US Erection 12 *AND* 16 *AND* 20 *AND* 22 *AND* 24

[SKYO]

TRUMP is IMPEACHED...finally.






my future post.

[Cornuck]

The only thing I blame Trump for is that he is cavalier with facts. To the extent that people trust the press like the village trusts (or does not) trust Peter, this is bad long term. Because truth matters and truth is a democracy-stabilizing force.

For the most part, a good post - but this line stands out as the understatement of the year.

"Cavalier with facts"? The man lies constantly, always changes his story and blames others. These are not signs of a leader, from boy scouts to the presidency. He is having a tough time with the press because they don't know how to cover him - although the MSM is responsible for his rise to power through over coverage, he brands them as an enemy of the people. Mocks them at his rallies. Things like this do not help a democracy, no matter how strong it is.

He has made it his mission to break traditional alliances and pull of out agreements without much thought. This will hurt any administration going forward - how will other countries expect the US to keep their word?

As for voting - yes, it's not that hard. Not enough to keep 1/2 the people away from the polls. But there are numerous tricks employed to discourage those who do want to vote. Whether it is gerrymandering, voter caging, or other methods like fewer voting stations, etc - and of course the president was "cavalier with facts" by declaring that 3 million people voted illegally (while having no proof of such).

The midterms will be interesting.

[UWSaint]

He has made it his mission to break traditional alliances and pull of out agreements without much thought. This will hurt any administration going forward - how will other countries expect the US to keep their word?

I don't think that pulling out of agreements is done without much thought. (I might quibble with "breaking" depending on which issue we are talking about, but that's definitional and uninteresting). I actually think these moves (Paris, trade generally, NATO dues, etc.) have been among the most intentional of his administration.

I think that Trump, right or wrong, is operating under the impression that it is not "trust" that keeps up relations between the US and other countries. It is mutual self-interest. And when the price of trust is greater than the cost America's self-interest (as Trump perceives it), trust (meaning "stay the course") is not worth it. So there's a renegotiation, and the answer will still be something that all parties will benefit from as compared to no understanding. But the US will benefit more, the other countries less than before.

I would call it using the United States' considerable leverage.

I've heard that Trump did this as a developer as well. Get to a deal. Quibble about something being done not as well as promised. Renegotiate. Pay less.

My point here is to be descriptive, not normative.

As for breaking alliances, which are broken? For all the hemming and hawing, which ally of the United States is no longer an ally because of something Trump has done?

[Cornuck]

As for breaking alliances, which are broken? For all the hemming and hawing, which ally of the United States is no longer an ally because of something Trump has done?

At this point none. But you could say that most are strained, or not as close as there were just a few years ago. As for mutual self-interest? Yes - that is the bottom line with most alliances. Just my opinion, but I think global trade prevents global war. Upsetting the balance could lead to unforeseen circumstances - and whatever any of us think on this hockey board, we have no real answers.

As for trust? trump has none to offer, so he can only go with leverage. And if he's running the country like his businesses, then it's not likely to work out well. He is used to deals involving a 'winner and loser' - and not 'what is best for both sides'. He wants to 'win' a trade war (whatever that means), he will bully other nations like they're a painting contractor about to be stiffed. Will he end up enriching himself and then declare bankruptcy and walk away?

I think you give him far too much credit, and I likely give him too little. But he has not surrounded himself with the 'best people' to guide through these incredibly complex issues.

[Topper]

Once again, the parallels come into clarity Donald, like Genius Jim, is playing the long game,making minor tweeks to the plan along the way, but staying the general course to the attain the end result.

Some are too short sighted to see, others are easily distracted by the media upping the signal to noise ratio. Either way, they are blind.

[Cornuck]

...is playing the long game.

So - for us 'blind folk' - what exactly is this stable genius' "long game"? To make the corporations even richer? To isolate the US? To divide the nation? The man is a failure, so I'm not convinced he knows what a long game is. I think he can see far ahead enough to know he's fucked over a business and to pull 'his' money out, so he can leave others holding the bag.

[2Fingers]

...is playing the long game.

So - for us 'blind folk' - what exactly is this stable genius' "long game"? To make the corporations even richer? To isolate the US? To divide the nation? The man is a failure, so I'm not convinced he knows what a long game is. I think he can see far ahead enough to know he's fucked over a business and to pull 'his' money out, so he can leave others holding the bag.

Give it up Per, his believers see only the truth they want to see.

[Strangelove]

I do not know what to say.
https://www.yahoo.com/news/trump-accuse ... 05093.html

Seriously this guy has some mental issues.

