[QUOTE=Steamer;188122]Or in our case (the USA) Germany of the 1930s is a much much closer comparison. We are FUBAR and the masses are rallying around a total whackjob.[/QUOTE]
The German whackjob had a reason for being an amoral nightmare-come-true: he was a vet of Ypres. Donald’s trauma is more mysterious.
[QUOTE=lm1883;188132]I think your being a little overly dramatic. I firmly believe Ms Clinton is more apt to start a war than Mr Trump. If your interested, it would be worth investigating Victoria Nuland’s role in the Ukrainian coup and her ties to Clinton.[/QUOTE]
She’s always been a hawk. I’m not defending her.
You are correct.
If you keep the “printing presses” blasting away at the Treasury sooner or later the economy cannibalizes itself via hyper-inflation or compressionary-deflation. Either way it eventually comes apart.
The long-term pursuit of a zero-percent or near-zero interest rate policy by the Fed, which in some places in the world has even gone into negative interest rates, tells you that things are seriously bollixed up, both down in the engine room and up on the bridge.
Mark Twain said “History doesn’t repeat itself, but it does rhyme.” Shades of the French Revolution? You betcha’! as Caribou Barbie would say. One commonality being that the elites then largely never saw the unwinding of their status quo, and the subsequent bloodbath, coming, and our elites today seem equally clueless of what can happen and how quickly things can change when in an obvious condition of instability.
Weimar Germany? Check! Scared, angry and otherwise disenfranchised people will reliably rally behind a charismatic (or not-so charismatic) strongman who promises better times and maybe even some sweet revenge on whoever can be painted as the enemy, before driving everyone over the cliff.
So pick your poison: a possibly psychotic and parasitic “businessman” who specializes in the art of strategic bankruptcy and stiffing the contractors, or a conscienceless war-hawk and unapologetic career shill for what has clearly become a parasitic banking system. And both appear to be very accomplished pathological liars.
Isn’t freedom of choice bloody awesome?
A none-of-the-above option that would force a full stop and re-boot of the process would be a handy thing to have right about now.
[QUOTE=lm1883;188132]I think your being a little overly dramatic. I firmly believe Ms Clinton is more apt to start a war than Mr Trump. If your interested, it would be worth investigating Victoria Nuland’s role in the Ukrainian coup and her ties to Clinton.[/QUOTE]
Not nearly as interesting as Trump campaign manager, Paul Manafort’s, relations to the Putin drone Yanukovych, ousted in said Ukrainian coup. I think his Trumpness would most likely start a war, offering that the US maybe won’t fully honor NATO commitments would invite further Crimea style adventurism, or worse.
[QUOTE=lm1883;188147]Maybe, but Crimea is a bad example. They are 80% ethnic Russian there and were part of Russia (USSR) since the 1870s (taken from Turkey). Brezhnev gifted the Crimea to Ukraine in 1954 while part of the USSR so Ukraine’s claim to the territory is on shaky legs. Every Crimean I’ve met, and there has been more than a few, are happy to be part of Russia and tell me that this is the preferable outcome. The Crimean people desire to be part of Russia, voted to do so, we should respect that.
FWIW Yanukovych was the democratically elected leader of the Ukraine and since he has been deposed, Ukraine (now a failed state) is in much worse shape.
How much blood and treasure is the Ukraine worth? Because we are running short on treasure.[/QUOTE]
it helps that the Russians replaced the tartars they kicked out… The Crimea has changed hands multiple times since its initial annexing by Catherine the Great with support of Austro Hungarian empire. There is no historic claim before that, so it’s just Russian imperialism. Of course it was a strategic goal to maintain the sea access, hence its continual focus of attention by Russia. Populating with Russians is a helpful means of legitimacy, on one occasion, Russia crossed the border out of a proclaimed regard for Eastern Orthodox Christians so it’s not a particularly original story. But Ukraine was established, there is a rule of law, and the insistence and invasion to counter the loss of the vassal state is wrong. Sanctions over blood, and buffing up NATO is the best way to avoid further bloodshed.
[QUOTE=lm1883;188176]Misread it.[/QUOTE]
Thats good of you to say, I was wondering how the 1700s Englishmen you mention were into buffing up NATO.
Singapore is in the process of updating the way it elects a President: http://www.channelnewsasia.com/news/...y/3061564.html
Wouldn’t it be nice if the US had done something similar??
Sad news from Singapore: Former President S.R.Nathan died today: http://www.channelnewsasia.com/news/...r/3064846.html
He was a popular President and a long serving Civil Servant, but never held political office: http://www.channelnewsasia.com/news/...ndard#cxrecs_s
If I was still in Singapore I would have paid my respect in person. Now can only do so from here.
