Re: USA Election Day 2016
![Post Post](./styles/prosilver/imageset/icon_post_target.gif)
If you don't mind the greasy furriner I think you are ALL missing the point.
I'm not going to discuss if the US is an Oligarchy or not. Why? not relevant. Why isn't it relevant? Show me ONE government that it's not. All elected governments are as subject to special interests with deep pockets as any other. Although I have to admit that the scale of the "Lobbying Industry" in the US makes me dizzy. Hell, I'm still trying to digest the whole thing about K Street. Entrenched racism? check. Remember the treatment of Aborigines in Australia. As vendic once commented, EVERYONE looks the other way till the shit hits the fan and then there's a lot of hand wringing till it dies down. Mistreatment of minorities? The UK, not only they did use Australian Aborigines as test subjects for Nuclear Fallout, up till 50 years ago, you could get arrested for being gay. There's not only the extreme case of Alan Turing, there's the case of Arthur C. Clarke, whom LEFT the UK because of the pitfalls of being a gay man there. Those two examples are the closest to the US. But the rest of Europe has plenty of dirty laundry and so do most Asian, and Latin American governments. And let's just not talk about Africa: the whole continent (yes Virginia, with the eager help of European Powers) is built on racial/tribal conflict. The only ones that "could" claim some sort of high ground are Scandinavian countries. However, the overwhelming majority are people of the same creed, race and (mostly) political inclination. So, I think that the majority in those countries has never felt threatened enough to act systematically against minorities.
Now IMHO what makes the US FEDERAL Government such a particular case:
Size: Countries with similar size and population of the US are China and Russia, China is a one party autocracy. Russia is Banana Republic with Nuclear Weapons.
Canada and Australia have large territories but population wise they have respectively 35 million and 23 Million people, so IMHO the problems are a LOT different because of their relatively low populations.
So: SO FAR, it seems that the only way to have a central government in a large country with a large population, that it's not an outright dictatorship seems to be the way the US did it.
Central Government. What makes the US unique is that the Central government is weaker by design than in other countries and MUCH less popular as well. The whole thing seems made with emphasis on the states.
The European Union is trying a somewhat similar approach with results that have been LESS than stellar. Setting up an actual Central Government at the European Continental level, has, so far been a failure.
I remember reading about a poll that said that one of the top fears of the people of the US is government corruption. Well, IMHO it must be government corruption at the FEDERAL level. Look at the mess in Flint, Michigan and that was all at the STATE level. Most people didn't even bat an eye.
It looks from here that the strategy from the Pubs was to work the states to get to the US Federal Government. They first got the state assemblies and governors, then they gerrymandered their way into the House, and then they worked their way into the federal government. What's the usual campaign "Dog Whistle" the Republicans use to let the racists or the evangelicals do their thing? "STATES RIGHTS", 'nuff said.
HALF THE COUNTRY DOESN'T VOTE: Hell, the only thing I can say about that one is that: things have been quite cozy for a lot of people in the US for a long time if they can't be bothered to vote (yes I know, probably those are the ones that complain about the federal government the most)
So, at this point, a large number of your check and balances are disabled. The three federal powers, and a large number of state governorships and legislatures are under the control of some of the scariest nutjobs I've seen in my entire life.
You know what checks and balances you have left? the professionalism (or if you prefer the institutional inertia) of your bureaucrats, particularly at the FEDERAL level.
Compared to our institutions, yours work pretty well, particularly given the size and complexity of your country. In ours it took several years and SEVERAL events to allow Chavez and his Cronies to destroy them and replace them with yes men.
So, once again what does the greasy furriner (and one that based how it went on his country doesn't have much sympathy for the left in general) think the US Left should do?
A) DON'T BEHAVE LIKE SPOILED BRATS
- That means that peaceful protests are of course very much a constitutional right (even in a Banana Republic like mine). But the organizers will have to make their damnedest to make sure there are no violent incidents. Yup it's hard but if the opposition down here (whom is not particularly smart. And remember, our government has an itchy finger on the guns) can do it, So can you.
- Last night a picture that allegedly was made by Breitbart where in a demonstration someone held a banner that said "Rape Melania" made the rounds on social media. It's not known if it really was made up by Breitbart or if it really happened. But if it actually happened, that just makes the left look just like the right and makes those voters that, as the article Rommie posted says bought "The Cinemax Deal" feel better by saying "So I voted for a platform that included racism and nutjobs, well the other side ain't much better, it's not my fault!". Again the organizers of those protests must work very hard for that not to happen.
The only checks and balances left are the professionalism of your bureaucrats. So how to keep them? It took three events here for Chavez to destroy our institutions:
1) The Quasi Coup of 2002
2) The General Strike of 2002/2003
3) The Legislative Elections of 2004/2005, where the opposition refused to participate, allowing Chavez to take absolute control of the Legislative Assembly
The first one is highly unlikely to happen. But, if rumors are true it was AFTER that when Chavez's most extreme cronies became relevant. So THAT doesn't need to happen in the US because the nutjobs are all very relevant right now.
