[RedSpawn]

Winstonm, on 2017-November-05, 14:35, said:

Fact check: the Republicans are in power in the U.S. Congress, executive branch, Supreme Court, and a majority of state legislatures.

All occurring democratically.*

*Gerrymandering accessories included.

[jjbrr]

rmnka447, on 2017-November-05, 13:48, said:

Is that your version of democracy?

Is this yours?

At least he didn't come up with some idiotic and condescending nickname, like Samurai Japan or something. Right, guys?

[Al_U_Card]

Winstonm, on 2017-November-05, 17:01, said:

Tribalism is more than groupthink. It is an evolutionary development. It is not of itself a derogatory term. It is only a drawback when we can't admit to our own tribal inclinations and overcome them with cognition.

Without a skeptical approach and an analytical nature, givens and taken for granteds install a bias that colors perception with a specific perspective. If one considers a stereotype to be an adequate interpretation, then tribalism follows as groupthink solidifies and unifies the circled wagons of those invested there in.

[hrothgar]

y66, on 2017-November-05, 08:11, said:

From What if Mueller proves his case and it doesn’t matter? by David Roberts at Vox:

I don't think that Robert's appreciates how wide Mueller's investigation is going.

My understanding is that Mueller is targeting a number of congressmen (starting with Dana Rohrbacker)
Paul Ryan and Harry Reid are also under active investigation.

It is possible that this will cause congress to cut off Mueller's funding or some such.

It is my hope that it might actually stir them to real action.

[Winstonm]

Quote

Voters say they prefer Democratic candidates for the House of Representatives over Republicans by the widest margin in over a decade, according to a new Washington Post-ABC News poll — a fresh sign of trouble for the GOP majority one year before the midterm elections.

This is how you get power democratically - by being perceived as the best choice.

[barmar]

rmnka447, on 2017-November-05, 13:48, said:

Is that your version of democracy? Sounds like totalitarianism to me.

It's representative democracy. But the premise behind this is that the representatives we elect will be "smart people", who act wisely for the good of the country. That doesn't mean they can't represent their constituents' needs, but they may sometimes have to compromise when there's a conflict with the needs of all.

Pure democracy also equates with mob rule. Rational representatives can consider the big picture, rather than just their selfish wants and needs.

[Al_U_Card]

Not even sure that the first continental congress was anymore than an attempt to secure advantage for the privileged land-owners.... your highest ideals are represented in DC? (Or anywhere else?) Let's see, war, more war, destitution of peoples, restriction of liberties in the name of security, propaganda and lobbying designed to subvert democratic principles and, oh yes, Continuity of government activities to ensure corporate profits are not infringed upon by the rabble and useless eaters.

Not much of a representation apparently.

[Winstonm]

hrothgar, on 2017-November-06, 07:18, said:

I don't think that Robert's appreciates how wide Mueller's investigation is going.

My understanding is that Mueller is targeting a number of congressmen (starting with Dana Rohrbacker)
Paul Ryan and Harry Reid are also under active investigation.

It is possible that this will cause congress to cut off Mueller's funding or some such.

It is my hope that it might actually stir them to real action.

What sources describe that wide of investigation?

[Zelandakh]

Winstonm, on 2017-November-06, 11:17, said:

What sources describe that wide of investigation?

Does this count? It implies that Rohrabacher might be under investigation (for the 2013 contribution from Manafort) while only actually putting Vin Weber's name forward. I have not seen anything specifically verifying hrothgar's claims as of yet though. Several other sources go into more detail regarding the Manafort-Rohrabacher link but without making any claims regarding Mueller. I am not sure where Ryan and Reid fit in - hopefully hrothgar can provide some further (verifiable) information.

[Winstonm]

Zelandakh, on 2017-November-06, 12:28, said:

Does this count? It implies that Rohrabacher might be under investigation (for the 2013 contribution from Manafort) while only actually putting Vin Weber's name forward. I have not seen anything specifically verifying hrothgar's claims as of yet though. Several other sources go into more detail regarding the Manafort-Rohrabacher link but without making any claims regarding Mueller. I am not sure where Ryan and Reid fit in - hopefully hrothgar can provide some further (verifiable) information.

Thanks. That helps. I wasn't aware that the actual investigation had delved into Congress but was aware of a Dallas newspaper's report that Mitch McConnell and others received campaign funds from a Russian-connected source.

https://www.dailykos...o-GOP-campaigns

PS: I would have linked the Dallas Morning News article but it is a pay site.

[Winstonm]

rmnka447, on 2017-November-05, 13:48, said:

Is that your version of democracy? Sounds like totalitarianism to me. Yes, those "rational" people would be in charge of the government and tell everyone else how to live their lives and make all the decisions. Wasn't that tried by Lenin and his cronies from 1917 to 1989 in the Soviet Union? They sure helped those "irrational" people die out over time to the number of millions of citizens.

Speaking of Lenin: (emphasis added, italics my commentary)

Quote

Lenin began plotting a violent seizure of power before he had even learned of the czar’s abdication. Immediately — “within a few hours,” according to Victor Sebestyen’s excellent new biography, “Lenin: The Man, the Dictator, and the Master of Terror” — he sent out a list of orders to his colleagues in Petrograd. They included “no trust or support for the new government,” (i.e. drain the swamp)“arm the proletariat” (maybe the 2nd amendment people can do something about that) and “make no rapprochement of any kind with other parties.(one-party rule)”

And you don't recognize who that looks like?

