Drudge Retort: The Other Side of the News
Saturday, November 26, 2016

David Runciman, London Review of Books: On election night, almost as soon as it was clear that the unthinkable had become a cold reality, Paul Krugman asked in the New York Times whether the U.S. was now a failed state. Political scientists who normally study American democracy in splendid isolation are starting to turn their attention to Africa and Latin America. They want to know what happens when authoritarians win elections and democracy morphs into something else. The demagogue who promised to kill terrorists along with their families is moving his own family into the presidential palace.

Advertisement

Advertisement

Liberal Blog Advertising Network

More

Alternate links: Google News | Twitter

Even before he has taken up occupation his children are being seeded into positions of power. There he is on television, shiny and golden, his wife beside him and three of his children lined up behind, ready to take up what daddy has to offer. Here he is back on Twitter, unshackled by victory, rounding on his opponents in the free press. His 10-year-old son is still too young to join in, but he was by his father's side on election night, looking hardly less bemused than the rest of us, as Trump delivered his notably conciliatory victory speech. Words of conciliation followed by the ruthless personal appropriation of the machinery of government, children in tow. Isn't this how democracy ends? ...

This is the crisis facing Western democracies: we don't know what failure looks like anymore and we have no idea how much danger we are in. The language of failed states doesn't fit the present moment because it conjures up images that are completely inappropriate for a society like the contemporary United States. There will be no widespread civil conflict, no tanks in the streets, no generals on television announcing that order has been restored. Trump's victory has been greeted with some haphazard protests around the country, accompanied by sporadic violence. ...

It is sometimes said that Trump appeals to his supporters because he represents the authoritarian father figure who they want to shield them from all the bad people out there making their lives hell. That can't be right: Trump is a child, the most childish politician I have encountered in my lifetime. The parent in this relationship is the American state itself, which allows the voters to throw a tantrum and join forces with the worst behaved kid in the class, safe in the knowledge that the grown-ups will always be there to pick up the pieces.

Comments

Admin's note: Participants in this discussion must follow the site's moderation policy. Profanity will be filtered. Abusive conduct is not allowed.

Oh, for the love of God, what a drama queen. Trump is not Hitler, he's not Caligula....

This is Trump Derangement Syndrome.

But I love a good rant, so I'll read it.

#1 | Posted by HeliumRat at 2016-11-21 06:36 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 3

"There will be no widespread civil conflict, no tanks in the streets, no generals on television announcing that order has been restored."

But America is now a failed state, according to the author. I'll have to keep reading discover how.

#2 | Posted by HeliumRat at 2016-11-21 06:40 PM | Reply

"Instead, the American state has pivoted as rapidly as it normally does to accommodate its new master and to offer its services to his cause, in the hope of making that cause reasonably effective. Obama came on television to insist that he wishes Trump well, because if Trump succeeds then America succeeds. This suggests that the people who voted for him were right to suspect that the system would do everything in its power to soften the blow of their choice. It also means that if Trump poses a serious threat to American democracy, we lack the language to express it."

Who is this guy?

#3 | Posted by HeliumRat at 2016-11-21 06:43 PM | Reply

It ends with:

"Under these conditions, the likeliest response is for the grown-ups in the room to hunker down, waiting for the storm to pass."

That's right, the left should just surrender. He sure took a lot of words to say, "OK, I just give up".

#4 | Posted by HeliumRat at 2016-11-21 06:52 PM | Reply

Trump is not Hitler, he's not Caligula....

Of course not. He's more like one of those "Monkey with a machine gun" videos.

#5 | Posted by REDIAL at 2016-11-21 07:24 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"That's right, the left should just surrender. He sure took a lot of words to say, "OK, I just give up"

Trust me, the left will never surrender and we will be joined by disgruntled Trump voters in 4 years.

#6 | Posted by danni at 2016-11-21 07:38 PM | Reply | Funny: 2

#6 If Elizabeth Warren runs, I'll join you.

#7 | Posted by HeliumRat at 2016-11-21 07:58 PM | Reply

This is exactly why the Democrats lost power at all levels of government!

The Democrats are wondering aimlessly in the desert.

#8 | Posted by Prolix247 at 2016-11-21 09:33 PM | Reply

Step one: raise your arms at 45 degree angles and wave your hands in clockwise circles.

Step two: run in counter-clockwise circles while waving your hands

Step three: scream WAAAAAAAAAH

Repeat as necessary until the tantrum is over or you feel shame for your idiocy.

#9 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2016-11-21 09:52 PM | Reply | Funny: 3 | Newsworthy 2

p if Trump poses a serious threat to American democracy, we lack the language to express it."
Who is this guy?

#3 | POSTED BY HELIUMRAT AT 2016-11-21 06:43 PM | FLAG:

Hey! I like this line.

#10 | Posted by BruceBanner at 2016-11-21 09:55 PM | Reply

Advertisement

Advertisement

Step one: raise your arms at 45 degree angles and wave your hands in clockwise circles.

Step two: run in counter-clockwise circles while waving your hands

Step three: scream WAAAAAAAAAH

Repeat as necessary until the tantrum is over or you feel shame for your idiocy.

#9 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2016-11-21 09:52 PM | Reply | Flag:

I better not I have fat granny bingo wings.

#11 | Posted by LauraMohr at 2016-11-21 09:58 PM | Reply | Funny: 2

Bingo wings!

What a phrase!

#12 | Posted by BruceBanner at 2016-11-21 10:01 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

I think the "literally Hitler!" hysteria is highly counter productive.

But Trump's victory is a symptom of this country having major problems. That an ignorant, thin skinned, amoral and insecure reality TV disaster and notorious rip off artist was taken seriously at all shows how desperate and fed up with the establishment people are.

The problem I have with the author is that I viewed the other candidate much the same way. Had the corporate owned, influence peddling huckster won thanks to the relentless effort of our corporate media, it would just be a different symptom of the same problem.

Trump is not killing our democracy. Money is. Either we're going to get corporate owned candidates. Or we're going to get independently wealthy, made for TV egomaniacs. Because nobody has the money to run a national campaign on the level that these people do.

We could reform campaign finance. We could regulate media so that its not all owned by a few corporate entities. But we won't. So we have no right to complain about anyone stealing our democracy. We sold it and don't want it back.

#13 | Posted by Sully at 2016-11-22 10:47 AM | Reply

In defense of the author, he is wrapping a relatively good message in some rhetoric. I think he is doing it for fun.

"Trump is not killing our democracy. Money is." - Trump showed that to be false.

#14 | Posted by BruceBanner at 2016-11-22 05:09 PM | Reply

The demagogue who promised to kill terrorists along with their families is moving his own family into the presidential palace.

You mean like our current President?

41 men targeted but 1,147 people killed: US drone strikes – the facts on the ground
www.theguardian.com

In attack on Trump, Clinton accidentally admits drone killing of Abdulrahman al-Awlaki may have been a war crime
www.salon.com

Obama according to Hillary's definition has committed WAR CRIMES. If by Krugmans own definition, democracy ended, it happened under Obama.