He says the State of California is diverting water to the pacific ocean and that is why they are having wild fires. And still so many people would vote for this guy. WOW. No condolences to the families that lost a loved one but blame everyone else for the fires.

He did not say “that is why they are having wild fires”.

He was suggesting the state’s environmental laws may be limiting firefighting efforts.

California’s environmental laws are designed to protect certain species of fish.

The amount of water that can be used to fight the wildfires is limited by these laws.

See, water from nearby lakes and reservoirs are normally scooped up and used in firefighting...

As for “condolences to the families” and whatnot:

TRUMP'S FULL REMARKS AT BEDMINSTER:
..............................................................................................................................................
--- THE TRANSCRIPT: “Before we start, I’d like to say a few quick words about the tragic fires in California. I’m monitoring the situation very close. My administration is in constant contact with everything going out in the state and with the local authorities and with the state authorities. On August 4, I declared a major disaster in the state and ordered federal assistance to supplement recovery efforts. It’s been a very tough situation taking place in California for a number of years. And we’re going to have some meetings about it, because there are reasons and there are thing you can do to mitigate what’s happening. We send our love and support and prayers to the families of those who have lost loved ones. They’ve never seen anything like it what’s happening."

-- “We’re deeply grateful to our incredible firefighters and first responders. They’re really brave people. I’ve been watching them go into areas where very few people would go. And some of them don’t come out alive. They’re risking their lives and they’re doing to contain these devastating fires so they can save our lives. My administration will do everything in our power to protect those in harm’s way."
............................................................................................................................................

Happy?

[Strangelove]

...is playing the long game.

So - for us 'blind folk' - what exactly is this stable genius' "long game"? To make the corporations even richer? To isolate the US? To divide the nation? The man is a failure, so I'm not convinced he knows what a long game is. I think he can see far ahead enough to know he's fucked over a business and to pull 'his' money out, so he can leave others holding the bag.

Give it up Per, his believers see only the truth they want to see.

I've been away for awhile, but you now think Cornuck is a sock of... Per's??

Just before I left you had suggested he is a sock of yours truly's.

http://www.canuckscorner.com/forums/vie ... 98#p311698

What gives Senior Sushi?

[Cornuck]

Just before I left you had suggested he is a sock of yours truly's.

It's just been mayhem... Doc... MAYHEM!

[Strangelove]

It's just been mayhem... Doc... MAYHEM!

Well then thank God the doctor is in.

[Per]

Hi Per. I haven't engaged in any political talk for years. Probably since the days of the other CC.
But I wanted to respond to my international friends.

Yay! My favourite republican enters the fray!
We may not always see eye to eye on matters, which I guess is almost a prerequisite for a good debate, but you always raise the level of discourse here, so I truly appreciate having you back.

* It isn't hard to register to vote in the United States. That people don't is a choice. Now if you think that people want to but can't, what are you saying about their capabilities?

It is sad, isn’t it? But, yeah. A lot of people are quite bad at finding and following simple instructions. Yet voting should not just be for the well informed or well educated. In a democracy all people should have a say, even those that have a hard time googling how to register.

* It isn't hard not to commit felonies. And if you do, voting rights are restored when your sentence is done.

In 37 states.

Then there are two (Maine and Vermont) that have a more European approach and let felons vote.

In 7 states (Alabama, Arizona, Delaware, Mississippi, Nevada, Tennessee, Wyoming) an individual petition for pardon is required for some crimes (and can be denied) and in 4 states (Florida, Iowa, Kentucky and Virginia) an individual petition for reinstatement of voting rights is required for felons convicted of any crime.

I would agree that it isn’t hard not to commit felonies. But then I’m very much the type of person that goes by the book. I read instructions. My children roll their eyes as I read the ingredients on labels of food packages before buying them. People with a lack of schooling, lack of funds, lack of impulse control and lacking familiarity with local laws may find it harder.

In some cases there may also be a discrepancy between what is considered socially acceptable and what is legal. For instance I understand that more than 40% of Americans smoke marijuana while the possession of marijuana is a prosecutable crime in several states. In Florida, possession of less than 20 grams of cannabis is a first degree misdemeanor, with penalties of up to 1 year in jail and a driver's license revocation. Possession between 20 grams and 25 pounds is considered a felony in Florida. It can result in imprisonment of up to five years. Now, for those still using medieval measures, one ounce is roughly 28.3 grams, which means that anyone carrying an ounce of weed in Florida could face up to five years in prison and permanent loss of voting rights.

Now, I’m not an advocate for legalization of drugs, but when something that 40% of the population is doing on a fairly regular basis can lead to a lengthy prison term… following the law becomes much harder.

