Duckk said take Mrs Clinton\not in jail here.

Daryl wrote:The more I read the more I despair. Don't say that outsiders have no interest. When the US sneezes the world catches cold. Everything points to your entire system being broken.
About the one good aspect is that it makes our system look a lot less shambolic in comparison.
I could point to many things that are wrong, but the election of police and judiciary is plain weird, that Clinton and Trump are your two champions is weirder, and it has become increasingly obvious here and in the world press that the United States Of America is more about individual States and less about the United. Every developed country is one country with some state/county/department/province minor local variations. Works.

it just shows the disconnect between the elites and the great unwashed masses. The unwashed masses actually believe the democracy myth. Things were actually set up to wrest control from "the tyranny of the [unwashed] majority."

The barbarians seized control of the GOP. The hubris of HRC and Debbie Wasseman Schultz, former chair of the DNC, gave us HRC by pretty much discouraging any serious challenge to her coronation.

Thomas Jefferson imagined a system akin to the EU where we would consider ourselves citizens of our state first and the US second. So now the election based on the electoral college comes down to battles in a handful of states.

What is breaking down is the 1%'s control of the masses. That is mostly because of the uneven economic recovery. it will be settled when the elites decide how large a bone to toss the 95%, or how much they jack up the police state to maintain control.

Folks that seize control of the GOP to correct the elites' aggregation of power are barbarians, but those that allow HRC her shot an unopposed run are civilized? What did you say in a prior post? Oh yes, take the wool from your eyes!

I believe that there are honest liberals out there who are horrified at what their Democrat party is doing. Doug Schoen comes to mind. At one point supporting HRC and the Dem leadership in light of all this activity IS tacitly buttressing the power of elites to do what they wish. Use whatever rationalization you wish, but that is the end effect. If you accept whatever sop they toss at you for supporting their aggregation of power, you will be effectively signing away your individual sovereignty.

You have the right to do just that. I pray you have the wisdom not to.

WeirdlyWired wrote:
it just shows the disconnect between the elites and the great unwashed masses. The unwashed masses actually believe the democracy myth. Things were actually set up to wrest control from "the tyranny of the [unwashed] majority."

The barbarians seized control of the GOP. The hubris of HRC and Debbie Wasseman Schultz, former chair of the DNC, gave us HRC by pretty much discouraging any serious challenge to her coronation.

Thomas Jefferson imagined a system akin to the EU where we would consider ourselves citizens of our state first and the US second. So now the election based on the electoral college comes down to battles in a handful of states.

What is breaking down is the 1%'s control of the masses. That is mostly because of the uneven economic recovery. it will be settled when the elites decide how large a bone to toss the 95%, or how much they jack up the police state to maintain control.

PeterZ wrote:Folks that seize control of the GOP to correct the elites' aggregation of power are barbarians,

Their conduct speaks for itself... but barbarians is perhaps too noble a term.

but those that allow HRC her shot an unopposed run are civilized?

Yeah... really not at all what he said.

gcomeau wrote:

PeterZ wrote:Folks that seize control of the GOP to correct the elites' aggregation of power are barbarians,

Their conduct speaks for itself... but barbarians is perhaps too noble a term.

but those that allow HRC her shot an unopposed run are civilized?

Yeah... really not at all what he said.

It sorta was. Wresting control of the GOP away from the elites was an act of barbarism, but accepting the undiplomatic assertion of HRC as the presumptive President is civilized. It wasn't the Trump folks that have consultancy firms causing violence at opposition rallies, or colluding with the DNC to sabotage other candidates in the Dem primaries.

All the folks voting in the GOP Primaries want is to reduce the elites control of the system. If it means the Republican Party becomes less attractive for elitists donors, so what?

If you want to reaffirm the power of those elites, that's your choice. As more information comes out, that is becoming ever clearer the choice we face. So, decide. Tossing names at those of us who make our unpleasant choice against corruption borders on sophistry.

PeterZ wrote:

gcomeau wrote:Folks that seize control of the GOP to correct the elites' aggregation of power are barbarians,

Their conduct speaks for itself... but barbarians is perhaps too noble a term.

but those that allow HRC her shot an unopposed run are civilized?

Yeah... really not at all what he said.

It sorta was. Wresting control of the GOP away from the elites was an act of barbarism, but accepting the undiplomatic assertion of HRC as the presumptive President is civilized. It wasn't the Trump folks that have consultancy firms causing violence at opposition rallies, or colluding with the DNC to sabotage other candidates in the Dem primaries.

All the folks voting in the GOP Primaries want is to reduce the elites control of the system. If it means the Republican Party becomes less attractive for elitists donors, so what?

If you want to reaffirm the power of those elites, that's your choice. As more information comes out, that is becoming ever clearer the choice we face. So, decide. Tossing names at those of us who make our unpleasant choice against corruption borders on sophistry.[/quote]

DANG!! Now I'm not sure what I said. What I tried to say was: "Congrats barbarians for seizing control of your party. I am abashed that, once again, our own barbarians tried but failed to seize control of ours."

I still do not think the way forward is to revert to "the way things [never] were." The US has doubled in size twice and the population has gone from 5 million to 325 million. To reduce government to the size it was 200 years ago is naive at best, and code for States Rights at worst. For non-Americans Stats Rights is code speak for return to the racial segregation of pre 1963. I will never join or condone a party or candidate who hews to this rationale.

Monty Python had sketches called wink, wink; nod nod. having spent the first 50 years of my life in Louisiana, with many members of my family, including my sister, being in the Klan, I can spot that wink, wink at 50 paces. Trump's campaign is loaded with it. If anyone is blind... not my problem.