#15 | Posted by AndreaMackris at 2016-11-26 12:05 PM | Reply

Mackchris, if you want to go after Obama for war crimes, your heros, the criminals that are Bush and Cheney need to be put on trial at The Hague first. After they get their punishment for their crimes then you can put Obama on trial, fair?

#16 | Posted by aborted_monson at 2016-11-26 12:37 PM | Reply

Why is it that right wing "patriots" have such a big problem with "All men are created equal"? Are they really insisting that only White Men are created equal? If not, why do they excuse all the inequality of blacks, native Americans, Africans, women, muslims, "Hispanics", and dark-skinned Asians? They sure don't treat people as if they were equal. Of course, they don't believe in the "general welfare" of the country, either (or at least not in paying for it). But they sure do love them some Constitution, don't they?

#17 | Posted by WhoDaMan at 2016-11-26 01:30 PM | Reply

"But they sure do love them some Constitution, don't they?"

Damn straight.

Except for that "Emolument Clause", dagnabit!

#18 | Posted by Danforth at 2016-11-26 01:31 PM | Reply

BS America is not a democracy and never was. If you dont know that you failed elementary school.

"I pledge allegiance to the flag and the republic for which it stands."

We are a democrat republic and the republic is just fine thanks.

The problem is with the ignorant people who think this is a democracy. We dont want a democracy where the majority of people in the cities can take away or rights ,take out property to server them or reinstate slavery just because the majority wants it.

Every democracy there has ever been has failed.

Thats why America has not failed because we are not a democracy!

Go back to elementary school and stop making yourself look ignorant.

#19 | Posted by tmaster at 2016-11-26 06:54 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

BS America is not a democracy and never was.

Except that all decisions are made based on a majority vote. Majority vote decides who the Representatives and Senators are; majority vote (at the state level) determines the Electors who elect the President by a majority vote; laws are passed by majority vote of Representatives and Senators; SCOTUS cases are decided by a majority of Justices. Sounds a lot like democracy to me. How else would you like controversies to be decided? Who determines which "side" of the argument wins? Some dictator? Until you can show some way that decisions are made in this country other than by majority vote, it looks like, sounds like, and smells like democracy. You are making a distinction without a difference.

#20 | Posted by WhoDaMan at 2016-11-26 08:25 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Except that all decisions are made based on a majority vote.

Except for the singular national election of the President of the United States, namely because the elitist plurality of monied gentry that we call the Founders selfishly amended this one electoral process to insure their edict-created power bases (states) could usurp any regional or national majority voting to threaten their outsized influence.

#21 | Posted by tonyroma at 2016-11-26 08:40 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1


Except that all decisions are made based on a majority vote. Majority vote decides who the Representatives and Senators are; majority vote (at the state level) determines the Electors who elect the President by a majority vote; laws are passed by majority vote of Representatives and Senators; SCOTUS cases are decided by a majority of Justices. Sounds a lot like democracy to me. How else would you like controversies to be decided? Who determines which "side" of the argument wins? Some dictator? Until you can show some way that decisions are made in this country other than by majority vote, it looks like, sounds like, and smells like democracy. You are making a distinction without a difference.

#20 | Posted by WhoDaMan at 2016-11-26 08:25 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Yes, that would be a republic. Majority vote structured in a way to give voice to all people rather than just allowing one large group to make all the decisions. They started teaching this to us in elementary school. In a democracy, you only need to win over 3-4 states to gain a majority. In a republic, you have to win all the states.

Hillary failed at understanding this like you as well, so don't feel too bad.

#22 | Posted by daniel_3 at 2016-11-26 08:47 PM | Reply

Win a majority of the states rather.

#23 | Posted by daniel_3 at 2016-11-26 08:48 PM | Reply

How else would you like controversies to be decided? Who determines which "side" of the argument wins?

Controversies are decided by the court system, following the law.

#24 | Posted by Crassus at 2016-11-26 09:09 PM | Reply

Win a majority of the states rather.

Not true either. You just need to win a minority of influential states.

#25 | Posted by REDIAL at 2016-11-26 09:09 PM | Reply

Win a majority of the states rather.

#23 | POSTED BY DANIEL_3

You don't have to win a majority of the states. You can gain the presidency by winning only 11 states. Count it yourself.

The disparities arise because every state gets 3 electors regardless of how many actual voters they represent. It isn't just about urban versus rural, there are millions of rural people in the most populous states too and they also have their political power diminished by a smaller minority in less populated states. So some rural voters are impacted as well by this inequality. If proportionate numbers of citizens had equal electoral voting clout wouldn't that make the entire process more fair and representative?

The college exists so that the elites who birthed this nation could keep the masses at bay through their arbitrary creations known as "states". If they were solely viewing territory as political power who knows how our borders might have been drawn if that were the most important metric. Remember when you use the term "states" in defense of the Electoral College realize you're actually saying "monied elites" within the same context. The power of the state WAS their power because that is why they created "states" in the first place. It wasn't some benevolent turn towards the majority of people whom they didn't allow to vote in the first place, that today we call our fellow taxpaying citizens be they females, minorities, legal immigrants or the progeny of the real indigenous Americans.

#26 | Posted by tonyroma at 2016-11-26 09:14 PM | Reply

Looks like if you did it right, you'd only need 11 states to win the EC.

#27 | Posted by REDIAL at 2016-11-26 09:14 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Oops.

#28 | Posted by REDIAL at 2016-11-26 09:15 PM | Reply

"BS America is not a democracy and never was."

It is a representative democracy and always has been since the Constitution was ratified by the states. Compromises, such as the idiotic Electoral College were made to get the slave states to join the union. Those states, with relatively small populatons of legal voters, wouldn't join unless the union gave them more power than their populations deserved. We're still paying for this wrongheaded gift to slave owners.

#29 | Posted by danni at 2016-11-26 09:18 PM | Reply

It is a representative democracy

LOL....meaning a Republic!

#30 | Posted by Crassus at 2016-11-26 09:36 PM | Reply

Thank you Danni. So let's follow the "original intent of the Founders and let individual white landowners vote 3/5 th's extra-proportionately in the place of every Census-admitted "black" person living within each state's borders ala the original Constitution.

I think Scalia might approve aft,er all it was the Founder's intent.

#31 | Posted by tonyroma at 2016-11-26 09:41 PM | Reply

It is a representative democracy

LOL....meaning a Republic!

#30 | Posted by Crassus

Stop quibbling over a freakin' word. It is a limited democracy with protections for the minority. However all decisions, by default, are made by a majority vote of some body or other. The point here is that a majority of people who voted did not want Trump elected President. Electoral College aside, why is rule by a minority in any way preferable over rule by the majority? If our country doesn't do what the majority of us want, at least most of the time, then what is the point, and how is that "self-government"? How is that "consent of the governed"?