It is of note that 10% of the general population in Florida, and 25% of black men, lack voting rights.

It is implied that these laws are used to restrict black voting. I do not know if this is true, but from what I read drug use is as widespread among white Floridians as among black ones, but those convicted of possession are overwhelmingly part of the black population.

And Florida is a notorious swing state.

*
FWIW, personally, I agree with disenfrachisement-while-serving-sentence as a policy matter. If you violate core and substantial components of the social compact (felonious crimes are those the elected representatives deem pose the greatest harm to society), you don't get to participate in making the social compact for awhile.

In theory, this sounds reasonable. I would even be inclined to agree to that principle. In practice, it is a slippery slope.
As shown in the example of Florida, what constitutes a serious offense is not always self evident.

In countries that are less than exemplary democracies, stripping felons of rights is often a method to cripple the opposition. In both Russia and Turkey, the leading opposition figures have been convicted of financial crimes, such as corruption or tax fraud, and as a result cannot stand for election.

Did they commit those crimes? I don’t know. Maybe they did. Most western governments believe they didn’t. But the main point is that if you have laws that can strip people of the right to vote or run for office, there will be a temptation to use those laws to harm your opponents and secure your grip on power.

In the case Hirst vs United Kingdom the European Court of Human Rights in 2005 found that general rules for automatic disenfranchisements resulting from convictions to be against human rights. This ruling applied equally for prisoners and for ex-convicts.

* It isn't hard to go to the polls on a Tuesday. You don't have to take off work. They are open more than 8 hours. And if you can't make it, some form of early voting is a feature in most states and absentee voting is always available.

* Yes, in some places, a polling place might be far away. And yes, this is a VERY BIG country with some sparsely populated areas -- these people (generally republican leaning) have a larger "cost" to getting to the polls (though the price of procuring a mail in ballot is the same). And at the margins, distance can mean some people decide it isn't worth their while to vote. Given early voting and absentee mail in options, the effects of this are mitigated. Isn't distance to the polling place an issue in every large country with rural populations?

* Last comment on this: policies have waxed and waned in the US in terms of ease of ballot access. Since the despicable Jim Crow laws were done away in the south (those laws passed by Democrats to keep blacks from voting, for my international friends' historical edification), though, the difference is that it is either easy to vote or very easy to vote.

In 2014 the voter turnout in Sweden was a measly 82.14 %. The media debated whether it is time to make voting mandatory, as in eg Australia, since when nearly a fifth of eligible voters opt out of the process, the results are not really going to be representative of the will of the people.

In the 2016 US presidential elections 55.7% of the voting age population actually voted.

You say it is easy to vote in the USA, but then, why don’t people vote?

One argument I’ve heard is that a lot of people disliked both candidates, but hey, there were third party candidates! Just show up and make your voice heard! If the 44.3% who did not vote had all voted for the same third party candidate, that candidate would have won.

And it wasn’t just this election. It’s pretty much every US election. Mid term elections tend to have an even lower turnout. Often less than 40%. And thus a minority of voters get to decide who rules the most powerful nation on earth. It is a cause of great concern.
http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/20 ... countries/

Voter ID? Yeah, [in Sweden] all voters must identify themselves, but we allow three methods:
1) presenting a valid photo ID
2) being recognised by an officer at the polling station that vouches for the identity of the voter
3) having another person with a valid photo ID signing an affadavit confirming the identity of the voter

In the US, many states use this system, but it is called "voter suppression".... (I think its perfectly sensible to have minimal integrity controls such as this in place).

I agree. What confuses me is the claim that many people in the US lack valid photo ID.
How do these people survive? Heck, the most common type of ID used in Sweden is your driver’s license. Most places I’ve been in the US, it is really hard to get by without a car. It puzzles me.

And really, people ask for photo ID for all kinds of services here in Sweden.
I don’t understand how you can get by without it.
Although, we can actually buy groceries without presenting it…..

[Per]

Danes are really pissed off by Fox network's fake news lies about Denmark:

https://www.thelocal.dk/20180814/comple ... -broadside

The danes responded with facts:

[Per]

Trump is not dismantling liberal democracy with his policies. You can like his policies or disagree with his policies, but they are not illiberal (in terms of a challenge to the democratic state). The idea that he is some kind of fascist strongman is one born of imagination, not evidence. Moreover, American democratic institutions are *very* strong; it is the oldest form of this kind of government after all.

