Politics over Religion at MD&D

[_Res Ipsa]

I’m having a hard time understanding why “popular vote” is meaningless but “vote by county” means something.

[_Uncle Ed]

...

...when you can't negotiate on your politics, that's not politics: that's the deeper zone of your identity where religion and family loyalties lie. I see this starting to happen on the left as well.
...

Holy, crap. You literally say that like it's a bad thing. Family and religion are always supposed to be deeper than political "loyalties"! You have this problem bassendackwards. You are not alone.

The refusal to cooperate occurred long before Obama. It reached a head under Bush II, because Gore lost while "winning the popular vote". Remember his pique? He threatened lawsuits ferpetesakes. The Supreme Court had to step in. The GOP got zero cooperation from the Democrats after that. They walked out and turned out the lights during Obama. They conducted protests "sit-ins" on the House floor. Their supporters burned cars and smashed windows and attacked people.

It is the Right which is finally starting to act like the Left. Hopefully this will be reversed during the next four or eight years.

The Democrats are just as intent on remaining uncooperative now as always. So of course the tax reform bill had to originate from the GOP. We'll just have to wait and see how it all pans out. Hatch likes it.

[_selek]

Very well. Do you know me well enough to say I'm a "crypto-fascists, not conservatives. Anyone who takes up the banner of Bannon or Trump is a compete chump."?

While I'm no Trump apologist, and frankly think his behavior is often unbecoming of a president, I do agree with some of his positions.

One of the reasons he was elected was a large portion of the country, including myself, were tired of being called fascist, racists, homophobes or other "-ist", simply because they disagreed with Hillary, or the left. Remember the "basket of deplorables" comment?

Perhaps your broader point is that Trump and Bannon are not true conservatives? I might be more inclined to agree with that. Frankly, there are few true conservatives in the Republicrat party anymore.

Stupid reason to elect an egregiously unprincipled bastard, but whatever. The ship has sailed.

(I was tired of being called a homophobe, etc..., too, as a conservative. Twas never a reason for me to support that prick.)

Agree. I'm tired of being asked to take a bite out of a turd sandwich...left side or right side? Both are disgusting. Unfortunately, Johnson didn't have much chance as a third party without getting into the debates.

[_selek]

Very well. Do you know me well enough to say I'm a "crypto-fascists, not conservatives. Anyone who takes up the banner of Bannon or Trump is a compete chump."?

While I'm no Trump apologist, and frankly think his behavior is often unbecoming of a president, I do agree with some of his positions.

One of the reasons he was elected was a large portion of the country, including myself, were tired of being called fascist, racists, homophobes or other "-ist", simply because they disagreed with Hillary, or the left. Remember the "basket of deplorables" comment?

Perhaps your broader point is that Trump and Bannon are not true conservatives? I might be more inclined to agree with that. Frankly, there are few true conservatives in the Republicrat party anymore.

I said Trump and Bannon are crypto fascists. Yes, they made a chump out of you. Indeed. Resentment of liberals is worse than stupid as a reason to vote for dangerous psychopaths.

Your resentment comment is probably true. Yet, do you know me or my motivations or thinking from my post, to know me well enough to call me a chump? Seems you got all uptight when I made a comment about you, personally, without knowing who you are (and I rightfully deserved criticism for that).

[_Johannes]

I think the manipulation of reality has always been a centerpiece of totalitarian regimes: there were Jewish facts and Jewish science in 1930s Germany, for example. I don't think Trump is Hitler—at least Hitler was about something, Professor Sobchack might reminds us—but Trump's use of authoritarian tactics should give his supporters pause. Why don't they mind that he behaves like a third world dictator rather than an American president?

Off the top of my head.... Because they uncritically accept a self-definition of America that makes the third world comparison impossible to even contemplate. Because their chosen media outlets tell them what they want to believe. Because confronting that question might force them to acknowldge that there is a threat so profound that it requires them to compromise their rightwing political commitments (i.e. to choose between America and conservatism, concepts which they have genuine difficulty in distiguishing). Because they actually like the authoritarianism.... I don't know which option is worse.

This thread would be incomplete without a classical allusion, so I give you Thucydides on Corcyra as an early example of civic collapse being accompanied by the degradation of language and truth.

True story (to tie this back to Mormonism): Terry Eagleton taught at BYU for a year.

Yes, I remember hearing a lecture by him on this. He singled out the fact that hirsute undergrads had to obtain official "beard cards"....

[_Uncle Ed]

Kish is right, obviously.

Once the middle and working classes fully realize how badly they have been screwed by the Republican tax bill in the waning days of 2017....

"....they will probably look for scapegoats consisting of people who are more marginalised and vulnerable than they are", is how I think this sentence ends. It'll be the same here with Brexit.

And, to pick up on something else that Kish said, the next demagogue will be a lot cleverer and more devious. You're lucky, perversely, that this one is as inept as Trump.