#32 | Posted by WhoDaMan at 2016-11-26 09:46 PM | Reply


It is a representative democracy and always has been since the Constitution was ratified by the states. Compromises, such as the idiotic Electoral College were made to get the slave states to join the union. Those states, with relatively small populatons of legal voters, wouldn't join unless the union gave them more power than their populations deserved. We're still paying for this wrongheaded gift to slave owners.

#29 | Posted by danni at 2016-11-26 09:18 PM | Reply | Flag:

What the, many of the states for it were in the North, also the wordings against it directly attacked the point of the more populous states deciding things while ignoring states like Rhode Island.

Win a majority of the states rather.

Not true either. You just need to win a minority of influential states.

#25 | Posted by REDIAL at 2016-11-26 09:09 PM | Reply | Flag:
#26 | Posted by tonyroma at 2016-11-26 09:14 PM | Reply | Flag:

Ok fine, rather than winning the 4 states that make up the majority of the population in the country, you have to win only win 11. Thanks for pointing that out.

#33 | Posted by daniel_3 at 2016-11-26 09:54 PM | Reply


It is a limited democracy with protections for the minority.

#32 | Posted by WhoDaMan at 2016-11-26 09:46 PM | Reply | Flag:

In other words, it's a republic.

#34 | Posted by daniel_3 at 2016-11-26 09:55 PM | Reply


It is a limited democracy with protections for the minority.

#32 | Posted by WhoDaMan at 2016-11-26 09:46 PM | Reply | Flag:

In other words, it's a republic.

#35 | Posted by daniel_3 at 2016-11-26 09:55 PM | Reply

"Except that all decisions are made based on a majority vote."

Not always true.

For example, 41 Senators can stop any and all legislation.

#36 | Posted by Danforth at 2016-11-26 10:01 PM | Reply

It is a limited democracy with protections for the minority.

And for some strange reason I thought the left like this, oh, until it doesn't serve to their advantage.

#37 | Posted by Crassus at 2016-11-26 10:03 PM | Reply

Thanks for pointing that out.

You are most welcome.

#38 | Posted by REDIAL at 2016-11-26 10:18 PM | Reply

It's actually a republic designed to give slave states more power than their populations would deserve.

#39 | Posted by danni at 2016-11-26 11:11 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

It's actually a republic designed to give slave states more power than their populations would deserve.
#39 | POSTED BY DANNI

You should mention this to RCade.... he doesn't quite get it...

#40 | Posted by AndreaMackris at 2016-11-26 11:21 PM | Reply

why is rule by a minority in any way preferable over rule by the majority? If our country doesn't do what the majority of us want, at least most of the time, then what is the point, and how is that "self-government"? How is that "consent of the governed"?
#32 | Posted by WhoDaMan

I agree, I want the voice of the *Majority* of the People to be heard loud and clear.
The Electoral College should be abandoned and let the President become elected by the will of the *Majority.
Let the will of the *Majority vote on things such as gun control, abortion and what to do with criminals.

    NO picking and choosing!
Every time something controversial comes up, put it on the Ballot.

#41 | Posted by phesterOBoyle at 2016-11-27 08:18 AM | Reply

Every empire that has ever existed on earth started out as a socially liberal enterprise. Even Genghis Khan and the Persian as well as the Byzantine empires allowed their subjects freedom as long as they paid tribute. I am sick of ignorant wingers claiming America is somehow 'special' in the freedoms department or that we have a long-term workable system.

Ever empire to ever exist failed because of two conditions - Internal corruption, and that corruption leading to authoritarian policies.

The Germanic peoples didn't conquer the Roman and Mongol empires (etc...). They just walked in after those empires had already imploded.

If America was a place where intelligence was valued, we could use that knowledge to help prevent the long slow destruction of America.

I agreed with very little Zatiochi (RIP) used to say, but 'enjoy your extinction' seems to be very appropriate.

#42 | Posted by kudzu at 2016-11-27 09:04 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"Is This How Democracy Ends?"

Very simple question. De Tocqueille answered it two centuries ago.

" "The American Republic will endure, until politicians realize
they can bribe the people with their own money."

""A democracy is always temporary in nature;
it simply cannot exist as a permanent form of government.
A democracy will continue to exist up until the time that voters discover
that they can vote themselves generous gifts from the public treasury.
From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates
who promise the most benefits from the public treasury,
with the result that every democracy will finally collapse
due to loose fiscal policy, which is always followed by a dictatorship"

Whew..."generous gifts from the public treasury." Maybe we have dodged a bullet. I think he means "gifts" like free healthcare, free college tuition, free housing, free phones etc. etc. Once THIS dictator, with a pen and a phone, is gone, I hope we can begin to cure some of the country's ills and stop the slide.

#43 | Posted by jestgettinalong at 2016-11-27 09:30 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"A democracy is always temporary in nature;
it simply cannot exist as a permanent form of government."

And I hope all you ignorant useful-idiots out there will take that to heart and understand why we are a REPUBLIC rather than a direct-democracy. Once you do enough study to figure that out, do a little study on socialism and try to understand the fallacy of THAT one.

#44 | Posted by jestgettinalong at 2016-11-27 09:38 AM | Reply

#43

You again misconstrue what should be the obvious meaning of those sage words. Government-sponsored/subsidized healthcare, education, housing, and communications are hardly things that don't benefit all of our society (as well as the capitalists needing a healthy, educated and connected workforce). These are not "gifts," they are benefits for which the populace themselves are taxed proportionately to pay for.

The gist of the remarks are directed towards the greed of those able to influence government to redistribute huge amounts of funds from other taxpayers or absolve certain groups of well-heeled individuals from providing what should their fair share in taxes toward the overall good of society as a whole. Politicians don't respond to individuals who cannot provide them with the funds necessary for the elective purposes, they respond to and for those wealthy individuals and corporate entities who provide the mother's milk of politics: campaign cash. And in return these people usually get to gorge themselves at the public trough of tax dollars far beyond any appreciable benefit their enterprises benefit the public at large.

Today, the "majority" continues to vote for politicians who live to them by saying the repeated lowering of taxes by those already possessing disproportionate wealth and power will somehow improve the fiscal status of every taxpayer when there is not a single example of this being true after more than 30 years of trying. We redirect money away from the actual societal needs of the numerical majority in favor of using government to serve the greed of the wealthy as our public institutions fight each other for survival without the funds necessary to serve the public's needs.

The public keeps voting to push more money upward and then stews about so little of it ever returning downward where it's needed most while missing the fact that their own electoral choices are to blame, not those who point out the need and destitution lying in the wake of their preferred policies.

#45 | Posted by tonyroma at 2016-11-27 09:45 AM | Reply

Appeal to authority?
Without the context of De Tocqueille's writings?
Either you misconstrue De Tocqueville motivations horribly to support your ideology, or perhaps you're simply planning for the Trump dictatorship.
Perhaps both. {sigh}

#46 | Posted by YAV at 2016-11-27 09:48 AM | Reply

#46 was for #43 and #44, not #45.