He hasn’t yet. But he has expressed wishes to do so. It could stem more from a lack of understanding of the American constitution than a genuine agenda, but still. He is constantly challenging the freedom of the press, and has suggested changing libel laws so that more journalists would go to jail. He is frequently showing contempt for the judiciary branch, and has stated that a judge, born and raised in the USA but with a Hispanic name, could not give him a fair trial. He has suggested that it is treasonous to not applaud when he speaks. He is very impressed by dictators and how much their people loves them. He wants more military parades. He is sending out very strong signals that - at least here in Europe - make people think of Mussolini and other fascist leaders. He has fired one FBI director for investigating the Russia link, and he has talked of firing Mueller as well.
But sure, to be fair, so far it has mostly been talk and not actually put into effect.

I do share your view that the American democratic institutions are strong. And I do think they will survive a Trump presidency, but I think we need to be alert and keep an eye on what happens.

A question mark for “it is the oldest form of this kind of government after all” though.

The Icelandic parliament, the Allthing, held it’s first session in 930 AD. Sure, they formed an alliance with Norway in 1262 and then as part of Norway, became integrated in Denmark in 1397. They received a certain level of independence in 1918, but with the Danish king still their head of state. Then they were occupied by the UK during WW2 and declared full independence from Denmark in 1944 while also declaring itself a republic. But the parliament had been the main source of Icelandic decision making throughout this, even if it at times was reduced to local rather than national government.

Sweden can also trace it’s parliament back to heathen days, but it’s not an unbroken chain throughout history. From Viking days and up till 1520 Swedish kings were elected by parliament, and could be disposed of by parliament as well, but it was not a standing parliament, originally the parliament only gathered every third year. And from 1520 onward, there were a number of periods when the sitting king would rule without parliamentary consent. Then in 1712 the parliament strengthened, and passed laws that made them the main source of power again. They elected government officials and had the king reduced to a figurehead. During this period we passed the first freedom of information, freedom of speech and freedom of press acts anywhere, in 1766.

Unfortunately, in 1772 king Gustav III seized power in a coupe and made the monarchy more of a dictatorship again, even if he was a fan of Voltaire and other French philosophers of the time. After his murder in 1792, the parliament once again seized control, and since then there was more of a UK style power sharing between the parliament and the king that resulted in a new constitution in 1809, that more or less is the foundation of our current one. Now the monarchy has once again been reduced to just a figurehead, with no real power. Just a symbol.

The old parliament was not representing everyone though. It had four chambers; nobility, priests, tradesmen and farmers. Thus eg factory workers, store clerks or farmhands were not represented. It is kind of rare though that farmers had representation way back in pre-medieval times even. In 1909 all men above 21 years of age received voting rights, and in 1921 it was extended to women as well. Then at some point the voting age was lowered to 18.

But I digress. What I meant is, the oldest form of this kind of government depends a bit on how you define it. I think most people agree that Iceland is the oldest still functioning democracy around. But throughout Scandinavia and on the British Isles, parliamentary traditions go way back.

The American system of power sharing between separate legislative, executive and judicial branches has been proven very robust though and has been the inspiration of many other countries. Please try to keep it that way!

The only thing I blame Trump for is that he is cavalier with facts. To the extent that people trust the press like the village trusts (or does not) trust Peter, this is bad long term. Because truth matters and truth is a democracy-stabilizing force.
---
Trump's biggest problems in 2016 to any voter who would consider voting R were two-fold: (1) his character (e.g., statements about women, impulsive constitution, etc.); (2) his experience (it was difficult to imagine him being President). (2) is no longer an obstacle -- and as is the case with most things causing anxiety, the then-future was scarier than the actual-present.

I agree. Truth is important. You are entitled to your own opinions, but not to your own facts.
When people live in parallell realities, you can no longer have a meaningful debate.
Alternative facts are dangerous and could bring an end to democracy as we know it.

What puzzles me though is how the republican party and voter base, that traditionally has been very strong on moral issues, as well as on free trade, can form rank behind a figure such as Donald Trump.
Basically a con man, who has built his fortune on scamming contractors and banks, has known mob ties, has cheated on all of his wives (sometimes with his next-to-be wife) insists on insulting pretty much everyone - whether they be war veterans, traditional republicans, women, minorities, heads of state, long time allies or whatever – and now is starting a trade war based on outdated mercantilistic ideas.
I just don’t understand how a traditional republican, like yourself, can buy into this.

Is it as simple as Colbert suggested the other night; “yeah, I’m not really happy with his racism, but… you know, lower taxes…”?
Because frankly, you know, that's how a lot of Germans felt back in 1933.

[UWSaint]

Hi Per. I haven't engaged in any political talk for years. Probably since the days of the other CC.
But I wanted to respond to my international friends.

Yay! My favourite republican enters the fray!
We may not always see eye to eye on matters, which I guess is almost a prerequisite for a good debate, but you always raise the level of discourse here, so I truly appreciate having you back.

