Does Tyranny Not Spring From Democracy?

[DBP66]

46 minutes ago, Troll said:

Rudy is a career prosecutor's office type guy....

People from that type office usually climb the political ladder very quickly, given the dirt they dig up...(and hold or not  🙄)

You will probably get your answer on Thursday or Friday....

He is supposed to be releasing a report then...

 

PS. So you can start buttering your corn now 🍿 ... LOL  

 

 

Thursday or Friday huh??..let me get the popcorn ready...will he be making his announcement as Trump's personal attorney or as a State Dept. representative??...will he also let us know how his criminal case is going??..Inquiring minds want to know...😉

[Troll]

1 hour ago, DBP66 said:

..let me get the popcorn ready...will he be making his announcement as Trump's personal attorney or as a State Dept. representative??.....Inquiring minds want to know...😉

 

Clue: Makes no difference...

now does it.....

Enjoy the Corn Pop 

 

🍿

[Hardcore Troubador]

8 hours ago, HawgGoneIt said:

Of course we can all disagree, I suppose that I prefer an actual reason for disagreement over the simple and stupid thumb down, as I took the time to offer a thought out post to begin with. 

I could have posted... Don J. Trump 👎 constiution, but, I didn't. I presented an article, from a professor, and then, however tenuously, attempted to make a connection through a thought out post. 

As far as disagreeing about his attempts to expand the powers of the office, it's not even debateable. He has looked directly into the cameras and said into the numerous microphones before him that he is doing it for future presidents. This is one of the most amazing things with him, and his supporters, that he can say things directly to you through a camera and the next day people will be on here saying he didn't say that, or, that even if he did he didn't mean it as such. It's a crazy phenomenon with him and his general support. 

Let's just remove his name from the equation.

I'm of the opinion, that, the attempts at expanding the office are in fact dangerous to our democracy. If the office is able to usurp oversight or any other authorities from congress, then the actual most local representation portion of our government is being weakened. Period. That again is another thing that really can't be debated. 

The office is less representative of my personal view and the people in my congressional district than is my senator, who is less representative of my personal view than my congressman. 

We should not applaud the office for attempting to usurp my most local representative person's powers for itself. 

The reasons why I believe there is an attempt to do this are certainly something that would be better introduced at a different time and different albeit likely directly connected subject. 

Now, is it better for you, and debate purpose that I call it the office rather than apply the president's name? 

The "T-word" makes rational discourse all but impossible in modern day America.  More importantly, you sold yourself short by singling out Trump as a particularly unique example of the problem I think you're highlighting Perhaps I misunderstand your post, but your larger beef seems to be with the gradual accrual of power in an executive at the expense of Congress (and dare I go so far as to say even the accrual of federal power at the expense of state/local control?)

I don't think Trump is any different than his predecessors, and the argument you raise goes back at least as far as TR, and even to Lincoln in some cases (though I find those who raise Lincoln as an example of the unfettered increase of federal power often have other ulterior motives).  Two examples from my own life - I had a professor in law school who taught a seminar entitled, coincidentally, "Separation of Powers".  He was chief counsel to a Republican governor, who was elected in a historically Democratic state.  The Democratic legislature was hellbent as using this as an opportunity to claw back powers they'd ceded to other governors over the years.  The professor, while speaking about the theoretical separation of powers, also made a point of saying that in the real world no executive he's deal with comes into office and consciously tries to leave it weaker than he found it.  They fought tooth-and-nail with the legislature to preserve power, even when they may have disagreed about it.  Another example - one of my best friends was a senior aide to a Democratic governor in a historically Republican state - same thing.  Constantly talking about fights to preserve the power of their office in the face of a hostile legislature.