#47 | Posted by YAV at 2016-11-27 09:50 AM | Reply

The gist of the remarks are directed towards the greed of those able to influence government to redistribute huge amounts of funds from other taxpayers or absolve certain groups of well-heeled individuals from providing what should their fair share in taxes toward the overall good of society as a whole.

What you don't seem to understand is we as a people should have to worry about influence to those who represent us, the push to allow government to try an absolve these problems by redistributing funds is the appeasement allowing our representatives to only represent us half way.

The only influence should be for the benefit of all, and the constituents, and some how it appears people here miss this.

#48 | Posted by Crassus at 2016-11-27 09:54 AM | Reply

Politicians don't respond to individuals who cannot provide them with the funds necessary for the elective purposes, they respond to and for those wealthy individuals and corporate entities who provide the mother's milk of politics

The current heart of the DNC!

#49 | Posted by Crassus at 2016-11-27 09:56 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Today, the "majority" continues to vote for politicians who live to them by saying the repeated lowering of taxes by those already possessing disproportionate wealth and power will somehow improve the fiscal status of every taxpayer when there is not a single example of this being true after more than 30 years of trying.

And yet the support here for those 30 years of Hillary is never ending? It is amazing after this election there are those who are still trying to put this same type of individual in office even after a clear loss.

#50 | Posted by Crassus at 2016-11-27 09:59 AM | Reply

We redirect money away from the actual societal needs of the numerical majority in favor of using government to serve the greed of the wealthy as our public institutions fight each other for survival without the funds necessary to serve the public's needs.

This is because so many blame the fault of those who have as the problem and re-elect those who perpetuate the problem.

#51 | Posted by Crassus at 2016-11-27 10:01 AM | Reply

The only influence should be for the benefit of all, and the constituents, and some how it appears people here miss this.

#48 | POSTED BY CRASSUS

Does not an educated, healthy, communication-connected populace/workforce "benefit us all"? This was the genesis of the lament that voters wishing these things from their government were leading to it's downfall. Aren't these conditions foundational to economic success and increasing of the tax base for our entire society compared to the costs of crime, incarceration and catastrophic health care costs for those without insurance?

It appears you and Jest "miss that."

#52 | Posted by tonyroma at 2016-11-27 10:03 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

And the biggest problem is those who align themselves with a single party and can't get past both parties are doing the same thing, but that's 30 year of one side thinking they have been trying to correct the problem these 30 years while occupying the office for the majority of the time, it's a true dementia brain wash of partisan politics.

Defending numbers that don't make sense for the purpose of party....never happens, all the while pushing the same political politician to perform the last 30 year endeavor. The only hope is we as a nation can persevere through this.

#53 | Posted by Crassus at 2016-11-27 10:06 AM | Reply

Now the name callin shall begin!

#54 | Posted by Crassus at 2016-11-27 10:07 AM | Reply

Does not an educated, healthy, communication-connected populace/workforce "benefit us all"? This was the genesis of the lament that voters wishing these things from their government were leading to it's downfall. Aren't these conditions foundational to economic success and increasing of the tax base for our entire society compared to the costs of crime, incarceration and catastrophic health care costs for those without insurance?

You didn't address the point of the post, but then that wouldn't fit the narrative you are pushing.

#55 | Posted by Crassus at 2016-11-27 10:08 AM | Reply

You didn't address the point of the post, but then that wouldn't fit the narrative you are pushing.

#55 | Posted by Crassus at

Yes, let's talk narratives. I've a vast interest in the one you're pushing.

If HRC wins the presidency after all, because systematic fraud for Trump CONTINUES to be uncovered, will you accept the outcome? If not, then what exactly will you do?

#56 | Posted by Zed at 2016-11-27 10:13 AM | Reply

Now the name callin shall begin!

#54 | Posted by Crassus at 2016

Are you th same Crassus whose skull was made into a drinking cup after he attacked the Parthians?

#57 | Posted by Zed at 2016-11-27 10:14 AM | Reply | Funny: 2

If HRC wins the presidency after all, because systematic fraud for Trump CONTINUES to be uncovered, will you accept the outcome? If not, then what exactly will you do?

This isn't worth addressing, it shows you have no interest in actual conversation but grind of party partisanship.

#58 | Posted by Crassus at 2016-11-27 10:21 AM | Reply

"Either you misconstrue De Tocqueville motivations horribly to support your ideology, or perhaps you're simply planning for the Trump dictatorship."

I didn't misconstrue a thing and I'm certainly not planning for a Trump dictatorship. The closest I have come to that in my lifetime (and I was born in FDR's second term) was Barackus Maximus' pen and phone. Understand that I was never a Trump supporter, but I found it necessary to vote for him to prevent disaster with The Hillabeast. During this administration, the federal government has about taken over healthcare, student loans, education, doubled national debt, gone around Congress, and formed more of a dictatorship than any other. We're very close to socialism or fascism already with the government so incestuous with major corporations and banks. I love what Friedman said...

"We have a system that increasingly
taxes work and subsidizes non-work."

- Milton Friedman

And Henry Ford...

"Any man who thinks he can be happy and prosperous by
letting the Government take care of him,
better take a closer look at the American Indian."

- Henry Ford

And Margaret Thatcher...

"The problem with socialism is that you eventually
run out of other people's money."

- Margaret Thatcher

#59 | Posted by jestgettinalong at 2016-11-27 10:22 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

Zed, maybe look up a little history of crassus and you might find out the reason for the name but that might be beyond you.

#60 | Posted by Crassus at 2016-11-27 10:24 AM | Reply

Is this how democracy ends.....LOL!

Hillary violated law with server, deleted emails all to circumvent the masses from knowing what she was doing and so many are defending what they truly know to be wrong. In fact if we did such thing to our parents we would be embarrassed but relish in the fact of the naïve fooling we did and continue. And for some disgusting reason people are supporting such do to some long standing notion that this party and Hillary will be different.....Are you kidding me????!!!!!

Naïve is those who defend and accept such.

#61 | Posted by Crassus at 2016-11-27 10:29 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"It appears you and Jest "miss that."

I don't think we miss so much, Crassus. It's just that we don't agree with their tripe so they assume we have missed their verbal jewels of wisdom that they want the economy and everything else controlled by the BIG gubmint. Trump says he's going to return a lot of things to the states. We'll see...

#62 | Posted by jestgettinalong at 2016-11-27 10:29 AM | Reply

You didn't address the point of the post

I addressed the point of MY post which is all I care to do.

This isn't worth addressing, it shows you have no interest in actual conversation but grind of party partisanship.

Discussing the possibility of the WI presidential results changing due to a recount is in and of itself "partisan" after 1126 phantom votes benefiting Trump have already been confirmed and deleted by election officials in one county?

You're irrational.

#63 | Posted by tonyroma at 2016-11-27 10:30 AM | Reply

I'm certainly not planning for a Trump dictatorship.

To think trump dictatorship is coming from an emotion of a child.