....

I agree. What confuses me is the claim that many people in the US lack valid photo ID.
How do these people survive? Heck, the most common type of ID used in Sweden is your driver’s license. Most places I’ve been in the US, it is really hard to get by without a car. It puzzles me.

And really, people ask for photo ID for all kinds of services here in Sweden.
I don’t understand how you can get by without it.
Although, we can actually buy groceries without presenting it…..

Per, you make a lot of fair points. One of the more interesting points (actually two points, but related) is that some states have laws that make felonies out of pretty routine behavior and that governments can also apply what are essentially regulatory laws (with felony penalties) in order to take out the political opposition if there is a disenfrachisement penalty.

As for the former, it begs the question -- if a general principle (violate the social compact, time out from voting) is valid but its application unjust (because too much is defined as being part of the social compact), then should the general principle be abandoned? Should it be modified so that only certain crimes (something less than all felonies) have a disenfranchisment sanction? Should we instead tweak laws so that ticky tack stuff aren't felonies? Me, I augur towards the last solution -- too much is considered a felony in the United States. But of course reasonable people disagree about what should constitute a felony.

As for the latter, I think its an objection that is valid but isn't really actionable (change the otherwise valid rule) until there is sufficient evidence it is happening and then the action should by to vote out the government doing it (or first expose it). While the US is not a place of political prisoners, there are instances where it seems that the machinations of government have been used against political opposition. Particularly when applying vague laws or laws that everyone breaks but are rarely enforced. It doesn't have to be jailing people, it might even just be defining their tax status (Lois Lerner, IRS, and conservative groups). Even the investigation itself can be quite chilling. Point is, this stuff is a real problem even when it is just a few cases and not widespread. And it is a problem because it is aimed at political activity (not just voting, but participating in the electoral process or the democratic dialogue more generally), and it chills not just those directly affected, but those who want to become involved.

As for the part of I've left quoted above, states that don't have same day registration have the motor voter law -- basically, you can become registered when you obtain your driver's license. I think some states do it automatically and others have a separate form to fill out but all the proof documents are the same. In that way, the system here isn't so different as Sweden -- you are on the list. (Though in 2000, my parents lived in Florida having recently moved there, registered at the DMV, and then weren't on the lists when they went to vote. As it was, I think one would have voted for Bush and the other for Gore....) And in fact, the state has to provide a free id to be used to vote (because poll taxes are unconstitutional). I think the "no id" crowd's concerns are less about people being unable to get an ID, and more about how effective same day get out the vote operations are. Oh, and not every segment of the American electorate wants voter integrity measures. Some people cheat. Of course they do. The size and the scope of the cheating is debatable (no, I don't think there were 3 million non-citizens voting...), the fact of it is not. I was in law enforcement once in my life; we had several voter fraud cases, fraudulent voter registrations, and double voting cases (and felony voting cases, FWIW). Our agency even caught an honest to goodness vote buying scheme (good job by the undercover!). And then there were voting irregularities that you couldn't pin on any individual -- precincts with over 100% turnout, dead people voting, etc. It happens. It might not have been enough to swing any election in my state, but it is real.

Last bit, be *very* careful about how you interpret data on Florida. 25% non-registered in Florida is a number from an activist NGO. When you dig past those numbers, understand that 11% of Florida's population is estimated to be non citizens. (https://www.kff.org/other/state-indicat ... 2asc%22%7D) If we extrapolate that 11% of the voting age population are non-citizens, this means that only about 15% of Florida citizens are not registered. Bear in mind also that Florida also has a lot of new people moving into it every year simply because its popularity as a place to retire (and a lot of people dying).

But the most interesting point is your question about why people don't vote. I think usually the answer is simple: because they don't want to. Voting is irrational. The likelihood that one vote is ever going to swing an election is a line approaching zero, yet the time spent not only voting, but learning about the candidates is significant. And the less competitive the state in a presidential election (or any election), the smaller the turnout (people acting rationally -- why vote in Hawaii or Utah?).

The reason why we vote is out of a sense of civic duty and obligation -- values that are rarely self-interest maximizing. In places where participation is more of an ethic, like Minnesota (a place with a considerable Scandanavian heritage, FWIW), participation is relatively high. In other states where I think there is ample evidence that communities are not as cohesive (e.g., West Virginia), turnout is very low.

It does not trouble me that people with a sense of civic obligation are the ones casting the ballots. It does not bother me that the electorate in any given election is comprised of a larger percentage of civil minded people than the general population as a whole (given that it is a matter of choice, not government policy).