: 375
Originally Posted by Lurch View Post
A beurocracy is comprised of working people like you and me, who may cycle through departments or divisions in the progression of their careers. But the collective experience and established practices tend to act as an inertial brake against jarring or radical change. Particularly as the elected ruling class (nominally) serve at the pleasure of the electorate, and can have relatively fleeting impact.

It's not unlike some ancient town's council of elders tamping down the rash impulses of a power-hungry upstart.
Or becoming a model of inefficient lethargy, in the way of change when its needed.
rockysmith76 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th November 2019, 10:49 AM   #119
acbytesla
Penultimate Amazing
 
acbytesla's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 22,847
Originally Posted by rockysmith76 View Post
Deep state is a terrible idea, 99% of bad government is Career bureaucrats and Politicians so embedded that the bureaucracy trumps "doing the job". Typical liberal obsession on regulating everything because.... liberal nonsense.
I don't know about that. Trump and his minions, I mean morons are proving quite the opposite. Spending billions of dollars on a dumbass wall that hardly slows down anyone. Using military aid for extortion, putting people in cages, setting up reporters to be murdered by foreign governments. Tax breaks for the rich, destroying the environment because some coal barons paid you off. Tariffs that only are a burden on US consumers and farmers.
__________________
Try
Science, not superstition.
Reason, not revelation.
Education, not epiphanies
Intellect, not ignorance.
.
acbytesla is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th November 2019, 10:59 AM   #120
phiwum
Penultimate Amazing
 
phiwum's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 12,237
Originally Posted by rockysmith76 View Post
Its that embedded bureaucrats become more embedded and the bureaucracy takes on a life of it's own that defeats the entire premise suggested by the OP.
What is the alternative? Term limits for bureaucrats? Replacing the entire bureaucracy with each new administration, selecting only those employees who support the governing party?

Surely, having persons devoted to a particular government interest is good for the nation, since they develop expertise over time.
phiwum is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » USA Politics

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 07:50 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.