#64 | Posted by Crassus at 2016-11-27 10:31 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

I addressed the point of MY post which is all I care to do.

Nice out, you kept to your pushing narrative.

#65 | Posted by Crassus at 2016-11-27 10:33 AM | Reply

There are an awful lot of Romans named Crassus, CRASSUS. Maybe you'll give us a little hint about which one you identify with.

Please let it be the man who helped stab to death an unarmed man in the Roman Senate.

#66 | Posted by Zed at 2016-11-27 10:37 AM | Reply

Nice out, you kept to your pushing narrative.

I keep pushing the common sense unarguable truth at least as it regards this topic. Answer the questions, does a healthy, educated, and connected populace/workforce benefit society as a whole compared to the alternative of a sick, ignorant, unreachable populace/workforce, yes or no? Is there an unquestioned communal benefit to providing these things to the general taxpaying public at large where the end value gained outweighs the initial cost spend of doing so?

Aren't you capable of recognizing truths when you see them or only when they fit your own warped perceptions of reality?

#67 | Posted by tonyroma at 2016-11-27 10:40 AM | Reply

To think trump dictatorship is coming from an emotion of a child.

#64 | Posted by Crassus at

I think that if it's left up to people like you, we might have dictatorship.

Donald Trump is not a good man. Why have you never seen that?

#68 | Posted by Zed at 2016-11-27 10:41 AM | Reply

Discussing the possibility of the WI presidential results changing due to a recount is in and of itself "partisan" after 1126 phantom votes benefiting Trump have already been confirmed and deleted by election officials in one county?

You're irrational.

LOL....You have not thought about this much, party clouding your judgment?

#69 | Posted by Crassus at 2016-11-27 10:41 AM | Reply

I think that if it's left up to people like you, we might have dictatorship.

Child!

#70 | Posted by Crassus at 2016-11-27 10:42 AM | Reply

I keep pushing the common sense unarguable truth at least as it regards this topic.

No, you push it to a party partisanship narrative nothing more.

#71 | Posted by Crassus at 2016-11-27 10:44 AM | Reply

Now the name callin shall begin!

Hm.

#72 | Posted by YAV at 2016-11-27 10:45 AM | Reply

Child!

#70 | Posted by Crassus

Well, I suppose that one of us would have to be. Black and white, dichotomous issues of truth really don't come up that often.

I'll make sure to send you some Pampers.

#73 | Posted by Zed at 2016-11-27 10:46 AM | Reply

Answer the questions, does a healthy, educated, and connected populace/workforce benefit society as a whole compared to the alternative of a sick, ignorant, unreachable populace/workforce, yes or no?

absolute stupid question, like you think any reasonable person would say no to the first and yes to the second. And it is even worse to think trump prefers the second. Naïve and childish that comes with party partisanship.

#74 | Posted by Crassus at 2016-11-27 10:48 AM | Reply

"Zed, maybe look up a little history of crassus and you might find out the reason for the name but that might be beyond you."

History is NOT their forte. Unfortunate too, they might have avoided a bunch of mistakes if they knew any. Eisenhower wrote a book named, "At Ease," in which he described how our evacuation from Europe so soon after WWII created a vacuum, the Soviet Union and the Cold War. Sounds very, very much like our evacuating Iraq so soon after the Surge was successful to me. We fought that "Cold War" for how long? Well, now we have ISIS for how long? Like you have been saying about The Hillabeast," do they not know HER history over the last decades? Hell, go back to the failed empires in the last centuries and learn from them. I believe the founders knew and that's why we have the Constitution we have...which our "progressive" buddies wanna trash. Like I often say, "useful idiots."

#75 | Posted by jestgettinalong at 2016-11-27 10:49 AM | Reply

#71

Can't or won't answer a simple question bereft of partisan context.

Please stop addressing me, it's obvious you have nothing of value to add but for insolent retorts and childish accusations.

I'd rather debate a child. At least there's some amusement in their ignorance.

#76 | Posted by tonyroma at 2016-11-27 10:50 AM | Reply

History is NOT their forte.

#75 | Posted by jestgettinalong at 2016

Ah, man. I just asked the man to state which, among a million Romans named Crassus, he thought he was. He either doesn't know or he's embarrased to say.

In regards to rest of your last post, I think that it will be proven that Trump stole this election with the help of Russia.

PROVEN.

If it is, whose side are you on?

#77 | Posted by Zed at 2016-11-27 10:52 AM | Reply

I believe the founders knew and that's why we have the Constitution we have...which our "progressive" buddies wanna trash.

Trashing it by asking that votes be recounted after finding false votes included in the preliminary totals? Trashing it by asking that the president-elect follow the dictates of the same Constitution and it's emolument's language and divesting his personal business ties with foreign governments and private individuals before taking the Oath of Office. Trashing it by noting Hillary Clinton has never been indicted, much less found guilty of any crime whatsoever regardless of what her detractors keep trying to preach as gospel? Trashing the constitutional right of being considered innocent until proven guilty?

Better take a look in the mirror before casting aspersions in only one direction.

#78 | Posted by tonyroma at 2016-11-27 10:55 AM | Reply

Is there an unquestioned communal benefit to providing these things to the general taxpaying public at large where the end value gained outweighs the initial cost spend of doing so?

Hmmm....this comes to my original point and never thought you would miss this, maybe ned and his altered ego....

answer:

What you don't seem to understand, we as a people shouldNt have to worry about influence to those who represent us, the push to allow government to try an absolve these problems by redistributing funds is the appeasement allowing our representatives to only represent us half way.

The only influence should be for the benefit of all, and the constituents, and some how it appears people here miss this.

#48 | Posted by Crassus at 2016-11-27 09:54 AM | Reply | Flag

I made a correction to the post for clarity.

#79 | Posted by Crassus at 2016-11-27 10:57 AM | Reply

How does Democracy for the United States end?
Welcome to Trump's Kakistocracy.

#80 | Posted by YAV at 2016-11-27 10:57 AM | Reply

Pretty sure this is the man: Marcus Licinius Crassus

#81 | Posted by tonyroma at 2016-11-27 10:57 AM | Reply

Can't or won't answer a simple question bereft of partisan context.

Oh yes, you are the unarguable truth and I should bow to you. Snark!

Please stop addressing me,

No problem, I see you are unable to realistically support you position.

#82 | Posted by Crassus at 2016-11-27 11:04 AM | Reply

It is nice that seeking to crack down on voter fraud is once again cool. Of course, it's only a situational urge, but I digress.

#83 | Posted by JeffJ at 2016-11-27 11:06 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

The only influence should be for the benefit of all, and the constituents, and some how it appears people here miss this.

My head is spinning. Please explain how the things I mentioned and that Jest... criticized are not in fact benefits for "us all."

Do we not all benefit from public schools and the education they provide for the vast majority of Americans?