What you're highlighting is feature, not a symptom of our system - the separation of powers and checks and balances.  I agree that the pendulum has swung too far, but I blame Congress writ large for ceding its authority on budgeting, lawmaking, war powers, etc. to the executive (and worse, the courts).  If Congress had some huevos and actually did their jobs this whole thing would be moot.  In that sense, Supreme Court Justices like Neil Gorsuch are actually a surprising ally in this fight (I'm assuming you're a Democrat.  If you're not, I apologize), as he is a vocal opponent of administrative/regulatory delegation and deference, an has made forceful arguments since taking the bench about forcing Congress to use the powers granted to them under Article I, not just pass the buck to some unelected bureaucrat.

If you have an example of how Trump is doing something vastly different than his predecessors (again, from a power accrual perspective, not necessarily from a policy perspective with which you may disagree), I'm all ears.  But, policy differences aside, I see his use of executive power as nothing but a continuation of his predecessors.

[Belly Bob]

5 hours ago, Testadura said:

[...]

Read Jonathan Haidt's explanation why high IQs and education mean very little for forming views on politics, morality, and religion.  Plato's human "rider on the horse" (rational thought) cannot control the "horse" (our emotions), which was David Hume's position.  Hume argued that our emotions cast the die, and our brains back fill the reasons for our emotional views.

[...]

 

3 hours ago, World Citizen said:

This makes me highly qualified to form brilliant views on politics, morality, and religion as I am extremely uneducated and am actively destroying IQ points as I type this.  Lol

I agree with this.  "Men are not troubled by the things that happen, but by their opinion of the things that happen."  Epictetus.  

This I believe is where we can exhibit free will.  How we think about things that happen and the journey to understanding ourselves.  

Great post.

It's a very interesting topic. But even Haidt is usually careful to claim that moral reasoning is usually -- not always -- a post-hoc rationalization. 

If you @World Citizen are interested in this topic, two fairly recent books that are well-written and not too technical are Wielenberg's Robust Ethics (2014) and Shafer-Landau's Moral Realism (2005), which provide insightful critiques of Humeanism and which defend alternatives.

[Belly Bob]

5 hours ago, Testadura said:

You can just go to de Tocqueville, who wrote the greatest book on democracy.  He wasn't a huge fan of democracy (I know there's a debate, but there really shouldn't be) because he felt it could lead to tyranny of the majority. [...]

Thank God the Founding Fathers didn't create a democracy, which makes @HawgGoneIt's post irrelevant. 

[DBP66]

2 hours ago, Troll said:

Clue: Makes no difference...

now does it.....

Enjoy the Corn Pop 

 

🍿

makes no difference??...will we be listening to an official State Dept. report from Rudy or Trump's lawyer running with another conspiracy..it makes a big difference...is this lawyer who is still under investigation is still working for the Pres.???..or for Pompeo and Mulvany??....hummm...

[I AM IRONMAN]

3 minutes ago, DBP66 said:

makes no difference??...will we be listening to an official State Dept. report from Rudy or Trump's lawyer running with another conspiracy..it makes a big difference...is this lawyer who is still under investigation is still working for the Pres.???..or for Pompeo and Mulvany??....hummm...

You are a (gulp) Bosco brother so I worry about you.  What will you be like in 2020 after nothing comes of the witch hunt ..Trump crushes Biden (that....that....that....that....that....that......can you imagine?) or Bernie (aka Mr. miyagi tring to catch flies with a chop stick when speaking) or Pocahontus 1/999999999999 % Indian?

St.John Bosco...PRAY FOR HIM!

 

[HawgGoneIt]

1 hour ago, Hardcore Troubador said:

The "T-word" makes rational discourse all but impossible in modern day America.  More importantly, you sold yourself short by singling out Trump as a particularly unique example of the problem I think you're highlighting Perhaps I misunderstand your post, but your larger beef seems to be with the gradual accrual of power in an executive at the expense of Congress (and dare I go so far as to say even the accrual of federal power at the expense of state/local control?)

