Those are his own held personal values, not his represented ones. As President, and in his official actions so far, he represents the values and regions of the 63 million people and major political Party that supported him and continue to support him. The fact that this large support, though sufficient to gain him the office, nevertheless represents only a narrow range of regions and values in the country as a whole, was the point.
That's one relevant point. Another is that neither he nor the vast majority of those supporters understand what he's doing. He takes drastic actions; they cheer (and make idiotic statements about these policies) - neither he nor they have any freaking idea how the edicts and appointments, the striking down of regulations, the destruction of government functions, the drafting of non-mathematical budgets, the defamation and intimidation of competent personnel, the abrogation of constitutional rights and freedoms, the destabilizing of trade and utter confusion of foreign relations - how any of these 'decisive' (random, unplanned, ill-considered) acts will affect them and the nation. The ignorant indignant may demand things the same way small children demand to play with the shiny red land-mine. And, of course, the supporters also have little idea of what actions he's taking that directly contradict what he's telling them. Don't tell me :"That's democracy", because functional democracy is contingent on an informed and responsible demos.
#makeitfdup | #WhatTheyVotedFor Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Click to, well, yeah, fuck shit up. Do collectives evolve? Between the American Civil War, which marked the coming out of rapid repeat fire, and World War II, humanity went on an incredible killing spree; the formal, industrialized slaughter of the Second made clear we had not learned enough lessons from the First. That is, of course, merely one way of looking at it. We said, "Never again," and seem to have not quite understood what that sacred promise requires. While it should, in my opinion, go without saying that we ought still hold to that promise, quite clearly there are plenty in this world who would shrug and say, "Never again? But why not?" We were supposed to learn that lesson. Watch the world struggle toward humane warfare; humanity is learning the lesson as we go. Maybe someday, you know? And there is plenty to say about all of this in the present moment, what with President Donald J. Trump at the American helm, and all. But in truth, I'm just raising a metaphor. That's democracy? Yeah, it kind of is. The gentlemen's bargains and tacitry of old are merely polished up something or other we might otherwise call honor among thieves. And it's not just in politics; there are complex arrays of theses trying to describe the empowerment exchange between the nickel and diming of the private sector at all valences and what license we give such excuses in politics. Absolutely excising these principles from society is nearly impossible; we still need to learn how. In the future, one result Trump and his supporters will try to take credit for is that they genuinely are shaking up the establishment. There are, for instance, twelve hundred positions requiring Senate advice and consent to presidential appointment. Various analyses are tracking around 550 of these, and something like 515 remain without nominees. For our purposes in the moment, the numbers remind why advice and consent is traditionally a rubber stamp. This time around, however, we are up against the very purpose of Senate advice and consent. There is a term in political specialty: "Zoe Baird problem". Zoe Baird is the name of the first Democratic nominee buried by the Senate for "nanny" troubles and other employment practices related to domestic assistance. And it is clearly a stupid standard because quite clearly Republicans don't want to apply it to their own. Sure, there is a lesson in there, somewhere, about domestic employment, but I'm not certain anybody knows what it is. A Zoe Baird problem, by the way, will bury a Democrat faster than a Puzder problem buried Andy Puzder, and, since Steve Bannon isn't subject to Senate advice and consent, we learn that the Trump administration isn't especially concerned about Puzder problems. And that really does have to do with how society regards women in questions of general policy outcome—(what is rape, really? what is "domestic violence", really? what are "women's rights", really, compared to "human rights"? all questions required in Amerotraditionalist political paradigms)—so we can, regardless of society's general apathy toward such generalities, attend an iteration of the problem with advice and consent in its traditional framework. Even still, what is happening with the Trump administration is pretty much unique. There is a strong inclination toward shaking Congressional Democrats by the lapels while shouting about how it's time to knock it off and accept that this is really happening and simply settle this, but there are also empowerment questions according to the numbers in office. American society is about to learn a lesson, one way or the other. And it's not so much that this can go very, very wrong; it already has. It can go a lkot worse, though. Trump has gained office; his supporters are trying to line up behind insanity; the center cannot hold, whether for conservative orbits or our societal politic in general. The lessons we have to learn this time are both myriad and complex, to the one, and quite simple and straightforward to the other. The quick expression: Don't do this shit again. The longer expression has to do with psychoanalyzing nearly sixty-three million voters in order to localize application of the lessons. Whatever reasons people have for doing this, don't do this shit again. But we also know how this cycle goes. That