Do we not benefit from allowing those among us without employer-provided healthcare access to primary and preventative health care insurance which will lead to lower expenditures of GDP on more expensive catastrophic and emergency healthcare because easily treatable conditions went undisclosed and untreated? (along with making sure providers are paid for the services they render and do not have to recoup losses from the rest of us having paid insurance or paying out of pocket)

Do we not benefit from providing a rudimentary means of communication and connection to the world for those unable to afford their own because of their present circumstances?

#84 | Posted by tonyroma at 2016-11-27 11:06 AM | Reply

Vote fraud occurs in every presidential election. Every. Single. One.

Question: To the extent that it occurred in this election, does anyone truly believe that it 100% benefitted Trump?

#85 | Posted by JeffJ at 2016-11-27 11:07 AM | Reply

"Aren't you capable of recognizing truths..."

Yeah, I am. All that spending, all those "free" benefits, all those "progressive" programs you bring up have been getting more and more bloated for decades and all those great "successes" you describe have NOT happened. For starters, the War on Poverty has cost trillions and there are more people in poverty now than when it began. There's a lot more, but not enough bandwidth to go into it all here. I'm not a brain surgeon, but I can see the War on Poverty AIN'T WORKING and all you idiots want to do is expand it and throw more trillions at it. That's your solution to ALL these failures. Time to seek some other solutions. HRC was certainly NOT going to do that.

"...when you see them or only when they fit your own warped perceptions of reality?

I can SEE the truth of what's successful and what isn't. If you think that's a "warped perception" of reality, then you must think the program I described above is a great program deserving of more trillions. In which case, I just have to shake my head and blame your "progressive" indoctrination in our fabulous school system and put you in the "no hope" class.

#86 | Posted by jestgettinalong at 2016-11-27 11:08 AM | Reply

Wrong thread, Jeff?

#87 | Posted by YAV at 2016-11-27 11:11 AM | Reply

#86

When did public education and health insurance become part of the War on Poverty? I can give you free phones, but there are only three items on your initial list, and poverty is not something that stays in place. People move in and out of it as we do places of dwelling. Looking at numbers alone does not provide the complete picture, but you already know that.

You opened your mouth, stuck your foot in it, and now can't stand the taste of your toes. Our Indiana State Constitution says this about public education and mind you , it was written in the 19th Century long before the word safety-net had been invented:

Section 1. Common school system

Section 1. Knowledge and learning, general diffused throughout a community, being essential to the preservation of a free government; it should be the duty of the General Assembly to encourage, by all suitable means, moral, intellectual scientific, and agricultural improvement; and provide, by law, for a general and uniform system of Common Schools, wherein tuition shall without charge, and equally open to all.

Damn bleeding heart liberals ruining America.....

#88 | Posted by tonyroma at 2016-11-27 11:14 AM | Reply

"Trashing it by noting Hillary Clinton has never been indicted, much less found guilty of any crime whatsoever..."

LOL...Probably believes OJ is innocent too. I feel exonerated for placing you in my "no hope" class for sure now.

However, for clarification, allow me to say my "trashing the Constitution" comment wasn't directed to Hillary, it was directed to all of you wanting to abolish the Second Amendment, the Electoral College and whatever else hinders the power of government.

#89 | Posted by jestgettinalong at 2016-11-27 11:16 AM | Reply

"When did public education and health insurance become part of the War on Poverty?"

I never said they were...BUT, since you mention them, they ARE two more failed programs. When Carter formed the Department of Education from HEW in the 70s, the U.S. was first in math, science and whatever. Now, we're way down the list in those subjects. Yet, we're third in spending, so, not being a brain surgeon, looking at it in realistic terms, I say it AIN'T a money problem but you idiots say it IS and want to throw more and more money at it. Same with Obamacare...it AIN'T workin'. What's your solution...more money! That's ALWAYS your answer because you won't admit it's broken and we need something else.

#90 | Posted by jestgettinalong at 2016-11-27 11:26 AM | Reply

#89 - That is one boatload of crazy. Now the right is against anything that "hinders the power of government."
No capacity for even a modicum of cognitive dissonance. Wow.

#91 | Posted by YAV at 2016-11-27 11:28 AM | Reply

"wanting to abolish the Second Amendment"

Hell, I just want it adhered to.

The problem is too many supporters of the Second Amendment don't support its second word.

#92 | Posted by Danforth at 2016-11-27 11:29 AM | Reply

Wrong thread, Jeff?

#87 | POSTED BY YAV

Yeah. I think so.

#93 | Posted by JeffJ at 2016-11-27 11:30 AM | Reply

it was directed to all of you wanting to abolish the Second Amendment, the Electoral College and whatever else hinders the power of government.

You project as vividly as Donald Trump. Please show me where I've advocated for the abolition of the 2nd Amendment. I feel that sensible regulations should not be viewed as unconstitutional when criminals and the mentally unstable have no problems getting their hands on guns and wreaking havoc on far too many innocent lives. The individual's rights to safety and security have to be balanced with the legal gun owner's rights to keep and bear arms. There should be room for both concerns within our laws and regulations, but this is not any call to eviscerate the 2nd Amendment.

I have made the argument that the purpose of the Electoral College has long since passed (eg., giving slave states electoral credit for slaves to balance the growing population in non-slave states) but the mere facts underlying it's invention - to allow certain privileged citizens greater voting rights than others unlike them - are antithetical to any true representative democracy "Of the people, by the people and for the people." No free state exists where a select few get to cast ballots for others not even allowed by the same laws to vote for themselves or even enjoy the rights of citizenship. Frankly support for the unquestioned purpose behind the creation of the Electoral College is not only barbaric, it's anti-democratic.

Hindering the power of government? Aren't you the small government conservative? So I support the hindrance of government and this is to be scorned? You are just another situational hypocrite swinging between empowering the federal government when states go against your wishes and siding with states when the federal government tries to protect the rights of all its citizens from mettlesome state governments dominated by religious zealots and bigotry.

Such is my cross to bear and I carry it proudly. But what does this say about you?

#94 | Posted by tonyroma at 2016-11-27 11:34 AM | Reply

"Our Indiana State Constitution says this about public education and mind you ,it was written in the 19th Century long before the word safety-net had been invented:"

I just can't get through to you! Indiana STATE, not federal. That's who SHOULD be administering the Indiana school system. It's EVERY state that should run its own school system. My argument is getting the damn federal government o keep its fingers out of where doesn't belong and education is just one. You might have noticed that Indiana provided our next VP, is a red state, and has a better economy than others. Usually votes conservative, right? You should be proud of them. :-)

#95 | Posted by jestgettinalong at 2016-11-27 11:39 AM | Reply

"Now the right is against anything that "hinders the power of government."

Wrong, Yav, no surprise though...the right wants to seriously hinder the power of the Federal Government.

#96 | Posted by jestgettinalong at 2016-11-27 11:42 AM | Reply

Oh my word, trump being elected is going to end democracy......sounds like truly educated people....LOL.

The 66% of the uneducated sound so much more rational, but remember, they are uneducated says "Sheldon"

#97 | Posted by Crassus at 2016-11-27 11:44 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"Oh my word, trump being elected is going to end democracy."

