|
Now that we have a new thread, in order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread |
On December 04 2018 01:31 chocorush wrote:Show nested quote +On December 04 2018 01:04 FueledUpAndReadyToGo wrote:Trump, having plead for 'rebuilding the military' for 716 billion dollars, and proudly presenting it as his great accomplishment + Show Spoiler +, finds out the military spending this year is whopping 716 billion dollars. An uncontrollable arms race! I mean I'd like a stop to the arms race too, and you guys could sure use 700 billion on other things, but nothing about this combination of statements makes sense. Then again I should stop trying to find sense probably. Trump's entire gameplan is getting praise for his terrific job of kind of restoring things back to what they were before crises he created.
Tyrants use power to create crises to which only they can solve, thereby ensuring the necessity of granting them more power. It has always been this way. The recent border 'crisis' is a great example.
|
On December 04 2018 04:25 Excludos wrote:
Technocracy sounds like a good idea to me.. no one's ever tried it tho so it very well might just be a pipe dream. But at the very least we wouldn't have to fight with our own leaders over scientific stuff like global warming
Problem with technocracy I see is to wonder why they should care about 90% of the population. From a technocratic point of view they serve minimal purpose and could likely be replaced by a computer or be removed since they produce goods with no value or do nothing. So how do you get them to care about the population when the easiest fix for issues in that area is to remove the people there (floodplains, houses in storm areas etc)?
|
On December 04 2018 04:25 Excludos wrote:
Technocracy sounds like a good idea to me.. no one's ever tried it tho so it very well might just be a pipe dream. But at the very least we wouldn't have to fight with our own leaders over scientific stuff like global warming
And who choses the technocrats supposed to rule? Themselves?
Welcome back to dictatorship.
|
On December 04 2018 04:25 Excludos wrote:
Technocracy sounds like a good idea to me.. no one's ever tried it tho so it very well might just be a pipe dream. But at the very least we wouldn't have to fight with our own leaders over scientific stuff like global warming
The point of democracy is that it IS supposed to be a technocracy. It is the best attempt and only attempt to recognise and to value human lives and wellbeing. The problem with technocracy is how to get there. How would you create a system where the people in power will work towards the goal of maximising human lives and their wellbeing? You would need a system which can recognise bad governance and either punish and/or remove those who do poorly and replace them with those who do better. You will need a government and people in that culture of governance to want to look after the wellbeing of their citizens. The few examples where this has occured is one where that nation is at risk of total destruction, to be in a state of purpetual war, against other forces which seek to utterly destroy said nation, where to govern badly would remove the government and people in power from power from the utter destruction of their nation and power structure, and even then they are only "technocratic" from the sense of military efficiency, not from the wellbeing of their citizens, and they usually are corrupt anyways.
People forget that the countries with long tradition of democracies actually arose that way through long wars and actually democracies in the "western world" occured by trail of fire where they won out against authoritarian and hierarchical forces.
|
On December 04 2018 05:06 Biff The Understudy wrote:Show nested quote +On December 04 2018 04:25 Excludos wrote:
Technocracy sounds like a good idea to me.. no one's ever tried it tho so it very well might just be a pipe dream. But at the very least we wouldn't have to fight with our own leaders over scientific stuff like global warming And who choses the technocrats supposed to rule? Themselves? Welcome back to dictatorship.
Democracy with technocratic requirements for specific positions (healthcare, transportation, science etc.)?
Anyone with a "reasonable" background in those fields can run/be appointed, but there are minimum requirements for each?
|
That sounds like a democracy where "the people" recognise that only "experts" should be elected to serve in the respective positions of government. Given this thread, I don't think the USA is ready for such wild ideas.
It also run counter to the American constitution that all men are equal. Not that ever stopped anybody.
|
On December 04 2018 05:06 Biff The Understudy wrote:Show nested quote +On December 04 2018 04:25 Excludos wrote:
Technocracy sounds like a good idea to me.. no one's ever tried it tho so it very well might just be a pipe dream. But at the very least we wouldn't have to fight with our own leaders over scientific stuff like global warming And who choses the technocrats supposed to rule? Themselves? Welcome back to dictatorship.
