So you think. All psychological evidence says that people know their own minds much less well than they think
Well yes, I'm aware of that. But I think I know my own mind better than you do.
That's true of some things, not of others. The way other people react to what we say and do can serve as a measure of how well we're assessing our own thinking.
Was your opinion about approval voting shaped by the outcome of the 2016 election, or would you truly hold it regardless? Who knows, including you.
I championed changing the UK General Election for some time. I voted 'yes' when the issue came up for a referendum some years back.
I know there was a change, but I don't know the details. Are you saying they changed to approval voting?
Say what? Doesn't this contradict your previous paragraph that you would have held the same opinion that "the selection process is flawed" regardless of election outcome?
No, you don't explain what you think the contradiction is so it makes it difficult for me to help explain.
I think the selection process is flawed. If a different selection method selected Sanders, one could argue he was a better pick.
Where's the contradiction?
Oh. Looks like I got it wrong. You used a lot of pronouns, and I thought some of your several "it"'s referred to things other than what you intended.
Yes, I was trying to explain my point in raising the numbers. That isn't me saying 'we shouldn't reform the delegate system' - sounds like a reasonable idea, as I've said. So the fact that I am all for discussing that possibility should lay this issue to rest.
I thought that 'given the alternative' was kind of obvious.
"Given the alternative" was part of your later explanation of what you really meant. It wasn't part of your original phrasing. Adding that now we get: "Yes, we agree that voting for someone other than Clinton while wanting Clinton to win given the alternative resulted in ironic consequences for those people who did this."
Yeah, sure, that's fine.
Regarding the rest about the "conditional" and the "hypothetical" and the "could have been" and "blame the voters" and so forth, it left me feeling like we've been talking at cross purposes for a long time. Except for that post to Diomedes, I haven't been talking hypothetically or about blaming the voters.
Jeff Flake (Republican Senator from Arizona), who announced a couple weeks ago that he would not be running for another term because he could not be party to the Trump's ugly politics, has written an editorial in today's New York Times (Jeff Flake: In a Democracy, There Can Be No Bystanders) containing his reaction to the overwhelming response to his resignation speech. A few excerpts:
quote: By the electronic bushel, in thousands of calls and letters, reactions have poured into my office in the past week since I spoke on the Senate floor and announced that I would not be running for another term, and detailing the reasons for my decision. A deeply personal outpouring, the scale of which has stunned and humbled me.
Each letter is distinctive, but all are plaintive, anguished, deeply engaged and urgent. They all have in common a feeling of distress that the country has taken a sudden and caustic turn, that we have a president who seems to take pleasure in dividing us. A president who is careless with the position that has become known in the past century as leader of the free world, and that our institutions and maybe even our liberty are in peril as a consequence. Please, the letter writers all said. Don’t stop speaking out. I’M COUNTING ON IT, one person wrote. ... These writers despair not just for the chaos emanating from the White House, but for the moral vandalism that has been set loose in our culture, as well as the seeming disregard for the institutions of American democracy. The damage to our democracy seems to come daily now, most recently with the president’s venting late last week that if he had his way, he would hijack the American justice system to conduct political prosecutions a practice that only happens in the very worst places on earth. And as this behavior continues, it is not just our politics being disfigured, but the American sense of well-being and time-honored notions of the common good.
Both major parties in Britain condemned the tweets. Best quote from the article:
quote:You keep thinking he can’t get any worse, and he gets worse. I just think people have a total disrespect for him it’s overwhelming, Campbell told The Hill.
Alastair Campbell was former Prime Minister Tony Blair's chief spokesperson.
I always knew Donald Trump would be a bad president, but I had no idea how bad. When I started this thread I imagined that every once in a while Donald Trump would do something boneheaded, and then we would have this thread where we could post about it. Or maybe he'd do something outstanding, and then we could discuss that, too.
But I had no idea that Trump would be doing something lamebrained multiple times a day instead of just a few times a month. He has by far overwhelmed my ability to keep up. Each moronic action or order or tweet deserves to be described here and then discussed, but before anyone's had a chance to even mention it in a post we're already on to the next birdbrained move.