An obvious demagogue is preferable. Obama was far more dangerous than Trump.

Demagoguery is not by itself an evil, since it purports to champion the common people. The methodology to carry out the intended agenda is the defining difference between a good or evil demagogue. An evil person can work to further the ends of the common people so long as it suits the demagogue's purposes, and thereby appear to be a true champion of that which is good.

Donald J. Trump is artless. And his agenda so far points to a deep respect for individual rights as guaranteed under the Constitution. That he benefits personally along the way in no way denies a genuine desire to strengthen the people's rights, security and prosperity.

Try and get over how badly he rubs you the wrong way. I did. The instant I realized that I was mistaken was when he won. I was so relieved when Clinton lost, that I awakened to the fact I had been entertaining the notion that I had been wrong about The Donald for half a year. But he's still annoying and even embarrassing and always will be. On top of that, he has a problem with admitting fault, being forthright in speaking, not being contradictory, and he's not a very nice person when someone pisses him off. Etc. None of that makes the first difference in judging his decisions as President.

[_Res Ipsa]

...

...when you can't negotiate on your politics, that's not politics: that's the deeper zone of your identity where religion and family loyalties lie. I see this starting to happen on the left as well.
...

Holy, crap. You literally say that like it's a bad thing. Family and religion are always supposed to be deeper than political "loyalties"! You have this problem bassendackwards. You are not alone.

The refusal to cooperate occurred long before Obama. It reached a head under Bush II, because Gore lost while "winning the popular vote". Remember his pique? He threatened lawsuits ferpetesakes. The Supreme Court had to step in. The GOP got zero cooperation from the Democrats after that. They walked out and turned out the lights during Obama. They conducted protests "sit-ins" on the House floor. Their supporters burned cars and smashed windows and attacked people.

It is the Right which is finally starting to act like the Left. Hopefully this will be reversed during the next four or eight years.

The Democrats are just as intent on remaining uncooperative now as always. So of course the tax reform bill had to originate from the GOP. We'll just have to wait and see how it all pans out. Hatch likes it.

That’s just horse puckey, Ed. The Democrats supported GWB on many pieces of major legislation during his time in office. The Reps’ complete obstruction during the Obama presidency is the complete opposite of how the Democrats in Congress worked with Bush.

[_Symmachus]

Facts are tricky things. We have so many "facts", created out of selective Medía harvesting, both sides doing it endlessly. Go figure, human nature at work appealing to self-interest.

I hope the administrators of Cassius are seriously considering Uncle Ed for appointment to the Kevin Christensen Chair in Alternative Facts Studies.

The "popular vote" is meaningless since there is no such thing. That too is a Medía creation. And Clinton's vaunted "wide margin" came almost entirely from Cali. You are right not to diss the Electoral College, since that organ is what protects smaller states from the huge metro areas and the states that contain them.

It's not meaningless, because it signals the extent to which the electoral college is translatable into broad public support. If you believe in the principle of one-person-one vote, it's real because individual votes are actually counted before determining the electoral college. It's not determinative of the outcome, but that's not the same thing as meaningless, unless you have a simplistic understanding of politics in a democratic society, or an authoritarian's view of elections, where they are used as a one-time stamp of legitimacy.

I'm wondering if you've ever thought about how the number of electoral votes is calculated. Some people theorize that it has something to do with the number 2 (for senators) + the number of representatives in the House, which in turn others have postulated is determined by population. It's only a theory, but if true, it would suggest that even the Electoral College was conceived of as derived from popular support without being subordinate to it. If only there some documents in which the Founders had explained their reasoning...

Even more high priority than the economy is the push for individual liberty. He's all for that. She's a control freak.

You mistake liberty for libertine. Congratulations on your newfound liberty to be impolite with impunity, which is the only liberty that Trump has championed. Over what other issue was Obama holding your neck under his heal?

The wise choice in picking Trump was based on a condition which you deny: that our peril was (and is) the erosion of our Constitutional systems beyond repair. Judges have interpreted the law from the bench for so long, asserting the Constitution to be a "living" document that needs revising to suit our times, that the very meaning of words is in mortal danger of extinction.

I know, right? Why can't they just follow what the Constitution says about telecom mergers instead of trying to interpret it?!

We are buried in PC and flipped memes.

You can't even make a pedophilia joke anymore or use racial or ethnic slurs, not like in the old days, when you could do that on TV and on the radio. You can't grab women by the pussy without people calling you bad names. We had values back then when we weren't cobbled by the PC police.

Obama went to extremes to fill as many judgment seats with socialist liberals as possible.

Judgement seats? Like Pahoran? Name me one socialist he appointed, besides Pahoran II and Merrick Garland.

This is used against us constantly.

The socialist judges are used against you?

By electing Trump there is the barest chance of reversing enough of the damage that his successors might have enough recovery to continue forward and repair the deep damage already done by the likes of the Clintons (and to a lesser degree the Bushes).