Thank you.
Technocracy is basically depotism but instead of charisma you need a degree AND THEN you need charisma.
Its a good idea in principle but not feasible at all.
|
On December 04 2018 05:22 Dangermousecatdog wrote:
That sounds like a democracy where "the people" recognise that only "experts" should be elected to serve in the respective positions of government. Given this thread, I don't think the USA is ready for such wild ideas.
It also run counter to the American constitution that all men are equal. Not that ever stopped anybody.
All men being equal doesn't mean a plumber should be consulted when deciding on federal interest rates.
|
Or a philandering, groping, reality TV star who can't form coherent sentences being president? Just joking. As if that will ever happen.
|
The founding fathers fears mob rule and demagogues just as much as they fear ruthless kings. They lived in the era of tar and feathering was an accepted form of public punishment, after all. It was because of their fear of the mob they they resisted the the temptation to put eduction requirements and other restrictions on voting. They knew the people of the county had to pick their leaders to believe in the system. This is why I alway laughed at people prone to magical thinking about new government systems that get rid of that pesky will of the people that elects morons like Trump.
|
On December 04 2018 05:33 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On December 04 2018 05:22 Dangermousecatdog wrote:
That sounds like a democracy where "the people" recognise that only "experts" should be elected to serve in the respective positions of government. Given this thread, I don't think the USA is ready for such wild ideas.
It also run counter to the American constitution that all men are equal. Not that ever stopped anybody. All men being equal doesn't mean a plumber should be consulted when deciding on federal interest rates.
The head of the fed is also appointed, not elected. We have selected positions within the government that the average citizens is not qualified to provide input.
But the point of the US government is to endure through idiots, not prevent them from being elected. The system is designed to minimize the amount of damage morons with power can do.
|
On December 04 2018 05:36 Plansix wrote:
The founding fathers fears mob rule and demagogues just as much as they fear ruthless kings. They lived in the era of tar and feathering was an accepted form of public punishment, after all. It was because of their fear of the mob they they resisted the the temptation to put eduction requirements and other restrictions on voting. They knew the people of the county had to pick their leaders to believe in the system. This is why I alway laughed at people prone to magical thinking about new government systems that get rid of that pesky will of the people that elects morons like Trump.
We're not talking about restrictions on voting here (that would led to an uprising real quick I think), but rather on the people who can be voted on. Not literally anyone should be able to become president, American dream or not. More importantly there are tons of positions in the government right now which are seemingly filled at pretty much random. Maybe it would have been a good idea to not give Trump and the senate complete freedom in who they choose for his cabinet for instance?
|
On December 04 2018 05:28 Velr wrote:Show nested quote +On December 04 2018 05:06 Biff The Understudy wrote:On December 04 2018 04:25 Excludos wrote:
Technocracy sounds like a good idea to me.. no one's ever tried it tho so it very well might just be a pipe dream. But at the very least we wouldn't have to fight with our own leaders over scientific stuff like global warming And who choses the technocrats supposed to rule? Themselves? Welcome back to dictatorship. Thank you. Technocracy is basically depotism but instead of charisma you need a degree AND THEN you need charisma. Its a good idea in principle but not feasible at all.
Talking like we are in high school about ocracies without applying them to the real world is a waste of time. Did you know we have actually have technocratic positions in the USA FED GOV? Did you know that we actually have had real experts in those positions before?