I have not had the time to deal with this unexpected wealth of material, but today I will at least mention that the Mueller investigation is moving closer and closer to the Trump inner circle. Former Trump National Security Adviser Michael Flynn has pleaded guilty to lying to the FBI about his contacts with the Russians. Read more about it here and numerous other places: Michael Flynn Pleads Guilty to Lying to the FBI and Will Cooperate With Russia Inquiry
What, the board software only allows me to vote for your post once? I’m outraged!
It could be that I just like Simon & Garfunkel, but I think it’s that that was the most outstanding parody stuff I’ve seen in a long, long time. Thank you for that.
After listening to Trump recently (I do this as little as possible), I began to wonder what explained his strange, disjointed and fragmented style of speaking. So of course I looked it up on the Internet and found this interesting article:
Trump used to express himself clearly and in an organized fashion, speaking in not only complete sentences but complete paragraphs that communicated complex and subtle thoughts. No more. What explains the change?
This article proposes a number of possibilities, among them normal aging (he's 71), stress, fatigue, frustration, anger, a desire to communicate with his base in a style they'll appreciate, neurodegenerative disease and dementia.
There's a long and thoughtful editorial in today's New York Times (Liberals Need to Take Their Fingers Out of Their Ears) describing why liberalism stimulates the very responses that eventually marginalize it. It's a worthwhile read.
Yesterday representative Al Green (Dem-TX) introduced two articles of impeachment on the House floor. They were voted down 364-58. I'm frankly surprised that it got 58 votes. I would have expected more like 10. I agree with House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi's joint comments with Minority Whip Steny Hoyer:
quote:Legitimate questions have been raised about [Trump's] fitness to lead this nation...right now, Congressional committees continue to be deeply engaged in investigations into the President's actions both before and after his inauguration. The special counsel's investigation is moving forward as well, and those inquiries should be allowed to continue. Now is not the time to consider articles of impeachment.
quote:Whenever the Vice President and a majority of either the principal officers of the executive departments or of such other body as Congress may by law provide, transmit to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives their written declaration that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, the Vice President shall immediately assume the powers and duties of the office as Acting President.
Thereafter, when the President transmits to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives his written declaration that no inability exists, he shall resume the powers and duties of his office unless the Vice President and a majority of either the principal officers of the executive department or of such other body as Congress may by law provide, transmit within four days to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives their written declaration that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office. Thereupon Congress shall decide the issue, assembling within forty-eight hours for that purpose if not in session. If the Congress, within twenty-one days after receipt of the latter written declaration, or, if Congress is not in session, within twenty-one days after Congress is required to assemble, determines by two-thirds vote of both Houses that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, the Vice President shall continue to discharge the same as Acting President; otherwise, the President shall resume the powers and duties of his office.
It's Section 4 of the 25th Amendment to the US Constitution. Apparently not only can the cabinet remove an unfit president, so can Congress: "...or of such other body as Congress may by law provide...". Representative Jamie D. Raskin (Dem-Md) has written a letter proposing a committee be formed to study the president's fitness to serve. It has 50 House co-sponsors. Read about it here in this Jennifer Rubin editorial in the Washington Post: And about the 25th Amendment
Lastly, here's a YouTube video of Trump announcing the move of the American Embassy in Israel from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem. This video includes the first 30 seconds of the speech, during which Trump speaks clearly, and then skips to the last 30 seconds, during which Trump appears to have increasing difficultly enunciating his words clearly, and then at the end completely slurs the concluding words "United States":
Looks to me like Trump is having trouble with a dental appliance or dentures.
It's by Gary Abernathy of The Times-Gazette in Hillsboro, Ohio. It ticked me off and I sent a pretty harsh response to gabernathy@aimmediamidwest.com. Here it is:
quote:Hi Gary,
Just read your editorial in today's Washington Post, "Why would we abandon Trump? He's doing what he said he would do." About this part:
> A year removed from our newspaper’s endorsement of Donald Trump > for president, the most frequent question I get in emails and > letters are from Trump critics asking whether I regret the > endorsement. > > I find it an odd question. > ... > Trump has remained as constant as the northern star. Has Trump > really behaved in some new manner that wasn’t on full display > during the campaign? The outrageous tweets, the bluster, the > self-aggrandizement, the insults Trump the commander in chief > is virtually identical to Trump the neophyte candidate.