Well, during the campaign, he promised to force soldiers to commit war crimes in America's name, eviscerate the First Amendment, and Article VI of the Constitution, for starters. He's also very likely in violation of the Emolument Clause.

Are these positions you agree with, or is your refuge the fact he's a pathological liar?

#98 | Posted by Danforth at 2016-11-27 11:49 AM | Reply

I just can't get through to you! Indiana STATE, not federal.

The federal government doesn't run education in ANY state -------. But the federal government does support state schools with federal funding. And because of this monetary connection, the federal government can and does regulate educational standards so that the general populace is educated similarly, again something that benefits the entire nation.

And ultimately, the point is that government AT EVERY LEVEL (local-state-federal) supports educating the American people as a whole.

Why don't you understand this unassailable fact and stop moving the goalposts with every post? Write what you mean to say so that it's understood and you don't have to add conditions to every subsequent post after your first.

#99 | Posted by tonyroma at 2016-11-27 11:54 AM | Reply | Funny: 1

Danforth, you are a smart guy, you can honestly figure it out!

#100 | Posted by Crassus at 2016-11-27 11:55 AM | Reply

The federal government doesn't run education in ANY state -------.

LOL! Now that is a true funny flag.

#101 | Posted by Crassus at 2016-11-27 11:57 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"you can honestly figure it out!"

Tell me anyway.

Did you vote for Trump because you agree with war crimes, or because you take comfort in the fact he lies all the time?

#102 | Posted by Danforth at 2016-11-27 12:00 PM | Reply

"Please show me where I've advocated for the abolition of the 2nd Amendment."

I'm not addressing everything specifically to you, Tony. I know not every "progressive" is anti-gun just as I know not EVERY "progressive" wants to eliminate the Electoral College.

"Hindering the power of government? Aren't you the small government conservative? So I support the hindrance of government and this is to be scorned?"

Hell no! If you support hindering government power you'll receive no scorn from me. And, yes, I AM a small government conservative. Some wires must have gotten crossed back up-thread or something.

"You are just another situational hypocrite swinging between empowering the federal government when states go against your wishes and siding with states when the federal government tries to protect the rights of all its citizens from mettlesome state governments dominated by religious zealots and bigotry."

No...no "situation swinging. To be as succinct as possible, the federal government should abide by the Tenth Amendment which certainly gives it the right to protect everybody's rights. The arguments come forth when one's rights seem to interfere with another's. The states must abide by the Constitution as well and cases like this is why we have a Supreme Court.

#103 | Posted by jestgettinalong at 2016-11-27 12:05 PM | Reply

"The federal government doesn't run education in ANY state -------."

The hell it doesn't! They try to run everything, even national speed limits. Do you remember when they set a 55 MPH speed limit and some states objected. The Supreme Court finally ruled the feds couldn't do that so the feds said...no 55 MPH, no highway funds. Everybody went to 55 MPH. Did exactly the same thing with the drinking age. Now, how do you think they control the schools? No Common Core...no fed money, that's how. Yes, any government can go over the line but the big offender is the federal government.

"And because of this monetary connection, the federal government can and does regulate educational standards so that the general populace is educated similarly, again something that benefits the entire nation."

Great! You made my point. The feds have no RIGHT to "regulate" educational standards in very state so that everybody is "educated similarly." I should say "indoctrinated with the same propaganda." They certainly ain't teaching math, science, geography, reading etc. A bunch of states have sucked it up and canned Common Core so we'll see where it goes in the next year. Talk to teachers, I don't know how they like it in most states, but the ones I talk to hate it as do most parents.

I've wasted a whole morning so I have to go do something constructive.

#104 | Posted by jestgettinalong at 2016-11-27 12:24 PM | Reply

"The feds have no RIGHT to "regulate" educational standards in very state"

And 9 of the 10 worst states for education are red.

www.thestreet.com

#105 | Posted by Danforth at 2016-11-27 12:31 PM | Reply

And 9 of the 10 worst states for education are red.

It's amazing that so many righties fail to identify the hypocrisy of seeing nothing wrong with private industry dictating personal liberty-limiting, non-work-related standards or conditions of employment that they then claim are tied to their profitability and efficiency of their business models, but the idea of the federal government having any say-so in making sure the taxpayer dollars routed to states actually accomplish the goals behind their distribution.

It would be one thing if the fed says x is the standard in some states and y in the others. A common goal of specified achievement in the area of education isn't so much about limiting the power of states as it is about making sure the taxpayers receive the results that they pay for. There should be recognizable middle ground that allows both to happen at the same time. When a business goes to the bank for a loan, they have to satisfy the bank's question's as to loan's purpose and likelihood of being paid back. The federal government should expect no less in this regard as it concerns educational dollars sent to states.

#106 | Posted by tonyroma at 2016-11-27 12:51 PM | Reply

It is nice that seeking to crack down on voter fraud is once again cool. Of course, it's only a situational urge, but I digress.

#83 | Posted by JeffJ

What is suspected in this case is election fraud, not in-person voter fraud, which is the only kind of fraud that would be prevented by voter-id. We have been complaining about election fraud (i.e., voter roll purges that remove legitimate voters from the rolls, erroneous machine results, etc.) ever since the 2000 debacle.

#107 | Posted by WhoDaMan at 2016-11-27 01:22 PM | Reply

The United States is one country, not 50 separate sovereign ones. That's what the States were, essentially, under the Articles of Confederation. That didn't work, thus a Constitution was written to have a much stronger national government than before. If the 50 states were, without any constraint from Federal standards, to do whatever they want with regard to education, what would be the meaning of an "American public school education", which once upon a time was the "gold standard" for most of the world? The quality of education one's children receive should not depend on which state they live in. It is not as simple as some would like to pretend to, say, move to another state to get a better education.

#108 | Posted by WhoDaMan at 2016-11-27 01:37 PM | Reply

-The United States is one country, not 50 separate sovereign ones

It's called the United STATES of America, not the United People of America. Take it up with the founders.

#109 | Posted by nullifidian at 2016-11-27 01:42 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

Take it up with the founders.

#109 | Posted by nullifidian

The States Rights thing was/is a concession to the slave states. Is that really something we should propagate forward into history forever? What is the real, objective value of that to a country? That in some places it's ok for ignorance to rule, while other places rely on logic and science? What positive results historically have we seen from it? It is most prominently used as a means to deprive certain citizens of their rights as US Citizens, or even of their human rights as outlined by the Declaration of Human Rights (written by the US, even though we never ratified it). You think that's a good thing?

#110 | Posted by WhoDaMan at 2016-11-27 01:48 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

It's called the United STATES of America

"United" is the adjective; states is the noun. The States are united

Definition of united

1
: made one
www.merriam-webster.com

One sovereign, not 50.