Compare and contrast these two energy secretaries:
Moniz is one of the founding members of The Cyprus Institute and has served at Massachusetts Institute of Technology as the Cecil and Ida Green Professor of Physics and Engineering Systems, as the Director of the Energy Initiative, and as the Director of the Laboratory for Energy and the Environment.[3]
On March 4, 2013, Moniz was nominated by President Obama to replace outgoing Energy Secretary Steven Chu for his second term.[4] His appointment was confirmed by the Senate in a unanimous vote on May 16, 2013.[5]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ernest_Moniz
On December 12, 2016, multiple sources reported that Perry would be nominated by Trump to serve as Secretary of the United States Department of Energy.[158][159] On December 14, 2016, it was officially announced that Perry would be nominated as Secretary of Energy by President-elect Donald Trump.[160] He was heavily criticized when he was first nominated because, during a previous presidential campaign, Perry (after briefly forgetting which of the three departments he wanted to eliminate) said he intended to abolish the department.[161] His nomination was approved by a 16–7 vote from the United States Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources on January 31, 2017.[162]
In a CNBC interview on June 19, 2017, he downplayed the role of human activity in the recent rise of the Earth’s temperature, saying natural causes are likely the main driver of climate change.[165]
In November 2017, Perry suggested that using fossil fuels to light dangerous places in Africa could reduce sexual assault, saying, "When the lights are on, when you have light that shines the righteousness, if you will, on those types of acts." Perry was criticized by the Sierra Club for "exploiting the struggle of those most affected by climate change."[166][167]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rick_Perry#Secretary_of_Energy
Can you tell the difference between these two men? The Moniz is a real global level scientist. An actual technocrat. Perry is a party man who spent his life working for the party who only marginally knows what the department of energy does. These men were not chosen by despotism. They were elected of sorts through the Presidential election system.
|
On December 04 2018 05:47 Excludos wrote:Show nested quote +On December 04 2018 05:36 Plansix wrote:
The founding fathers fears mob rule and demagogues just as much as they fear ruthless kings. They lived in the era of tar and feathering was an accepted form of public punishment, after all. It was because of their fear of the mob they they resisted the the temptation to put eduction requirements and other restrictions on voting. They knew the people of the county had to pick their leaders to believe in the system. This is why I alway laughed at people prone to magical thinking about new government systems that get rid of that pesky will of the people that elects morons like Trump. We're not talking about restrictions on voting here (that would led to an uprising real quick I think), but rather on the people who can be voted on. Not literally anyone should be able to become president, American dream or not. More importantly there are tons of positions in the government right now which are seemingly filled at pretty much random. Maybe it would have been a good idea to not give Trump and the senate complete freedom in who they choose for his cabinet for instance?
Yes, well the founding fathers thought about that as well. But the more that you limit the voters choices by adding restrictions on who can run, the more likely those restrictions are going to be abused.
Trump is a demagogue who filled his cabinet with idiots and yes men. But little of what they are doing will survive beyond his term.
|
On December 03 2018 21:39 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On December 03 2018 21:02 ReditusSum wrote:On December 03 2018 20:57 iamthedave wrote:On December 03 2018 20:55 ReditusSum wrote:On December 03 2018 02:18 Mohdoo wrote:On December 03 2018 02:08 Acrofales wrote:On December 03 2018 00:51 Gorsameth wrote:On December 03 2018 00:42 Silvanel wrote:On December 02 2018 22:51 georgehabadasher wrote:
The article said California has 19 million registered voters, not 19 million eligible voters. Can non registered vote? No. The US uses an system here eligible voters have to register that they want to vote before actually being allowed to do so. If you didn't register in time you can't vote on election day. Its an antiquated system that one party has no interest in replacing because it would hurt their ability to suppress certain demographics from voting. A quick google gives me 25 mil eligible voters in California and 19mil registered. Donno how that compares to the rest of the US. As a foreigner living in Spain, I have to explicitly register to vote in the municipal elections. Simply being registered as living there is insufficient. It's not a hard process (they sent me a letter with a code on it that I could use on the website to register for voting), but it is something you have to do. I don't think it's so farfetched to require people to show some interest in the democratic process before election day? Assuming the process is simple and accessible for everybody. But why require it? What is gained by requiring someone to sign up? Status quo should be that someone does vote. Voting is, imo, a duty, not just a right. Choosing not to participate is unethical and I think it is good for government to encourage participation. Having less than 90% turnout is a failure. The fact that the entire planet has issues with voting participation shouldn't make us lose track of what the ideal scenario is. We have a lot of cultural work to do and I think automatic registration helps with participation frrlibg more implied than optional. I should not have to vote if I don't want to vote. I do not support democracy as a governing system so forcing me to engage in the system is an abuse of power. Interesting. What's your preference to Democracy? I'm not sure yet. I'd need to do more research. I'm leaning toward theocratic-monarchy with some democratic elements as regards to local councils and what-not; maybe some kind of National Senate appointed by the State Governors (who would be more like Dukes; a hereditary position of basically absolute authority within the State) that has some kind of advisory, possibly more important function. Which religion?