BTW This has nothing to do with the above post about changes to the way Presidents are elected, or with the subject of this thread, but I did not find anywhere else to put it.
No thanks our constitution is just fine.
[QUOTE=Fraqrat;189365]No thanks our constitution is just fine.[/QUOTE]
Yes it was for the conditions that existed at the time. Even the best of Laws needs to be updated from time to time.
At least you could add something to ensure that any candidate for President had the required qualifications to handle the job.
Nope the Constitution is just fine like it is. I wouldn’t expect you to understand. The only problem with it is…
[QUOTE=ombugge;189366]At least you could add something to ensure that any candidate for President had the required qualifications to handle the job.[/QUOTE]
Yeah, that’s right, we gotta make sure the next president is an experienced community activist 'cause that’s been working out just great.
And the action the president took which is unconstitutional is…?
[QUOTE=Lee Shore;189368]Yeah, that’s right, we gotta make sure the next president is an experienced community activist 'cause that’s been working out just great.[/QUOTE]
DAMN! This is exactly what this thread needs right here…gotta order one FedEx overnight!
I especially enjoyed the three pounds of RED Republican gummi bears being flushed down the ol’ shitter just like [B]“The Donald”[/B] is doing to your Party
.
Lookout: "Skipper! Political argument rising!“
Skipper” What bearing?!"
Lookout: "To the thread sir? None!"
Skipper: “That’s just what the bastards want us to think! Quartermaster! Sound Meme Battle Alert! Listen boys, they’re playing for keeps, so I don’t want to hear a peep of objectivity out of any of you! And don’t forget to limber up before stretching your points…”
Let’s not get into this. The vetting of an election cycle, in theory, should choose the best candidate, Or at least the one we deserve. That’s the pros and cons of having a democratic republic.
If anything we need to do a better job ensuring we have a well educated and civilly engaged electorate. Changing the constitution won’t create that though. The best change we could make for both parties and for ourselves as voters would be to turn over “Citizens United” and get dark money and out of politics.
[QUOTE=LI_Domer;189382]Let’s not get into this. The vetting of an election cycle, in theory, should choose the best candidate, Or at least the one we deserve. That’s the pros and cons of having a democratic republic.
If anything we need to do a better job ensuring we have a well educated and civilly engaged electorate. Changing the constitution won’t create that though. The best change we could make for both parties and for ourselves as voters would be to turn over “Citizens United” and get dark money and out of politics.[/QUOTE]
I agree that it should, but it may have helped to ensure that by setting some minimum requirements as to general knowledge and abilities, fiscal and monetary prudence, sobriety and honesty to qualify as a candidate.
To have a well educated and well informed electorate is a MUST for a true democracy to function, otherwise it is too easy to manipulate the result of any election.
Changing the Constitution to suite today’s reality would help. To have Delegates and Electors travelling for days to convey the will of the people in individual States is no longer necessary. The Electoral Collage system is unnecessary in today’s reality, when the result of popular voting is known nationwide as they are announced in individual States.
Doing away with this relic from a time long past would ensure that nobody can get elected President without receiving the majority of popular votes. Makes every vote count equally.
Black money is obviously the biggest problem, but also the easiest to legislate away, since it is NOT a Constitutional right, or obligation. Easy to say, impossible to do, unless the will of the people is behind such a change.
[QUOTE=c.captain;189377]DAMN! This is exactly what this thread needs right here…gotta order one FedEx overnight![/QUOTE]
That’s the best you can do? Rehashing old childish flushing turd jokes? At the risk of disappointing you, I’m not a fan of either “party”. Are we to pretend that neither party candidate is seriously flawed and that it’s a crap shoot (accidental pun) as to which one will cause the least amount of irreparable harm to an already wounded electorate?
Not a democratic republic at all. A representative republic and you may even say a representative democracy. Think you need to research countries that are “democratic republics”.
[QUOTE=LI_Domer;189382]Let’s not get into this. The vetting of an election cycle, in theory, should choose the best candidate, Or at least the one we deserve. That’s the pros and cons of having a democratic republic.
If anything we need to do a better job ensuring we have a well educated and civilly engaged electorate. Changing the constitution won’t create that though. The best change we could make for both parties and for ourselves as voters would be to turn over “Citizens United” and get dark money and out of politics.[/QUOTE]
While I certainly agree that we do NEED a better educated electorate, there are problems ensuring that. . . back in the ugly Jim Crow days, there were reading comprehension tests at polling places to ensure just that. Thing is, the black population at the time was largely illiterate, due to the nature of slavery. . . can you even imagine the outcry now, if there was a civics test? Hell, even the notion of obtaining a photo ID (Needed to obtain any government service) is an outrage these days. . . .
