Miscellaneous And Off Topic Subjects

[iam416]

Assuming that to be true, what's the alternative? If democracy is ultimately doomed because of the fallibility of man, then isn't every other alternative similarly fucked?

Is it a Churchillian connundrum -- democracy is an awful form of government, but it's better than all the rest?

In any event, it's a little too fatalistic for my tastes.

It's a death-by-a-thousand-cuts process. The first cut was clearly long ago, and there have been many since.

Right. If that's your position then DJT has been in the works for decades. He may have expedited things a bit -- more of an 8-inch gash than a cut, but he's in-line with the arc of things.

[hack]

Yes and yes would be my answers. Any system is going to develop loopholes over time, and they will be patched until they just can't be patched anymore. I don't think democracy's dead. Not yet. But it has to be put back in the hands of people and taken out of the hands of corporations.

Agree that Trump is the natural outcome of things underway for a long time. In line with the arc? Dunno. Could argue that either way, but the lack of any desire to pretend to play along with Washington's rules and norms is a jump. Others didn't want to either, but pretended they were. That's what's genuinely new, IMO.

[Da Geezer]

Good discussion.

There seems to be agreement that Trump is, or will be, the pinnacle of corruption. I'd ask for evidence of that assertion. Washington was one of the wealthiest persons in the US, and much of his wealth came from ownership of western lands which he acquired subsequent to the French and Indian War, and kept acquiring until his death in 1799. At death, he had 52,000 acres of land. Here is a good link that gives a proper analysis of Washington's wealth (including the value of the "Washington" brand).

http://www.history.org/foundation/journal/winter13/washington.cfm

The article says

The third measure suggested by economic historians assesses what they call the economic power of Washington’s holdings, or roughly translated, “What was the president’s financial position relative to the size of the economy?” At the time of his death, Washington’s $780,000 estate was equivalent in value to almost one-fifth of 1 percent—0.19 percent—of the $411 million GDP. If Washington had lived two centuries later, and boasted a fortune worth 0.19 per cent of the nation’s approximately $15 trillion 2011 GDP, he would have been worth $25.9 billion, taking fourth place in the Forbes list of seriously wealthy Americans. Bill Gates is in first place at $59 billion, Warren Buffett in second at $39 billion, and Larry Ellison of Oracle fame gets the bronze medal with a $36 billion stash. Washington’s $25.9 billion sneaks him in just ahead of Christy Walton of the Wal-Mart chain. The first president is in rich company.

Trump is not the wealthiest person ever to hold the Presidency. And Washington's wealth came, in large part, from grants of western lands given to him by both State and Federal governments. IMO, if Washington had lived today, the same assumptions about corruption could be raised. I'm not saying Trump could ever be a Washington, I'm just pointing out that Washington's wealth was greater, and more a result of real estate given to him by government.

[entropy]

can both sides please agree that grandchildren should be off limits to these types of posts..

we've become animals.

[hack]

I didn't know that about Washington, Geezer. That's interesting. But there's certainly a matter of standards we have to adjust for when talking about the founders and their personal behaviors. Slaves, etc, etc. We judge actions in context. I don't know what rules existed right at that time or how Washington went about breaking/not breaking them.

One thing is that we shouldn't judge our leaders, IMO, by how rich they are. I'm OK with rich people. I'm not OK with using public office for personal enrichment.

[Jeff Buchanan]

...... I'm OK with rich people. I'm not OK with using public office for personal enrichment.

An important distinction. I'm reasonably certain Geezer understands this but his post seems to suggest that none of us here are going to make that distinction.

Can't fool us.

[froot loops]

His personal business behavior suggests he'll be corrupt. His refusal to disclose his finances suggest he'll be corrupt. The fact that most major banks would not do business with him suggests he'll be corrupt. Using the Trump Foundation as a pesonal slush fund for self dealing suggests he'll be corrupt.

He skipped that debate and claimed he raised all of those funds for charity and he only donated that money when the Post doggedly pursued the manner.

But go with the George Washington comparison.

[hack]

He's already used the office to promote his own commercial interests. He is already corrupt. No need to use the future tense.

[Dr. Strangelove]

Trump's appointed Robert Kennedy Jr., an anti-vaxxer conspiracy theorist, to lead a 'vaccine safety' commission

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/donald-trump-meets-with-vaccine-skeptic-robert-kennedy-jr/

Didn't realize this but a couple years ago, Trump was really on board the "vaccines cause autism" bandwagon

[ame]https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/449525268529815552[/ame]

[Wild Hoss]

Nooooo! That is so unlike him.

Sent from my SM-G900P using Tapatalk

[entropy]

Can those who supply vaccines be sued if they add too much... say mercury?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Dr. Strangelove]

US intel told Trump to his face that Russian spies claim to have 'compromising' information on him

http://www.cnn.com/2017/01/10/politics/donald-trump-intelligence-report-russia/index.html

[iam416]

Impossible. The Donald never compromises!

[Dr. Strangelove]

I've seen it put thusly: either Russia truly has something that they can blackmail Trump with or the US Intelligence community is purposely undermining the President-Elect. Neither is good. And the IC is now openly, more or less, at war with Trump

[Da Geezer]

Hack said:

One thing is that we shouldn't judge our leaders, IMO, by how rich they are. I'm OK with rich people. I'm not OK with using public office for personal enrichment.

I agree 100%. And, Jeff, I guess if the shoe fits, then wear it. I have seen no evidence that Trump is selling influence (or taking bribes) or that he is cutting anyone a fat hog in the ass. That is why I asked for evidence. I have also seen the vast majority of posters here just assume that Trump will enrich himself. By winning the Presidency, Trump has enhanced his "brand", and branding is what he does. I'm pretty sure he didn't run for the office with that in mind.

As I have said, it is going to be impossible for Trump to avoid the appearance of impropriety. He has his fingers in too many pots worldwide. We can expect at least 4 years of daily assertions of corruption. Personally, I'd much rather trust a person who has made a success of his life in business as opposed to someone who has "succeeded" only in politics. It is easy to see the difference in integrity comparing politicians like Clinton to business people like Trump. I doubt if the Trumps will try to steal the White House silverware when they leave.