Catholicism
On December 03 2018 23:40 JimmiC wrote:
Everyone who envisions these always sees themselves as part of the favored class. So it would be whatever religion or thing he believes and obviously he would have some important position of power where he could take advantage of the inevitable corruption of any totalitarian regime. No matter how they start (left, right, god fearing, god hating) they all end up the same.
I have no desire to rule anything or have any position other than what I already have, which is about as unimportant as can be. (Actually it serves as the almost universal example for the "low man on the totem pole" job)
On December 04 2018 01:23 Simberto wrote:
I think at that point one should just give them a one-way ticket to saudi arabia and see how happy they will actually be in that society they dream of.
That would be a Muslim theocracy. Give me a time machine with a one-way ticket to somewhere in Christendom.
On December 04 2018 01:27 Dangermousecatdog wrote:
Not to mention the fantastical imagined role of what he thinks the title of Duke is.
This is the second time you've tried to imply I have no understanding of history while simultaneously being unable to accurately represent my original comment and showing that you yourself have a rather basic understanding of history. Do you have a better historical title to analogize a semi-monarchical position over a specific territory that composes a single piece of the greater whole, which is ruled over by the actual monarch (the whole)? Keeping in mind that Count wouldn't work because we already have counties and prince would imply a level of authority (in modern understanding) that would be inappropriate.
On December 04 2018 01:16 Biff The Understudy wrote:Show nested quote +On December 03 2018 21:02 ReditusSum wrote:On December 03 2018 20:57 iamthedave wrote:On December 03 2018 20:55 ReditusSum wrote:On December 03 2018 02:18 Mohdoo wrote:On December 03 2018 02:08 Acrofales wrote:On December 03 2018 00:51 Gorsameth wrote:On December 03 2018 00:42 Silvanel wrote:On December 02 2018 22:51 georgehabadasher wrote:
The article said California has 19 million registered voters, not 19 million eligible voters. Can non registered vote? No. The US uses an system here eligible voters have to register that they want to vote before actually being allowed to do so. If you didn't register in time you can't vote on election day. Its an antiquated system that one party has no interest in replacing because it would hurt their ability to suppress certain demographics from voting. A quick google gives me 25 mil eligible voters in California and 19mil registered. Donno how that compares to the rest of the US. As a foreigner living in Spain, I have to explicitly register to vote in the municipal elections. Simply being registered as living there is insufficient. It's not a hard process (they sent me a letter with a code on it that I could use on the website to register for voting), but it is something you have to do. I don't think it's so farfetched to require people to show some interest in the democratic process before election day? Assuming the process is simple and accessible for everybody. But why require it? What is gained by requiring someone to sign up? Status quo should be that someone does vote. Voting is, imo, a duty, not just a right. Choosing not to participate is unethical and I think it is good for government to encourage participation. Having less than 90% turnout is a failure. The fact that the entire planet has issues with voting participation shouldn't make us lose track of what the ideal scenario is. We have a lot of cultural work to do and I think automatic registration helps with participation frrlibg more implied than optional. I should not have to vote if I don't want to vote. I do not support democracy as a governing system so forcing me to engage in the system is an abuse of power. Interesting. What's your preference to Democracy? I'm not sure yet. I'd need to do more research. I'm leaning toward theocratic-monarchy with some democratic elements as regards to local councils and what-not; maybe some kind of National Senate appointed by the State Governors (who would be more like Dukes; a hereditary position of basically absolute authority within the State) that has some kind of advisory, possibly more important function. That awkward moment you realize some people would actually welcome The Handmaid’s Tale’s world. Theocracy-monarchy... Two centuries and a half of enlightenment, human rights, and democracy to get to the point where kids born in america want to go back to the dark age because obscurantism sounds cool.