PeterZ wrote:All the folks voting in the GOP Primaries want is to reduce the elites control of the system.

And I call bullshit because Trump is the freaking DEFINITION of "the elites". He's a privileged billionaire who brags about contributing to the corruption of the system when he's not selling a bill of goods to gullible idiots about how he has a secret plan to fix everything that he won't tell anybody.

If it means the Republican Party becomes less attractive for elitists donors, so what?

If you want to reaffirm the power of those elites, that's your choice.

You remember you're talking to someone who can't stand Clinton or what the DNC pulled in the primaries and advocates everyone votes third party this year right?

He's an elite. he buys votes when he can. He is a boorish ass. He is many things.

What he isn't is skilled at directing the reigns of political power. There are too many people who would gladly bring down the power of government upon his head if they could for him to succeed at replacing Hillary at the trough of corruption.

I don't argue that he wants to. I assert that he will not succeed. Too many people have lost heir places at the trough who would try to prevent that from happening.

He is an elite. Sure. No argument. He is an elite who has pissed in the Wheaties of too many other equally rich and powerful elites to be able to wield the sort of power Hillary does. If Hillary wins this election and evades these charges, she will have the opportunity to insulate herself completely from the repercussions of her actions.

I know you are not a Democrat by choice. I know that you won't vote for Hillary. We agree on that. I do go one step further by voting for the candidate who has the best chance of keeping her out of office. Doing so is unpleasant in the extreme. Unpleasant as that is, I can live with the consequences better than voting my conscience and allowing Hillary the Presidency.

gcomeau wrote:

PeterZ wrote:All the folks voting in the GOP Primaries want is to reduce the elites control of the system.

And I call bullshit because Trump is the freaking DEFINITION of "the elites". He's a privileged billionaire who brags about contributing to the corruption of the system when he's not selling a bill of goods to gullible idiots about how he has a secret plan to fix everything that he won't tell anybody.

If it means the Republican Party becomes less attractive for elitists donors, so what?

If you want to reaffirm the power of those elites, that's your choice.

You remember you're talking to someone who can't stand Clinton or what the DNC pulled in the primaries and advocates everyone votes third party this year right?

WeirdlyWired wrote:
DANG!! Now I'm not sure what I said. What I tried to say was: "Congrats barbarians for seizing control of your party. I am abashed that, once again, our own barbarians tried but failed to seize control of ours."

I still do not think the way forward is to revert to "the way things [never] were." The US has doubled in size twice and the population has gone from 5 million to 325 million. To reduce government to the size it was 200 years ago is naive at best, and code for States Rights at worst. For non-Americans Stats Rights is code speak for return to the racial segregation of pre 1963. I will never join or condone a party or candidate who hews to this rationale.

Monty Python had sketches called wink, wink; nod nod. having spent the first 50 years of my life in Louisiana, with many members of my family, including my sister, being in the Klan, I can spot that wink, wink at 50 paces. Trump's campaign is loaded with it. If anyone is blind... not my problem.

Reducing the scope of government is a good idea. Even so it will be far larger than it was 30 years ago let alone 200 years ago.

Are certain things better left to the private sector? Sure they are. Postal service is a good example. Our current bastardized version is just awful. True competition can do it better.

Are some things better left to the private sector but the parameters defined by government? Sure, they are. Health care is one of them. Government defines the scope of health insurance, mediates disputes and sets the qualifications of health practitioners. The private sector manages the processes necessary to deliver health care as defined by government. The profits taken from properly run private companies are far less than the waste and abuse of pure government run health care.

We can go on and on, but why bother? You are too busy asserting all sorts of pejoratives into this discussion. Everyone who votes for trump MUST be a KKK sympathizer. What else can they be with all that code Trump insinuates into all his rhetoric? Perhaps, we recognize he can't diminish our sovereignty as thoroughly as Hillary? With that greater protection against a loss of sovereignty, we have more at our disposal to curtail or remedy his more corrupt desires.

.....nah, we can't support him for any reasonable reasons. We're all just a basket of deplorables after all.

PeterZ wrote:Reducing the scope of government is a good idea. Even so it will be far larger than it was 30 years ago let alone 200 years ago.

Government is always getting bigger, more expensive, and more intrusive. For at least the last 20 years, it has been growing about twice as fast as the rest of the country. That is unsustainable because it will eventually swallow up...everything.

The worst thing about government is that those making the decisions do not have to pay the bills. If they waste money, they just take more. If they do a shitty job, we have to pay them to do it again. Because no matter how much it sucks, you can't fire the government.
------------------
If you tried to run a business the way they run the government, you would be broke or in jail within six months.

Probably true with your system. While there is a tendency elsewhere to grow government, the actual share of GDP fluctuates, and reverses at times.
We can and do sack governments. Our federal government doesn't have a fixed term except for not being able to go much over three years. So we have had close on a PM a year for some time now. While we do have two main parties, there are several others big enough to have quite some influence. Whereas from afar it appears that you only have two, each of which represents about half of your elites.
Governments are like nappies (diapers), need to be changed because they become full of shit.

Imaginos1892 wrote:

PeterZ wrote:Reducing the scope of government is a good idea. Even so it will be far larger than it was 30 years ago let alone 200 years ago.

Government is always getting bigger, more expensive, and more intrusive. For at least the last 20 years, it has been growing about twice as fast as the rest of the country. That is unsustainable because it will eventually swallow up...everything.

The worst thing about government is that those making the decisions do not have to pay the bills. If they waste money, they just take more. If they do a shitty job, we have to pay them to do it again. Because no matter how much it sucks, you can't fire the government.
------------------
If you tried to run a business the way they run the government, you would be broke or in jail within six months.