So you knew that during the campaign he was putting on display the truly despicable person he actually is, that it wasn't just some campaign persona invented to convince people he would really shake up Washington, and you endorsed him anyway. I'm not sure what's worse, this admission of complicity, or the naivet of many Trump supporters who thought he wasn't really the person he seemed to be. His continuously declining poll numbers tell us that increasing numbers of prior supporters are recognizing his unfitness on many levels, so for you to ask the question, "Why abandon Trump?" hints at some kind of obliviousness that seems much out of place for a newspaper editor.
Or maybe you know exactly what you're doing and you're just advancing the cause and to hell with the truth, much like the president you profess to like so much. And for you to brag you knew the real Trump and to support him anyway, both before and after the election, denotes some especial moral numbness of conscience.
I'm an independent. I was against Bill Clinton and couldn't decide between W and Al Gore. I vote for the person best able to lead the country with integrity, honesty, honor, fairness, compassion and competence, qualities that as a candidate and a president have never visited Trump's doorstep. Trump is loyal to no one but himself, so as long as it's to his advantage to be loyal to his base that's what he will be. But as soon as his base no longer advances his goals you'll be as out in the cold as everyone else. And then you'll realize you knew who Trump really was all along, but by then it will be too late to act on the knowledge that there is nothing more risky than being a Trump friend.
Looking at some of your older editorials makes me wince. "Trump struggles with empathy. So what?" I'm guessing that you live in a region of the country that could use a little presidential empathy, but I'm not very familiar with Ohio. I know a little bit more about West Virginia. You probably believe Trump's doing your neighbor West Virginia a solid concerning coal, but there's nothing Trump can do about the realities of coal. There is no silk purse in the sow's ear of coal. Use Google Maps to do a satellite view of West Virginia. The whole state. You'll be able to pick out the environmental disaster that is coal mining without even zooming in. And the environmental disaster of burning coal for energy is equally disastrous, just not so visible to the eye as Google Maps.
If anyone needs help it is the people of West Virginia, not its coal companies. The coal, and print news media too, are dinosaurs, there's nothing that can change that, and it is the people employed in such industries who need help, not the industries themselves. Inevitable progress takes yesterday's dominant industries and turns them into today's dinosaurs. Nothing can change that. Doubt me? Where's Kodak today? Pay phones? Walkmans? Stage coach manufacturers? Whaling ships?
Well, keep up the good work. Your editorials in the Post only mobilize anti-Trump sentiment.
If you've got a true reply then it is more than welcome. If you've just got a form letter, please don't bother. By the way, email? Also dying.
Based on my reading of the 25th Amendment, Congress does not appear to have any power to remove an unfit President - only the vice-President does. The "such other body as Congress may by law provide" only comes into play in the event that the VP declares the President unfit, and the President disagrees.
You're right that Pence has to be on board, but the point is that it isn't just Pence and the cabinet that has the power to remove an unfit President. It could be Pence and "such other body as Congress may by law provide." That editorial I cited, And about the 25th Amendment was calling attention to a letter proposing that a committee be formed to study this option.
quote:Three women who have previously accused President Donald Trump of sexual misconduct or harassment in the years prior to his election are calling for Congress to investigate the allegations against him following a week in which three U.S. senators and congressional representatives stepped down over similar claims.
The article contains a good video of the statements of the three women.
I couldn't find those quotes - maybe you're paraphrasing? Is that what "~Sarah H. Sanders" means?
Anyway, your post brought to mind thoughts that I don't have the time to express right now, but I thought I would call people's attention to this New York Times Editorial:
The editorial reminds us of the lesson learned long ago during WWII, that a people who blindly follow their leaders without questioning orders live in danger of trudging down dangerous paths and of committing terrible crimes:
quote:When immense power is in erratic and belligerent hands, as it is today in the United States, the readiness of subordinates to disobey becomes critical. Befehl ist befehl an order is an order was the German principle that enabled the Nazis’ industrialized mass murder.
This is a paragraph that Sarah Huckabee Sanders, and all Trump supporters everywhere, should read every day, and then follow the directive it clearly implies: to follow your conscience and your humanity first before any orders.
Members of the Trump administration and the Republican party are guilty of complicity on a colossal scale. They have sold out their humanity for a mere pinch of power. Trump supporters are complicit, too, but who can fathom their complicity for they gain nothing, having sold their humanity for a pocketful of mumbles that are nothing but lies and deceit and misogyny and racism and a sellout of our national resources, not to mention higher taxes and down the road reduced Social Security and Medicare to pay for the huge deficits we're about to run.