The second one is also unlikely (but less so) because organizing an effort like that in the US would probably be quite hard. BUT, the fact that it happened allowed Chavez to take absolute control on one of our most critical points. Foreign Currency Exchange (remember in this country, most finished goods have always been imported) So, if a similar event allowed the nutjobs to fill the mid/low level bureaucracy of a particularly sensitive area of the executive with their cronies, THAT would be a much bigger disaster than the current one.
The third one is one that is more likely, particularly at the state level. DON'T LET THAT HAPPEN.
IF the left starts behaving like spoiled brats, it puts the focus on them, not the nutjobs. Assuming there's any credibility left in the pre-election polls. Trump's ratings went sharply down when the spotlight was on him, Not on Hillary. And if you ask me, the leadership of the US Democratic Party knows this. They are making themselves scarce, letting the spotlight on Trump. There's already talk that Trump is flip-flopping on parts of Obamacare. That the wall will be at first a "fence", that his surrogates are planning on payback to the Republican's who didn't back Trump, which IMHO explains the reports that he's padding his team with the people he claimed he was going to get rid of: "Lobbyists", probably most of the Republican "Apparatchiks" won't work with him, because even the opportunists that now suddenly discovered their loyalty to Trump will be kicked of the reservation out of spite. If reports are true, THEY didn't think they'd win either. So a lot of the groundwork to take over has to be done very fast and probably very sloppily. AND most importantly, the promise that would buy Trump time while the base discovered that Manufacturing jobs will NOT be coming back (as Fisher already said), Infrastructure spending, has already been dismissed by Congress. THAT promise could allow Trump to consolidate his base early. Well, it looks like it ain't going to happen. What did Pelosi do? she said "We'd be happy to vote for an infrastructure bill". VERY smart Move.
Again, it has to be stressed. Whatever kind of government system the US is, it starts at the state level. the Central Government is a consequence not a cause. If the US Left wants to gain enough power to get anything done, it will have to work the states, then the legislature and then the Federal Executive
So this "greasy furriner"'s three point plan would be:
- Keep Calm
- "Fish on Troubled Waters"
- Work the States.
Why do I stick my nose on this? considering the huge sway the US has on international politics, that the fact that the US Executive has much more discretionary control over foreign than over domestic policies, that right now all that is going to be handed over to a Moron who can't control his twitter feed, let alone his dick, AND on top of that his backup behaves like he's that US president from John Carpenter's "Escape from LA" scares the living crap out of me.
As usual, edited for clarity and spelling
I'm not going to discuss if the US is an Oligarchy or not. Why? not relevant. Why isn't it relevant? Show me ONE government that it's not. All elected governments are as subject to special interests with deep pockets as any other. Although I have to admit that the scale of the "Lobbying Industry" in the US makes me dizzy. Hell, I'm still trying to digest the whole thing about K Street. Entrenched racism? check. Remember the treatment of Aborigines in Australia. As vendic once commented, EVERYONE looks the other way till the shit hits the fan and then there's a lot of hand wringing till it dies down. Mistreatment of minorities? The UK, not only they did use Australian Aborigines as test subjects for Nuclear Fallout, up till 50 years ago, you could get arrested for being gay. There's not only the extreme case of Alan Turing, there's the case of Arthur C. Clarke, whom LEFT the UK because of the pitfalls of being a gay man there. Those two examples are the closest to the US. But the rest of Europe has plenty of dirty laundry and so do most Asian, and Latin American governments. And let's just not talk about Africa: the whole continent (yes Virginia, with the eager help of European Powers) is built on racial/tribal conflict. The only ones that "could" claim some sort of high ground are Scandinavian countries. However, the overwhelming majority are people of the same creed, race and (mostly) political inclination. So, I think that the majority in those countries has never felt threatened enough to act systematically against minorities.
Now IMHO what makes the US FEDERAL Government such a particular case:
Size: Countries with similar size and population of the US are China and Russia, China is a one party autocracy. Russia is Banana Republic with Nuclear Weapons.
Canada and Australia have large territories but population wise they have respectively 35 million and 23 Million people, so IMHO the problems are a LOT different because of their relatively low populations.
So: SO FAR, it seems that the only way to have a central government in a large country with a large population, that it's not an outright dictatorship seems to be the way the US did it.
Central Government. What makes the US unique is that the Central government is weaker by design than in other countries and MUCH less popular as well. The whole thing seems made with emphasis on the states.
The European Union is trying a somewhat similar approach with results that have been LESS than stellar. Setting up an actual Central Government at the European Continental level, has, so far been a failure.
I remember reading about a poll that said that one of the top fears of the people of the US is government corruption. Well, IMHO it must be government corruption at the FEDERAL level. Look at the mess in Flint, Michigan and that was all at the STATE level. Most people didn't even bat an eye.