The enlightenment was the worst thing to ever happen to humanity.
|
On December 04 2018 06:28 ReditusSum wrote:Show nested quote +On December 03 2018 21:39 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On December 03 2018 21:02 ReditusSum wrote:On December 03 2018 20:57 iamthedave wrote:On December 03 2018 20:55 ReditusSum wrote:On December 03 2018 02:18 Mohdoo wrote:On December 03 2018 02:08 Acrofales wrote:On December 03 2018 00:51 Gorsameth wrote:On December 03 2018 00:42 Silvanel wrote:On December 02 2018 22:51 georgehabadasher wrote:
The article said California has 19 million registered voters, not 19 million eligible voters. Can non registered vote? No. The US uses an system here eligible voters have to register that they want to vote before actually being allowed to do so. If you didn't register in time you can't vote on election day. Its an antiquated system that one party has no interest in replacing because it would hurt their ability to suppress certain demographics from voting. A quick google gives me 25 mil eligible voters in California and 19mil registered. Donno how that compares to the rest of the US. As a foreigner living in Spain, I have to explicitly register to vote in the municipal elections. Simply being registered as living there is insufficient. It's not a hard process (they sent me a letter with a code on it that I could use on the website to register for voting), but it is something you have to do. I don't think it's so farfetched to require people to show some interest in the democratic process before election day? Assuming the process is simple and accessible for everybody. But why require it? What is gained by requiring someone to sign up? Status quo should be that someone does vote. Voting is, imo, a duty, not just a right. Choosing not to participate is unethical and I think it is good for government to encourage participation. Having less than 90% turnout is a failure. The fact that the entire planet has issues with voting participation shouldn't make us lose track of what the ideal scenario is. We have a lot of cultural work to do and I think automatic registration helps with participation frrlibg more implied than optional. I should not have to vote if I don't want to vote. I do not support democracy as a governing system so forcing me to engage in the system is an abuse of power. Interesting. What's your preference to Democracy? I'm not sure yet. I'd need to do more research. I'm leaning toward theocratic-monarchy with some democratic elements as regards to local councils and what-not; maybe some kind of National Senate appointed by the State Governors (who would be more like Dukes; a hereditary position of basically absolute authority within the State) that has some kind of advisory, possibly more important function. Which religion? Catholicism Show nested quote +On December 03 2018 23:40 JimmiC wrote:
Everyone who envisions these always sees themselves as part of the favored class. So it would be whatever religion or thing he believes and obviously he would have some important position of power where he could take advantage of the inevitable corruption of any totalitarian regime. No matter how they start (left, right, god fearing, god hating) they all end up the same. I have no desire to rule anything or have any position other than what I already have, which is about as unimportant as can be. (Actually it serves as the almost universal example for the "low man on the totem pole" job) Show nested quote +On December 04 2018 01:23 Simberto wrote:
I think at that point one should just give them a one-way ticket to saudi arabia and see how happy they will actually be in that society they dream of. That would be a Muslim theocracy. Give me a time machine with a one-way ticket to somewhere in Christendom. Show nested quote +On December 04 2018 01:27 Dangermousecatdog wrote:
Not to mention the fantastical imagined role of what he thinks the title of Duke is.