I don't think Trump is any different than his predecessors, and the argument you raise goes back at least as far as TR, and even to Lincoln in some cases (though I find those who raise Lincoln as an example of the unfettered increase of federal power often have other ulterior motives).  Two examples from my own life - I had a professor in law school who taught a seminar entitled, coincidentally, "Separation of Powers".  He was chief counsel to a Republican governor, who was elected in a historically Democratic state.  The Democratic legislature was hellbent as using this as an opportunity to claw back powers they'd ceded to other governors over the years.  The professor, while speaking about the theoretical separation of powers, also made a point of saying that in the real world no executive he's deal with comes into office and consciously tries to leave it weaker than he found it.  They fought tooth-and-nail with the legislature to preserve power, even when they may have disagreed about it.  Another example - one of my best friends was a senior aide to a Democratic governor in a historically Republican state - same thing.  Constantly talking about fights to preserve the power of their office in the face of a hostile legislature.

What you're highlighting is feature, not a symptom of our system - the separation of powers and checks and balances.  I agree that the pendulum has swung too far, but I blame Congress writ large for ceding its authority on budgeting, lawmaking, war powers, etc. to the executive (and worse, the courts).  If Congress had some huevos and actually did their jobs this whole thing would be moot.  In that sense, Supreme Court Justices like Neil Gorsuch are actually a surprising ally in this fight (I'm assuming you're a Democrat.  If you're not, I apologize), as he is a vocal opponent of administrative/regulatory delegation and deference, an has made forceful arguments since taking the bench about forcing Congress to use the powers granted to them under Article I, not just pass the buck to some unelected bureaucrat.

If you have an example of how Trump is doing something vastly different than his predecessors (again, from a power accrual perspective, not necessarily from a policy perspective with which you may disagree), I'm all ears.  But, policy differences aside, I see his use of executive power as nothing but a continuation of his predecessors.

I certainly don't think he is the first or will be the last to appear to try expanding the already vast powers of that office. The current executive is obviously the primary topic here, so, why not I guess... He is clearly the current holder of the office and has looked us right in the camera and said he wants to do things for the future holders of the office, which  as I have noticed, amounts to testing the limits of his power and then some.  

I also agree that congress itself has ceded too much power to the executive branch, which makes the attempts at expanding it further even more troubling in my opinion. 

And, I totally agree that it is a continuation of his predecessors, as we all witnessed the previous guy used many executive orders to attempt bypassing congress. 

You all have seen me say... there is always a next. Well, today is the next from the last, what of the next from now, and the one from then? Regardless of party affiliation, or any policy differences, the nexts are pretty scary to me. 

 

[DBP66]

8 hours ago, I AM IRONMAN said:

You are a (gulp) Bosco brother so I worry about you.  What will you be like in 2020 after nothing comes of the witch hunt ..Trump crushes Biden (that....that....that....that....that....that......can you imagine?) or Bernie (aka Mr. miyagi tring to catch flies with a chop stick when speaking) or Pocahontus 1/999999999999 % Indian?

St.John Bosco...PRAY FOR HIM!

 

nothing comes of the "witch hunt"??...LOL.....like his IMPEACHMENT??...🤡

[I AM IRONMAN]

25 minutes ago, DBP66 said:

nothing comes of the "witch hunt"??...LOL.....like his IMPEACHMENT??...🤡

And 2020? How are going to cope champ?

[DBP66]

1 hour ago, I AM IRONMAN said:

And 2020? How are going to cope champ?

you tell me mam...how are you clowns going to cope when he loses??

[I AM IRONMAN]

4 minutes ago, DBP66 said:

you tell me mam...how are you clowns going to cope when he loses??

LMFAO! Who is he  losing too and why?

This should be entertaining

[DBP66]

5 minutes ago, I AM IRONMAN said:

LMFAO! Who is he  losing too and why?

This should be entertaining

he'll lose to whoever the Dems elect to run....why??...because the American public is sick and tired of his lies and demeanor...he wore the country out...he's a documented bullshit artist who sold his county out....

[I AM IRONMAN]

2 minutes ago, DBP66 said:

he'll lose to whoever the Dems elect to run....why??...because the American public is sick and tired of his lies and demeanor...he wore the country out...he's a documented bullshit artist who sold his county out....

Suuuure! Want to bet a pizza on it.....on second thought nevermind.