[Al_U_Card]

Wasn't it Jefferson that said only one party was needed in a true democracy (value and resouces distributed in the interest of the people) versus a 2 party system where one (or the other) accumulate value and resources to an elite aristocracy. This is why the rich are getting richer....etc

[Winstonm]

John Adams:

Quote

There is nothing which I dread so much as a division of the republic into two great parties, each arranged under its leader, and concerting measures in opposition to each other. This, in my humble apprehension, is to be dreaded as the greatest political evil under our Constitution.

I don't think he was writing about two political parties but two tribes unwilling to compromise.

[rmnka447]

Winstonm, on 2017-November-05, 14:35, said:

Fact check: the Republicans are in power in the U.S. Congress, executive branch, Supreme Court, and a majority of state legislatures.

All occurring democratically.

That's right. They gained power by being freely voted into office by the people. If the people are dissatisfied with what they are doing, then the people have the power to vote them out of office.

Guess what, that's exactly what the people did with the previous holders of the executive branch last fall. They lost power because enough people were dissatisfied with their policies and the direction they were taking the country that they voted for change.

Yet, here we are and you're talking about the "rational" people taking over from the "irrational" people and holding power. And who decides who's "rational" and "irrational"? Most of the time I hear progressives talk about "rational", "intelligent" or "reasonable" people, they are using it as dog whistle code for progressives. Conversely, when they use "irrational", "ignorant", or "crazy" people, they use it as dog whistle code for conservatives. So how do you propose progressives should take over and hold power indefinitely "until they die out"? It can't be by constitutional means because free elections always risks a loss of power. Your statements are the exact type of boiler plate used throughout history to justify some sort of takeover of the government by a group or individuals.

[Winstonm]

rmnka447, on 2017-November-06, 16:56, said:

That's right. They gained power by being freely voted into office by the people. If the people are dissatisfied with what they are doing, then the people have the power to vote them out of office.

Guess what, that's exactly what the people did with the previous holders of the executive branch last fall. They lost power because enough people were dissatisfied with their policies and the direction they were taking the country that they voted for change.

Yet, here we are and you're talking about the "rational" people taking over from the "irrational" people and holding power. And who decides who's "rational" and "irrational"? Most of the time I hear progressives talk about "rational", "intelligent" or "reasonable" people, they are using it as dog whistle code for progressives. Conversely, when they use "irrational", "ignorant", or "crazy" people, they use it as dog whistle code for conservatives. So how do you propose progressives should take over and hold power indefinitely "until they die out"? It can't be by constitutional means because free elections always risks a loss of power. Your statements are the exact type of boiler plate used throughout history to justify some sort of takeover of the government by a group or individuals.

I understand your concerns so let me clarify and explain. I meant "take over" as doing so by legal means - by the ballot, meaning that we can no longer afford apathy, to sit idly by and let others choose, We must grow active in our democratic republic and truly be government "of the people" by partaking and voting. The Republicans did it. The Democrats need to mirror that success.

As for terms, rational and irrational are not political viewpoints. These words describe the processes of decision-making that are chosen. Rational people look for data and facts in order to form an opinion; irrational people form an opinion and ignore or refute data and facts.

From a Google search: rational and irrational in psychology:

Quote

Rationality is the quality or state of being reasonable, based on facts or reason. Rationality implies the conformity of one's beliefs with one's reasons to believe.

Irrationality is cognition, thinking, talking, or acting without inclusion of rationality. It is more specifically described as an action or opinion given through inadequate use of reason.

FWIW, I think John Kasich, a Republican, is rational. I don't agree with a lot of his conclusions, but he is receptive to facts and is willing, it seems, to alter his opinions. There are many other rational Republicans. None of them support Trump.

[Al_U_Card]

Winstonm, on 2017-November-06, 15:57, said:

John Adams:

I don't think he was writing about two political parties but two tribes unwilling to compromise.

One or the other means both parties are subject to the same temptations. The system is set up for influence to trump representation.

[kenberg]

Perhaps of interest:


https://www.washingt...m=.6b3d3433f2c7

In particular:

Quote

Of those Americans who say they voted in 2016, 46 percent say they supported Clinton, and 43 percent say they backed Trump. If an election were held today, with the same candidates, 40 percent of those 2016 voters say they would back Trump, and 40 percent say they would support Clinton.

As we have all heard many times, Clinton won the popular vote.But now?

Of course people tend to abandon the losing candidate. Still, we are told that Trump has the lowest approval ratings ever. In a rematch the vote would be 40-40? Don't slam the door on your way out Hillary, but when it's over it's over.


Any bets on the Virginia race tomorrow? Wednesday I'll explain why the result was obvious. Whatever it is.

[y66]

kenberg, on 2017-November-06, 21:17, said:

Any bets on the Virginia race tomorrow? Wednesday I'll explain why the result was obvious. Whatever it is.

I'll take the Dem's candidate for governor and spot the Rep candidate 1.75 percent.

[Winstonm]

kenberg, on 2017-November-06, 21:17, said:

Perhaps of interest:


https://www.washingt...m=.6b3d3433f2c7

In particular:

As we have all heard many times, Clinton won the popular vote.But now?

Of course people tend to abandon the losing candidate. Still, we are told that Trump has the lowest approval ratings ever. In a rematch the vote would be 40-40? Don't slam the door on your way out Hillary, but when it's over it's over.


Any bets on the Virginia race tomorrow? Wednesday I'll explain why the result was obvious. Whatever it is.

What's the spread?

[Winstonm]

Get the TiVo's revved up:

Quote

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - U.S. Attorney General Jeff Sessions is due to testify before a congressional committee next week, three sources familiar with the matter said on Monday, offering Democrats a chance to question him about his past statements on President Donald Trump’s campaign exchanges with Russian intermediaries.

Scheduled for Nov. 14, 2017.