This is the second time you've tried to imply I have no understanding of history while simultaneously being unable to accurately represent my original comment and showing that you yourself have a rather basic understanding of history. Do you have a better historical title to analogize a semi-monarchical position over a specific territory that composes a single piece of the greater whole, which is ruled over by the actual monarch (the whole)? Keeping in mind that Count wouldn't work because we already have counties and prince would imply a level of authority (in modern understanding) that would be inappropriate. Show nested quote +On December 04 2018 01:16 Biff The Understudy wrote:On December 03 2018 21:02 ReditusSum wrote:On December 03 2018 20:57 iamthedave wrote:On December 03 2018 20:55 ReditusSum wrote:On December 03 2018 02:18 Mohdoo wrote:On December 03 2018 02:08 Acrofales wrote:On December 03 2018 00:51 Gorsameth wrote:On December 03 2018 00:42 Silvanel wrote:On December 02 2018 22:51 georgehabadasher wrote:
The article said California has 19 million registered voters, not 19 million eligible voters. Can non registered vote? No. The US uses an system here eligible voters have to register that they want to vote before actually being allowed to do so. If you didn't register in time you can't vote on election day. Its an antiquated system that one party has no interest in replacing because it would hurt their ability to suppress certain demographics from voting. A quick google gives me 25 mil eligible voters in California and 19mil registered. Donno how that compares to the rest of the US. As a foreigner living in Spain, I have to explicitly register to vote in the municipal elections. Simply being registered as living there is insufficient. It's not a hard process (they sent me a letter with a code on it that I could use on the website to register for voting), but it is something you have to do. I don't think it's so farfetched to require people to show some interest in the democratic process before election day? Assuming the process is simple and accessible for everybody. But why require it? What is gained by requiring someone to sign up? Status quo should be that someone does vote. Voting is, imo, a duty, not just a right. Choosing not to participate is unethical and I think it is good for government to encourage participation. Having less than 90% turnout is a failure. The fact that the entire planet has issues with voting participation shouldn't make us lose track of what the ideal scenario is. We have a lot of cultural work to do and I think automatic registration helps with participation frrlibg more implied than optional. I should not have to vote if I don't want to vote. I do not support democracy as a governing system so forcing me to engage in the system is an abuse of power. Interesting. What's your preference to Democracy? I'm not sure yet. I'd need to do more research. I'm leaning toward theocratic-monarchy with some democratic elements as regards to local councils and what-not; maybe some kind of National Senate appointed by the State Governors (who would be more like Dukes; a hereditary position of basically absolute authority within the State) that has some kind of advisory, possibly more important function. That awkward moment you realize some people would actually welcome The Handmaid’s Tale’s world. Theocracy-monarchy... Two centuries and a half of enlightenment, human rights, and democracy to get to the point where kids born in america want to go back to the dark age because obscurantism sounds cool. The enlightenment was the worst thing to ever happen to humanity.
Agriculture did far more harm to humanity than the enlightenment : )
|
|
|
Given that the title of Duke has been around for well over 1500 years, you kinda need to narrow down what version of a Duke you are talking about.
|
On December 04 2018 05:33 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On December 04 2018 05:22 Dangermousecatdog wrote:
That sounds like a democracy where "the people" recognise that only "experts" should be elected to serve in the respective positions of government. Given this thread, I don't think the USA is ready for such wild ideas.
It also run counter to the American constitution that all men are equal. Not that ever stopped anybody. All men being equal doesn't mean a plumber should be consulted when deciding on federal interest rates.
This is such a stupid statement.
Who cares if one does not understand the economy? His advice should still be taken into account when deciding the politics. Even economists are pretty shit at understanding economy. They constantly forecast approximate predictions and when one actually predicts something accurately he's a guru and never again predicts something accurately. It's just dumb luck.
Portugal just did the exact opposite of EU recommendations and they had amazing results.
|
United States24665 Posts
nojok I don't think the point there was that public comment periods should automatically reject input from plumbers if the topic isn't plumbing. I think the point is that the government, when seeking out strategies, should start by consulting experts. If there is going to be a working group of ~10 experts, people whose expertise is mostly focused on plumbing and not the topic at hand should not be invited.
If you want to say economists offer no more useful information than plumbers to economic topics, you can attack the specific example I suppose, but not really the underlying point. Posts that start with "This is such a stupid statement" are pretty much guaranteed to be "stupid" in one way or another.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