[I AM IRONMAN]

Who will run against him champ?

C'mon you can Do it!

[DBP66]

5 minutes ago, I AM IRONMAN said:

Who will run against him champ?

C'mon you can Do it!

don't know or care...as long as we have someone who deals reality and doesn't lie daily I'll be happy....

[I AM IRONMAN]

Just now, DBP66 said:

don't know or care...as long as we have someone who deals reality and doesn't lie daily I'll be happy....

Reality is you won't be happy because Trump will win...sorry to break the news to you champ.

Who are you pulling for? C'mon give us a candidate you believe in!!!

[DBP66]

11 minutes ago, I AM IRONMAN said:

Reality is you won't be happy because Trump will win...sorry to break the news to you champ.

Who are you pulling for? C'mon give us a candidate you believe in!!!

Yea...he looks real good in the polls mam!...reality is Trump has played to his base for his entire Presidency...so he has clowns like you in his back pocket (35% of the population)....the small minority in America who aren't in either camp have had enough of his craziness and lies...#reality

[I AM IRONMAN]

Still won't tell us who will beat him and why he/she will win(policies)

[DBP66]

5 minutes ago, I AM IRONMAN said:

Still won't tell us who will beat him and why he/she will win(policies)

the Dem. candidate will win because of the reasons I mentioned...try and follow along mam...

[I AM IRONMAN]

11 minutes ago, DBP66 said:

the Dem. candidate will win because of the reasons I mentioned...try and follow along mam...

Wow you are delusional!

[Testadura]

17 hours ago, HawgGoneIt said:

 

This of course went very deep and I will certainly be in agreement with most of it. I should like to delve into study of some others that you mentioned, as you have clearly been more educated in this area than myself. I certainly appreciate the reasoned response. 

I think the knee jerk reaction of Bormio immediately following my initial posts, go directly to the issue we are currently having as a society. It wasn't exactly the debate I was looking to have, but, it became that. In a way, it proved that he sees the same thing I see in the current office holder as he immediately saw it as an attack on him. I think in his instance, even though I see him as a highly intelligent person, he allowed tribalism to override common sense at the moment he initially posted, and at the same time, he found himself slobbering at the sound of a bell just as Pavlov's dog did. I still didn't point that out at the time, because it really wasn't the debate I was looking for nor was it my wish to try one upping or whatever.  I was looking to get people that may not normally do so to think further than their nose. Even if I had not previously thought that I could be right in the opinion that the current office holder is/was attempting to usurp the powers of the other branches, the type of response I got initially would have helped to solidify the opinion as a potential truth. 

Every president has been frustrated by having to deal with lawmakers that do not see eye to eye with him, but, not every one has looked right at the camera and basically said his intent is to expand the boundaries of the office not only to their preconceived limits, but, potentially beyond if he can so get the courts to side with him in the endeavour, thereby weakening the institutions he is frustrated with and giving himself more power over them. 

 

As I previously stated, somewhat in this thread and in other threads over time here, I may not like the person, or the philosophy of the person that the Selena Kansas congressional district elected, but, that representative isn't for me to like as it doesn't represent me anyway. Why would I cheer on a president to "stick it to" that representative? Why would I wish the president to steal away the voice of the people of that district by usurping the authorities of the body of government that person is a part of, to the detriment of my own voice through my own representative? That type of thought process was the one I was looking to stimulate, but, as per the norm here, it became another tribal head bash. Just another waste of time, until just earlier. 

 

 

HG:  I still haven't read anything other than the article, which I think is good (it advances the discussion), and your post, which is very good.  I really tried to give honest interpretations of the guys mentioned above, but I have biases.

I have no opinion on anything else that I will share, other than that your posting the article was a good idea.

I will add, concerning the article, that one could argue somewhat convincingly that the elitists (not the anti-elites, of which I am one on most issues) are more subtly the better deceivers and are more likely to lead us down the road toward less Liberty and more gov't control (totalitarianism).