I think you should have a look at Adrian Vermeule's work. You might be surprised to learn that this problem has less to do with particular presidents than with the challenges of running a modern post-industrial state and the fact that Congress is not up to the task, or at least has shrugged its responsibilities. Conservatives have also made this argument (e.g. David Mayhew). Judges are having to pick up slack where congressmen and senators no longer want to tread. One of the problems with the judiciary too is that they simply aren't competent to weigh in on a lot of the issues the court faces, consequently they give deference to regulatory agencies, which is also why congress has basically given up on administration (on the other hand, do you want a congressman to determine whether a new drug is safe and effective, or would you rather a scientist make that determination?). Let me suggest, if I may, a right-wing media organization that will help inform your views with a more thoughtful analysis of the problem that you think has to do with Obama and Democrats: Liberty Law Talk.

Of course it could be that our past Presidents were just too weak. Wisdom can take the form of forcing the issue, with the intent to end this stalemate once and for all.

It worked on the Apprentice, why wouldn't it work in the Middle East?

Orrin Hatch is enthusiastic about the "tax reform bill". He even calls it "my bill", which is annoying. But the point is that the working class are getting big deductions with it, and will take home thousands of dollars a year that have been going to taxes. So your assertion that "almost no reputable economists" believe the bill is a good reform is possibly only that.

Orrin Hatch likes a bill he is championing, therefore reputable economists support it?

What are some of those big deductions, by the way? And how do you feel about the fact that the corporate is permanently slashed, whereas the few thousand dollars you believe will go back into my pocket will stop doing so after three to five years?

Also, how do you feel about the graduate student tax? Right now, a graduate student usually receives 1) tuition waiver and 2) a stipend in exchange for teaching course professors don't want to do. An average stipend is around $20k. This bill would include their waiver as taxable income, even though graduate students never see that money. In other words, someone making $20k would be taxed as if they were making about $50k. Do you know how much in real tax dollars that translates to? About $9k. So, the result will be that someone who right now generally is not taxed because they make so little will see nearly half their income gone with this bill. Does it make you feel like you have more liberty?

Explain to us how that helps the little guy. Explain to us how not being able to deduct your medical bills two years after this is passed will help the little guy. One could go on, but we don't need to, because it's not hard to anticipate your response: Trump is breaking the system!

On that we can agree.

This thread would be incomplete without a classical allusion, so I give you Thucydides on Corcyra as an early example of civic collapse being accompanied by the degradation of language and truth.

And I do appreciate it. How convenient that we have such a ready and sophistical example:

Demagoguery is not by itself an evil, since it purports to champion the common people. The methodology to carry out the intended agenda is the defining difference between a good or evil demagogue. An evil person can work to further the ends of the common people so long as it suits the demagogue's purposes, and thereby appear to be a true champion of that which is good.

One of the Founding Fathers said that, right? Forget the aspirations of the American systems: let's all just hope we're useful to the demagogue's purposes!

[_Uncle Ed]

The "popular vote" is meaningless since there is no such thing. That too is a Medía creation.

What a weird thing to say. The term 'popular vote' simply refers to the total numbers of votes cast for the candidates by the people who voted in the election. It is a completely clear and objective concept, and its definition depends on simple arithmetic.

(Of course nobody is denying that the election of the President is ultimately decided through the Electoral College mechanism, which does not necessarily produce the same result as would the popular vote. But that is not your point.)

And Clinton's vaunted "wide margin" came almost entirely from Cali. Not a good recommendation!

No. It came from the total of votes cast for her nationwide. There is no reasons to treat the parcel of votes from the largest state as more or less significant than the votes of the six smallest states taken together. You can make any candidate win or lose if you are allowed to discount states at will. What would have happened to Trump's vote, for instance without Texas?

I meant to say that there is no such thing as a "popular vote" on national elections or referenda: only States vote for such things, not every individual. Popular (pure democracy) votes only apply on State/district levels.

That Cali comprised the bulk of Clinton's so-called popular vote "win" is significant, because it points to the necessity of the Electoral College system. California all by itself could swing every presidential election if we counted every vote as one vote. The way the US divides up its EC votes by states is instructive in appealing to balanced representation: N. Dakota, for instance has one EC vote per c. quarter million people; Utah one per c. half million; and California one vote per c. three-quarter million people. This is the exact opposite of "discounting states at will".

[_Uncle Ed]

I’m having a hard time understanding why “popular vote” is meaningless but “vote by county” means something.

So did I for most of my life.

The Electoral College reduces the impact of a majority in selected areas, e.g. huge metro areas. That was a threat even in colonial era times, but is exponentially more a threat now.

To engage in so-called pure democracy only works in small numbers. To resort to it on a national scale would tip representation only to the huge population centers and their states would always elect the "chief magistrate of the whole Union"; and win any and all proposed national referenda. Can you see the danger?