My opinion of yesterday's Alabama election results runs contrary to most editorials in the main stream media - I think it provides little hope. This is not a case of a state rejecting Trumpian values, but of a large turnout just barely managing a win in a state that mostly supports lies, deceit, misogyny, racism and ignoring constitutional law. And there would have been no win had it not been for the added dimension of a scandal involving young girls.
quote:Moore’s defeat is not exactly a sign that the battle is over. If allegations of sexual harassment, sexual abuse and sexual assault were truly the political career-enders they ought to be, Moore wouldn’t have pulled in 649,240 votes 48.4 percent of the total. If #MeToo had truly penetrated and changed the consciousness of the entire population, 72 percent of white men and 63 percent of white women wouldn’t have voted for Moore. If we actually had a society-wide consensus on this sort of behavior, and if we truly trusted women more, Moore would have been run out of the race and polite society on a rail by a bipartisan committee of decent humans. The only disagreement would have been who got to share in the honor of hoisting the rail on their shoulders.
[/AbE]
The red states remain red, and their residents will vote against decency and humanity if it means (to name the positions they hold most in common) a smaller government and opposition to separation of church and state. Racism? Fine, as long as you're against LGBT. Misogyny? Fine, as long as you're against abortion. Religious discrimination? Fine, as long as you're against Islam. Welching on DACA (dreamers)? Fine, as long as you're against immigration. Are these people even human?
In the years before WWII Hitler (sorry, Godwin) led Germany into an economic Renaissance, and Germans were more than willing to avert their eyes to the usurpation and abuse of power under Hitler, even after Kristallnacht. Within a year Hitler was invading Poland and the war was on.
Trump is presiding over an economic recovery that began long, long before while Obama was president. After only a year in office he cannot take credit for the economy. But given how friendly Trump is to business what we will see is increasingly good economic numbers for both the country and for businesses while the bulk of the US population sees little benefit.
If our liar-twit-bully-misogynist-racist-in-chief, Mr. Trump, shows even the briefest moment of genuine compassion during this season of hope and cheer, please post it here.
George F. Will, a conservative, has been around for a long time, and I hope he's around for a lot longer. Reading a George F. Will editorial can almost make one feel blessed. In today's Washington Post he outdoes himself in Trump’s Moore endorsement sunk the presidency to unplumbed depths.
The editorial is best enjoyed by reading it from it's beginning, but (spoiler alert) here's some teasers to get those reluctant to click to change their minds. From the conclusion:
quote:He completed his remarkably swift it has taken less than 11 months rescue of the 17th, Andrew Johnson, from the ignominy of ranking as the nation’s worst president.
If that's not enough, here are some further gems to whet your appetite:
This fleeting swerve into fastidiousness about facts came hard on the heels of his retweeting of a video of a Muslim immigrant in the Netherlands beating a young man holding crutches. Except the villain was born and raised in the Netherlands. Undaunted, Trump’s remarkably pliant spokesperson, Sarah Huckabee Sanders, defended her employer from the nitpickers: What matters, she said, is not that the video is unreal but that the threat (of turbulent Dutchmen?) is real.
He [Roy Moore] is an anti-constitutional recidivist, twice removed from Alabama’s highest court for his theocratic insistence that his religious convictions take precedence over U.S. Supreme Court decisions, so he could not have sincerely sworn to support and defend the Constitution and to bear true faith and allegiance to the same.
When reports of Sen. Al Franken’s misbehaviors against adult women surfaced, the National Republican Congressional Committee pounced: Democrats who took Senator Franken’s campaign money need to . . . return his donations. (Combined, they totaled $15,500.) When, 18 days later, Trump endorsed Moore, the Republican National Committee immediately sent $170,000 to Alabama. If the RNC, which accurately represents the president’s portion of the party, did not have situational ethics it would have none.
The self-described values voters and Evangelicals of pious vanity who have embraced Trump and his Alabama echo have some repenting to do before trying to reclaim their role as arbiters of Republican, and American, righteousness. We have, alas, not heard the last from them, but henceforth the first reaction to their witness should be resounding guffaws.
Alabama, however, has perhaps initiated the inevitable sorting of Republicans who retain a capacity for disgust from the Vichy Republicans who have none.
I think I left in more than I left out, but George is worthy.
™ Version 4.2