Just look at recently-deceased, former Fed Chair Paul Volker (a Carter-appointed Chair, a Dem (re-appointed by Reagan), and a great man, IMHO, who graduated Teaneck HS with my mother-in-law), who said that plutocrats essentially run the U.S. (e.g., think Goldman, which has people on both sides to help our Presidents out), and that this plutocracy is our greatest threat, along with the technocrats and policy wonks who have no real feel for politics and statecraft.  Volker isn't a conspiracy theorist; he just sees that Goldman and others of their ilk have NEVER before had this much influence.  It's like a revolving door for them.

Now, this is a massive discussion informed by personal opinions, and so, I'll try to streamline.  Freud said in Civilization and Its Discontents that civilization is mostly about control, which is really an innocuous observation.  If no one wakes up in the morn, no bridges get built.  If no one shows up for a war, it's tough to get a good one off the ground.  Etc.  Control is needed.  How much?  Politics answers that question within our existing framework.

The Elites have it good and want it better.  The Dems used to check the Elites much better and to that end, were much more for the working man--they used to have our backs more so.  But they accurately saw in the early 70s that the working man (their traditional proletariat) was voting for Dick Nixon (law and order, and traditional values), would soon become Reagan Repubs, and owned a house and car.  55-60% of Americans considered themselves middle class.  Most would think that good, but guys like Marcuse, and Saul Alinsky and his acolytes such as ___________ were disgusted by this materialism--it offended them.  (Please try not to laugh.  I'm disgusted by it, too, to some degree, but who am I to tell a man what he should prefer and strive for.  Most people don't want to read Hegel & Melville to occupy their time--let's face it.) 

Marcuse (along with guys such as Nietzsche & Proust many decades earlier) was smart enough to figure out that more equality & democracy would NOT lead to pursuit or achievement of the higher or better--democracy appeals to the lowest common denominator.  (Churchill said democracy was built on low but sturdy ground.)  So, the Hard Left (Progressive Left, etc.) goal was to disintegrate or disarm as much as possible the family, traditional institutions, taboos, traditions, and anything else that stood in the way of easily-obtained and -accessible democratic pleasures such sex, more pleasurable activities (as they knew the vast majority of people weren't going to head out to operas to fill their lives with meaning; and remember, God's been in his death throes for quite some time, which means religion isn't the long-term answer to the abyss asking the question, what the hell am I doing here?).  

The Marxian view that in Utopia we all would plow fields during the day and be literary critics any night is hilarious, which is why the neo-Marxists and post-modernists re-wrote vulgar Marxism using Nietzsche and Hegel as their starting points.  See Kojeve.the smartest Marxist of the 20th Century who taught and/or deeply influenced Sartre, Camus, Foucault, Derrida, and most of the 20th C. French Communist-leaning philosophers and thinkers.

The Dems base had eroded by the early 70s, and so, they changed out their proletariat from working-class men to college students who were looking for something to make their meaningless lives meaningful (many of the Hard Left misguidedly knocked going to work as being on a treadmill, and wearing a grey-flannel suit), and who could sit in the same room with the other parts of the Dems' base.  Students were asked to man the barricades, and they have been since the 70s looking for major moral issues to fight for.

So, the Dems started the long march, suffered defeats, but now they have the numbers.  That coalition is enough to win the popular vote.  But the twist is that the mainstream Dems and Repubs, the neolibs and neocons, the Elites (the Plutocrats) are in league since at least HW Bush to head toward a much-more Globalized world in which the world as a whole MIGHT be better off IN A MATERIALIST WAY--please see the irony--but the Americans are told to suck it after we've been depleted and sucked dry.

The Elites now have support from everywhere--the best universities, the mainstream media, Hollywood, both parties, some of the smartest people, some of the richest people, most think tanks, our Intelligence Services, etc.  The list goes on.  Think about 1 anecdote:  The Dems (and Repubs) and the NYT essentially gave Trump a standing ovation for dropping a massive bomb on the Middle East (probably killing many innocents), and Mattis said months later that we still have no convincing evidence that Syria gassed its people, which had been the genesis for dropping the God-damn bomb.  When I was growing up, the Dems and the NYT would have been apoplectic about a President and war Secretary for doing that.  I'm not blaming the Dems (I'm a registered Dem myself); I'm just saying that they all shit together in a much-more organized way with the greatest technology and means that have ever existed at their disposal, and they're using it--don't fool yourself. 