It looks from here that the strategy from the Pubs was to work the states to get to the US Federal Government. They first got the state assemblies and governors, then they gerrymandered their way into the House, and then they worked their way into the federal government. What's the usual campaign "Dog Whistle" the Republicans use to let the racists or the evangelicals do their thing? "STATES RIGHTS", 'nuff said.
HALF THE COUNTRY DOESN'T VOTE: Hell, the only thing I can say about that one is that: things have been quite cozy for a lot of people in the US for a long time if they can't be bothered to vote (yes I know, probably those are the ones that complain about the federal government the most)
So, at this point, a large number of your check and balances are disabled. The three federal powers, and a large number of state governorships and legislatures are under the control of some of the scariest nutjobs I've seen in my entire life.
You know what checks and balances you have left? the professionalism (or if you prefer the institutional inertia) of your bureaucrats, particularly at the FEDERAL level.
Compared to our institutions, yours work pretty well, particularly given the size and complexity of your country. In ours it took several years and SEVERAL events to allow Chavez and his Cronies to destroy them and replace them with yes men.
So, once again what does the greasy furriner (and one that based how it went on his country doesn't have much sympathy for the left in general) think the US Left should do?
A) DON'T BEHAVE LIKE SPOILED BRATS
- That means that peaceful protests are of course very much a constitutional right (even in a Banana Republic like mine). But the organizers will have to make their damnedest to make sure there are no violent incidents. Yup it's hard but if the opposition down here (whom is not particularly smart. And remember, our government has an itchy finger on the guns) can do it, So can you.
- Last night a picture that allegedly was made by Breitbart where in a demonstration someone held a banner that said "Rape Melania" made the rounds on social media. It's not known if it really was made up by Breitbart or if it really happened. But if it actually happened, that just makes the left look just like the right and makes those voters that, as the article Rommie posted says bought "The Cinemax Deal" feel better by saying "So I voted for a platform that included racism and nutjobs, well the other side ain't much better, it's not my fault!". Again the organizers of those protests must work very hard for that not to happen.
The only checks and balances left are the professionalism of your bureaucrats. So how to keep them? It took three events here for Chavez to destroy our institutions:
1) The Quasi Coup of 2002
2) The General Strike of 2002/2003
3) The Legislative Elections of 2004/2005, where the opposition refused to participate, allowing Chavez to take absolute control of the Legislative Assembly
The first one is highly unlikely to happen. But, if rumors are true it was AFTER that when Chavez's most extreme cronies became relevant. So THAT doesn't need to happen in the US because the nutjobs are all very relevant right now.
The second one is also unlikely (but less so) because organizing an effort like that in the US would probably be quite hard. BUT, the fact that it happened allowed Chavez to take absolute control on one of our most critical points. Foreign Currency Exchange (remember in this country, most finished goods have always been imported) So, if a similar event allowed the nutjobs to fill the mid/low level bureaucracy of a particularly sensitive area of the executive with their cronies, THAT would be a much bigger disaster than the current one.
The third one is one that is more likely, particularly at the state level. DON'T LET THAT HAPPEN.
IF the left starts behaving like spoiled brats, it puts the focus on them, not the nutjobs. Assuming there's any credibility left in the pre-election polls. Trump's ratings went sharply down when the spotlight was on him, Not on Hillary. And if you ask me, the leadership of the US Democratic Party knows this. They are making themselves scarce, letting the spotlight on Trump. There's already talk that Trump is flip-flopping on parts of Obamacare. That the wall will be at first a "fence", that his surrogates are planning on payback to the Republican's who didn't back Trump, which IMHO explains the reports that he's padding his team with the people he claimed he was going to get rid of: "Lobbyists", probably most of the Republican "Apparatchiks" won't work with him, because even the opportunists that now suddenly discovered their loyalty to Trump will be kicked of the reservation out of spite. If reports are true, THEY didn't think they'd win either. So a lot of the groundwork to take over has to be done very fast and probably very sloppily. AND most importantly, the promise that would buy Trump time while the base discovered that Manufacturing jobs will NOT be coming back (as Fisher already said), Infrastructure spending, has already been dismissed by Congress. THAT promise could allow Trump to consolidate his base early. Well, it looks like it ain't going to happen. What did Pelosi do? she said "We'd be happy to vote for an infrastructure bill". VERY smart Move.
Again, it has to be stressed. Whatever kind of government system the US is, it starts at the state level. the Central Government is a consequence not a cause. If the US Left wants to gain enough power to get anything done, it will have to work the states, then the legislature and then the Federal Executive
So this "greasy furriner"'s three point plan would be:
- Keep Calm
- "Fish on Troubled Waters"
- Work the States.
Why do I stick my nose on this? considering the huge sway the US has on international politics, that the fact that the US Executive has much more discretionary control over foreign than over domestic policies, that right now all that is going to be handed over to a Moron who can't control his twitter feed, let alone his dick, AND on top of that his backup behaves like he's that US president from John Carpenter's "Escape from LA" scares the living crap out of me.
As usual, edited for clarity and spelling