#111 | Posted by WhoDaMan at 2016-11-27 02:04 PM | Reply

Liberal losers.
Definition of a progressive: "Take from those that earned it and give it out to those you're trying to get to support more of this redistribution behavior."
If libs contend someone has obtained what they have illegally take them to court. Freebies for those that should have done more to obtain marketable skills but chose to party or just screw off has to stop. Choices have consequences & you gotta live with what you've chosen, or stand up and change it.

#112 | Posted by Major_kong at 2016-11-27 04:23 PM | Reply

"Definition of a progressive: "Take from those that earned it and give it out to those you're trying to get to support more of this redistribution behavior."

You've just described every large corporation in America.

Quick question: were do more tax dollars go? Welfare, or corporate subsidies?

#113 | Posted by Danforth at 2016-11-27 04:25 PM | Reply

#111,

You are wrong. We are designed to be 50 independent states, with as limited Federal govt as possible.. No matter how much you parrot that one whatever, it will never be true.

#114 | Posted by boaz at 2016-11-27 06:27 PM | Reply

Liberal losers.
Definition of a progressive: "Take from those that earned it and give it out to those you're trying to get to support more of this redistribution behavior."
If libs contend someone has obtained what they have illegally take them to court. Freebies for those that should have done more to obtain marketable skills but chose to party or just screw off has to stop. Choices have consequences & you gotta live with what you've chosen, or stand up and change it.

#112 | POSTED BY MAJOR_KONG

Trump's tax plan is all about more redistribution of taxpayer money toward the top 1% ...

www.drudge.com

Why aren't you working yourself a tizzy over all this free money going to so many people who really don't need it?

#115 | Posted by PinchALoaf at 2016-11-27 06:52 PM | Reply

"Why aren't you working yourself a tizzy over all this free money going to so many people who really don't need it?"

That's the $64 billion dollar question.

#116 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2016-11-27 07:09 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

You are wrong. We are designed to be 50 independent states, with as limited Federal govt as possible.. No matter how much you parrot that one whatever, it will never be true.

#114 | Posted by boaz

Then why was the Constitution written in the first place? What you are describing is the Articles of Confederation. The Constitution was created because the country needed a stronger national government. Yes, some states were reluctant (mostly the slave states) and compromises had to be made in order to get it adopted (e.g., the "Bill of Rights", and the 3/5ths Compromise), but they did create a Federal Government with "supremacy" over the states. And, at least in English, "united" still means "one". "E Pluribus Unum" means the same thing in Latin (out of many, one).

#117 | Posted by WhoDaMan at 2016-11-27 07:28 PM | Reply

"The States Rights thing was/is a concession to the slave states. Is that really something we should propagate forward into history forever?"

Sort of. The issue of states rights comes into play for many modern reasons that have nothing to do with slavery. Namely that if we were to operate as the State of America, instead of the United States of America, then many regions would go without representation. A majority of voters in coastal urban areas, for instance, could choose to make the whole of Wyoming a National Park. Or make public lands into wilderness, despite the fact that they were being used by local populations.

You're wrong on this one. We are the United States for a reason. And in the absence of a system where states have some equal level of representation, there will be a greater incentive to leave the union. And when you consider how much territory in this country is red territory, there wouldn't be a whole lot that could be done if they simply decided to break away.

#118 | Posted by madbomber at 2016-11-28 12:57 PM | Reply

"The Constitution was created because the country needed a stronger national government."

Yeah...not really. The Constitution was drafted to provide a means of both protecting the nation, while at the same time protecting the people from government.

#119 | Posted by madbomber at 2016-11-28 12:59 PM | Reply

Strange, when the left wins an election it's a triumph for democracy. When they loose it's the end the world. I guess they are pro democracy until they can't con people into giving them power and money. Nothing elects the right like the left having power for a few years.

#120 | Posted by docnjo at 2016-11-28 01:23 PM | Reply

"when you consider how much territory in this country is red territory, there wouldn't be a whole lot that could be done if they simply decided to break away."

When you consider the relative wealth and contributions, it would create one vital, productive country with a vibrant economy, and the red states would all start looking like the bastard child of Kansas and Alabama.

#121 | Posted by Danforth at 2016-11-28 01:24 PM | Reply

Worst. Losers. Ever.

They want to tear up the constitution because their entitled candidate lost an election. Pathetic.

#122 | Posted by nullifidian at 2016-11-28 01:32 PM | Reply

Pathetic.

#122 | Posted by nullifidian at 2016-11-28 01:32 PMFlag: (Choose)FunnyNewsworthyOffensiveAbusive

Donald Trump is mentally ill.

#123 | Posted by Zed at 2016-11-28 02:19 PM | Reply

Donald is mentally ill, and that means some power behind the throne will pull his strings, or Donald will step in some deep, deep doo-doo.

Charles Manson for Postmaster General. If it was ever Charlie's time, this is it.

#124 | Posted by Zed at 2016-11-28 02:24 PM | Reply

--Donald Trump is mentally ill.

Hillary Rodham is mentally ill.

See? Blogging is easy!

#125 | Posted by nullifidian at 2016-11-28 02:28 PM | Reply

--Donald Trump is mentally ill.

Hillary Rodham is mentally ill.

#125 | Posted by nullifidian at

Trump has been enabled to demonstrate the quality of his madness on a very public scale. Many would argue that he already is.

#126 | Posted by Zed at 2016-11-28 02:39 PM | Reply

Donald is mentally ill, and that means some power behind the throne will pull his strings, or Donald will step in some deep, deep doo-doo.

Charles Manson for Postmaster General. If it was ever Charlie's time, this is it.

Posted by Zed at 2016-11-28 02:24 PM | Reply

WOW That's an "OUT THERE" analysis.

#127 | Posted by LauraMohr at 2016-11-28 02:45 PM | Reply

"When you consider the relative wealth and contributions, it would create one vital, productive country with a vibrant economy, and the red states would all start looking like the bastard child of Kansas and Alabama."

Maybe. But they might be OK with that. And you're also forgetting that many vital, productive workers may choose to flee to areas outside of the west coast and upper Atlantic seaboard. Many already have. And controlling many of the natural resources consumed by the United States, it might even turn out to be a good deal. or not. Who knows. But it should be expected that the second tier states would flee a union that viewed them as such as quickly as the outlying SSR's broke with the Soviet Union.

#128 | Posted by madbomber at 2016-11-28 03:31 PM | Reply

"productive workers may choose to flee to areas outside of the west coast and upper Atlantic seaboard."

That's a silly assumption, they can do that currently.

#129 | Posted by Danforth at 2016-11-28 03:37 PM | Reply

"And controlling many of the natural resources consumed by the United States, it might even turn out to be a good deal. or not. Who knows."

Anyone who crunches the numbers.

Start with California, and proceed to the list of Makers & Takers.

#130 | Posted by Danforth at 2016-11-28 03:40 PM | Reply

Comments are closed for this entry.

Home | Breaking News | Comments | User Blogs | Stats | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | DMCA Compliance | Privacy | Copyright 2016 World Readable

-->
Drudge Retort