Volker:  The Plutocrats.  The Elites.  They're the problem.

But Elites and the Professor say that easily-spotted and constantly-watched and -checked demagogues are the problem--not Volker (and many others who have his credibility).  Yeah, those demagogues in the traditional sense of the term really control things and have put us in this spot, which we've been heading toward since 1977 or earlier.  It's mind-boggling.  We can't run a railroad without Elites, but they've never had so much power and control.  So, a demagogue was elected to combat these other scumbags.

 

[HawgGoneIt]

25 minutes ago, Testadura said:

HG:  I still haven't read anything other than the article, which I think is good (it advances the discussion), and your post, which is very good.  I really tried to give honest interpretations of the guys mentioned above, but I have biases.

I have no opinion on anything else that I will share, other than that your posting the article was a good idea.

I will add, concerning the article, that one could argue somewhat convincingly that the elitists (not the anti-elites, of which I am one on most issues) are more subtly the better deceivers and are more likely to lead us down the road toward less Liberty and more gov't control (totalitarianism).

Just look at recently-deceased, former Fed Chair Paul Volker (a Carter-appointed Chair, a Dem (re-appointed by Reagan), and a great man, IMHO, who graduated Teaneck HS with my mother-in-law), who said that plutocrats essentially run the U.S. (e.g., think Goldman, which has people on both sides to help our Presidents out), and that this plutocracy is our greatest threat, along with the technocrats and policy wonks who have no real feel for politics and statecraft.  Volker isn't a conspiracy theorist; he just sees that Goldman and others of their ilk have NEVER before had this much influence.  It's like a revolving door for them.

Now, this is a massive discussion informed by personal opinions, and so, I'll try to streamline.  Freud said in Civilization and Its Discontents that civilization is mostly about control, which is really an innocuous observation.  If no one wakes up in the morn, no bridges get built.  If no one shows up for a war, it's tough to get a good one off the ground.  Etc.  Control is needed.  How much?  Politics answers that question within our existing framework.

The Elites have it good and want it better.  The Dems used to check the Elites much better and to that end, were much more for the working man--they used to have our backs more so.  But they accurately saw in the early 70s that the working man (their traditional proletariat) was voting for Dick Nixon (law and order, and traditional values), would soon become Reagan Repubs, and owned a house and car.  55-60% of Americans considered themselves middle class.  Most would think that good, but guys like Marcuse, and Saul Alinsky and his acolytes such as ___________ were disgusted by this materialism--it offended them.  (Please try not to laugh.  I'm disgusted by it, too, to some degree, but who am I to tell a man what he should prefer and strive for.  Most people don't want to read Hegel & Melville to occupy their time--let's face it.) 

Marcuse (along with guys such as Nietzsche & Proust many decades earlier) was smart enough to figure out that more equality & democracy would NOT lead to pursuit or achievement of the higher or better--democracy appeals to the lowest common denominator.  (Churchill said democracy was built on low but sturdy ground.)  So, the Hard Left (Progressive Left, etc.) goal was to disintegrate or disarm as much as possible the family, traditional institutions, taboos, traditions, and anything else that stood in the way of easily-obtained and -accessible democratic pleasures such sex, more pleasurable activities (as they knew the vast majority of people weren't going to head out to operas to fill their lives with meaning; and remember, God's been in his death throes for quite some time, which means religion isn't the long-term answer to the abyss asking the question, what the hell am I doing here?).  

The Marxian view that in Utopia we all would plow fields during the day and be literary critics any night is hilarious, which is why the neo-Marxists and post-modernists re-wrote vulgar Marxism using Nietzsche and Hegel as their starting points.  See Kojeve.the smartest Marxist of the 20th Century who taught and/or deeply influenced Sartre, Camus, Foucault, Derrida, and most of the 20th C. French Communist-leaning philosophers and thinkers.