particular bloc among working-class voters largely did a whole bunch of stuff to themselves, and now they're taking it out on everybody else, and over the long run the question is whether or not we see this coming next time. The short term question, of course, that the Republic must survive and resolve the problem we have inflicted upon ourselves. One bit of messaging people need to carry forward is the reminder that Republicans can get waxed in the popular vote come the midterm and actually increase their shares. Which is another thing that bugs me about what Trump and his movement have accomplished; in order to take back the House of Representatives, we're going to need Blue Dogs. (Do we call them Red Dogs, this time?) I'm not looking forward to that, because few who comprehend the bargain are actually anxious to undertake it: Get elected in '18, impeach Donald Trump, do essentially nothing else because that's what you have to promise voters in whatever generally conservative district, face defeat in a TTBO presidential cycle blaming the Democratic establishment for chaos in President Pence's White House and thus electing Mr. Pence to his first term proper despite widespread disappproval of his platform, because, you know, that is the dirty Democrats' fault, too. My district is blue already, so ... I don't know, I guess I should go agitate in Reichert's district. As to the informed and responsible electorate, well, that's a harder lesson to learn because it has to do not so much with banishing speech as obliging good faith. People who want unjust outcomes aren't going to abide exclusively by just rules or customs. And that's part of what Americans need to figure out. It's one thing to demand fairness, but what are we actually weighing on the scales of justice? In the Gay Fray, we get a powerful distillation of a problem. It is, in fact, the moral relativsm traditional conservatism warned against in my youth; as with so many things I heard from traditional conservatism I ought not be surprised that when it came true it did so within conservatism. All I'm saying about Kim Davis' equally protected rights is that her equality requires that she should have the right to inflict inequality against others, and as a functional proposition, that is illogical. Now, here's the trick: In the U.S., that's just one side of the argument. And, certes, that sounds cliché, but what it means is that these conscience cases we hear about requiring one person's equality to possess an incomparable right to exclude others from common rights are essentially automatically legitimized. If A = B, then A > B. That, quite literally, is the argument, and regardless of how you or I might call bullshit on such assertions, we can also observe the results. Too much liberty is tyranny, as a saying goes; too much democracy is anarchy. While these read more like complaint, we might consider the proposition that civilized society is not a suicide pact, and this, I promise you, is the question Americans must resolve. When I was a kid, this particular bloc of voters held much influence; you don't get the War on Drugs without them; you don't get "right to work" freeloader laws without them; I promise you the political pressure on politicians in the NAFTA days (e.g., "giant sucking sound") did not come from a mix of entrenched industrial interests and poor minority voters reeling under the effects of the rest of what society was doing to them. And now here they are, feeling left behind. And they're angry about it. And like we saw in Kentucky, they will vote against their own interests to get back at homosexuals and transgender and all because [if A = B then A > B]. This is American democracy, for the next while. The important thing is how we dig ourselves out of this mess in such a way that doesn't threaten to bury the rest of the world. We've spent lifetimes carefully constructing this cultural catastrophe in order to protect extraordinary reserved privilege. It's what wrecks all empires. If we intend some better end, we can accomplish a bunch of superficial repair pretty quickly, but the deeper malady will take some time. This isn't something to be destroyed like a tumor or eradicated with antibiotics. And it isn't quite mass effect mental illness that must be treated. But part of our political discourse has abandoned a certain context attending functional necessity in order to justify itself. This is going to fuck shit up↱ for a while. But it's either what counts for democracy, or we find another way to travel.
I can see why you're so easily confused...when you seem to completely make up things I never said. Who said anything about the president having "jurisdiction over state legislatures"? Non-sequitur much? Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! It's only your straw man that is conflating basic civics. The US is not a democracy (never mentioned in the Constitution), so the unimpeded will of the majority was never an implicit goal. Again, straw man, who said that map had anything to do with popularity? Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! That map is relative influence in a national popular vote.
Are you referring to some specific post/assertion, or is this just another ad hominem poisoning the well? If in doubt, just ask for clarification. Or just keep up the ad homs in lieu of actually engaging in discussion.
"Well poisoning" and "ad hominem" argument are defined English terms. You use them a lot, but you don't seem to know what they mean. Neither one of them is a synonym for "insult" or "disparagement", for example. Maybe consult a dictionary? Meanwhile, the actual contents of the nice speech are continuing to manifest themselves in policy and practice - the next step appears to be an expansion of the private prison system, or some other detention facilities, to handle detained illegals.
Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Click to detach. Well, you have a habit of spending a lot of effort arguing on behalf of ideas you claim to not be part of. And you have a habit of simply not making sense. They're both generally in effect of late, and it starts to look as if the whole point is to foster your idea of retort. And, you know, whatever. But when you complain↑ that they "seem to completely make up things [you] never said", you're pretty much tiptoeing the infinitesimal line distinguishing one manner of your trolling from the next. The result of your prioritization on retort seems to be that nothing you post is actually reliable. Like this, for instance, is non-sequitur. But your bit about hyperbolic rhetoric is interesting; our neighbor's gaffe about electors is hardly hyperbole Still, your prioritization of retort― ―runs up against Skitt: The District's elector count is artificially limited compared to any state. It won't come up for a while; Rhode Island is the smallest two-representative state; Vermont and Wyoming aside, D.C. needs to surpass six states in population before the cap constricts its representation in the Electoral College. Still, your retort to ElectricFetus is ridiculous, and your inconsistency in subsequent discussion with Jeeves rather quite apparent. In the end, what confuses people is that they expect your words to have some actual meaning according to the fact that they are words with definitions. What they are overlooking is your communicative priority. The nonsense makes sense once we recognize it isn't supposed to make sense. It's all just noise that you make as pretense to justify a bunch of the dumb shit you say because you're tired of constantly getting zinged. In truth, I think people would have more sympathy toward your human frailty if you did not so stupidly present yourself as if it was some manner of weapon. There's an old, tired, worn-down Jew joke about a young boy walking into a wall because the fact of his first truly pubescent erection distracted his attention. Never mind, it's a dumb joke that only comes to mind because I live in a time when people want to go all King Missile Freud and pretend it's a freakin' sword, or something. And half the gallery are thinking something about how funny it would be to see the Monty Python version involving a knight trying to stop a city bus with his severed wang, and you really gotta wonder about the people who are thinking, "It looks delicious except for the bleeding all over the place!" More usefully, look, the frequency and magnitude of bizarre difference between what you're arguing and what you are or aren't saying—we know more about the latter—only reminds the futility of engaging certain discussions.
So, um..... the next generation of concentration camps is a cash-cow for corporations? I'm starting to think I should have been more 'hysterical' in my predictions.
Trump gives one speech, which he read and didn't write, and the whole news world is raving about it. But wait a day or two and he's back to his 12-year old twitter nonsense.
That's traditional, for such camps. He's setting up to detain a lot of people, even if he only requires symbolic numbers rather than campaign promised millions - they have to be housed somewhere. The regular prisons are double-bunked as is, and no prospects for remedying that continuing blight on the country with nominees like Sessions and a Congress full of Republicans.
You're not the first: http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-inmates-idUSKBN14P1N7 Illegals often have experience working construction. Win/win.
But the detainees under the Muslim ban were not "illegals" until last week. They haven't had time to get any construction experience. The byootiful wall is going to fall over, isn't it? Let's hope it happens during the televised presidential inspection tour.
The bar is set so low for Trump that as long as he doesn't come off looking like the blabbering fool that he is, his speech is considered a success.
So just doubling down on your ad hominem poisoning the well, I see. I spend a lot of time dispelling straw man arguments. You demanding that your erroneous reading of my posts somehow takes precedent over any clarification I may subsequently make is the definition of a straw man. And you're so transparently biased that you're trying to call dispelling straw man arguments trolling. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! It only seem non-sequitur to you because you clearly didn't follow what was said. But instead of asking for clarification (you know, discussion), you'd much rather poison the well in as non-committal and dismissive way possible. If there's something you want to refute, do so already. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Aside from the apparent tone policing (a form of trolling), what are you on about? A number of electors of President and Vice President equal to the whole number of Senators and Representatives in Congress to which the District would be entitled if it were a State, but in no event more than the least populous State... - 23rd AmendmentDC is already at its 23rd Amendment cap. Capital districts exist explicitly to isolate it, so that no state can have any political or economic advantage over others. Elevating the District to equal representation as states would defeat the purpose. He says, again failing to specifically justify the ambiguous ad hominem poisoning the well. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Nothing makes sense if you a priori presume it senseless. You've simply abdicated your own responsibility for the principle of charity in rational discussion. While I may very well be guilty of the corollary to the Dunning-Kruger effect (i.e. talking over your head). Sorry, I constantly give people much more credit that they deserve. And yes, considering the bell curve, most people, on average, will agree with your comprehension. Argumentum ad populum does not make it so. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