The Dems base had eroded by the early 70s, and so, they changed out their proletariat from working-class men to college students who were looking for something to make their meaningless lives meaningful (many of the Hard Left misguidedly knocked going to work as being on a treadmill, and wearing a grey-flannel suit), and who could sit in the same room with the other parts of the Dems' base.  Students were asked to man the barricades, and they have been since the 70s looking for major moral issues to fight for.

So, the Dems started the long march, suffered defeats, but now they have the numbers.  That coalition is enough to win the popular vote.  But the twist is that the mainstream Dems and Repubs, the neolibs and neocons, the Elites (the Plutocrats) are in league since at least HW Bush to head toward a much-more Globalized world in which the world as a whole MIGHT be better off IN A MATERIALIST WAY--please see the irony--but the Americans are told to suck it after we've been depleted and sucked dry.

The Elites now have support from everywhere--the best universities, the mainstream media, Hollywood, both parties, some of the smartest people, some of the richest people, most think tanks, our Intelligence Services, etc.  The list goes on.  Think about 1 anecdote:  The Dems (and Repubs) and the NYT essentially gave Trump a standing ovation for dropping a massive bomb on the Middle East (probably killing many innocents), and Mattis said months later that we still have no convincing evidence that Syria gassed its people, which had been the genesis for dropping the God-damn bomb.  When I was growing up, the Dems and the NYT would have been apoplectic about a President and war Secretary for doing that.  I'm not blaming the Dems (I'm a registered Dem myself); I'm just saying that they all shit together in a much-more organized way with the greatest technology and means that have ever existed at their disposal, and they're using it--don't fool yourself. 

Volker:  The Plutocrats.  The Elites.  They're the problem.

But Elites and the Professor say that easily-spotted and constantly-watched and -checked demagogues are the problem--not Volker (and many others who have his credibility).  Yeah, those demagogues in the traditional sense of the term really control things and have put us in this spot, which we've been heading toward since 1977 or earlier.  It's mind-boggling.  We can't run a railroad without Elites, but they've never had so much power and control.  So, a demagogue was elected to combat these other scumbags.

 

 

Again, there is much to digest in this, and, again, I largely agree with it. I suppose this could eventually go back to the thread Badrouter posted... Does the end justify the means?

I get the entire "stick it to the man" mentality, but, at what cost to our institutions and government? At what cost to each of our own closest forms of representation. At what level of damage to our republic do we finally realize the potential error in direction? 

These were all the questions I intended to get asked. 

It is most amazing to see people applaud the eroding of these institutions, most, at least I hope that most, have no honest idea of the future they're creating by doing so. I think so many of the masses are taken to emotional response over reasoned thought, but, it could be they just want to see the world burn, or in this instance, the country or the duly established government burn. 

 

[Troll]

11 minutes ago, HawgGoneIt said:

 

I get the entire "stick it to the man" mentality, but, at what cost to our institutions and government? At what cost to each of our own closest forms of representation. At what level of damage to our republic do we finally realize the potential error in direction? 

These were all the questions I intended to get asked. 

It is most amazing to see people applaud the eroding of these institutions, most, at least I hope that most, have no honest idea of the future they're creating by doing so. I think so many of the masses are taken to emotional response over reasoned thought, but, it could be they just want to see the world burn, or in this instance, the country or the duly established government burn. 

 

BEST post from you (on this side 🙄) in a long while now....👍

Must be what happens when  put to the Test..lol.😁

 

All good questions there to ponder, regardless of which side you think you are on.... 

 

 

[HawgGoneIt]

8 minutes ago, Troll said:

BEST post from you (on this side 🙄) in a long while now....👍

Must be what happens when  put to the Test..lol.😁

 

All good questions there to ponder, regardless of which side you think you are on.... 

 

 

Reasoned response begets reasoned response generally.