Chris Pook said:Lesson for judges.
Be careful you don't end up in the high street standing between two factions with 45s in their hands.
Something about "consent of the governed" comes to mind.
kkwd said:I just saw the movie Omen III. In the oval office there are gold curtains just like Trump has. Does anybody want to jump on that as a sign from above, or maybe below. Seems every little thing these days is enough is go off on a rant and a rave about Trump.
We'll see ...Loachman said:Mr Trump cares far more for the lives of US Servicemembers, veterans, inner-city blacks, women, gays, and people in general than either his predecessor or his failed competitor did.
That would at least be true in the case of elected judges, something we see in the U.S., indeed.Chris Pook said:Something about "consent of the governed" comes to mind.
cupper said:Obviously you did not watch SNL last night, or you would have seen defifitive proof that satan is running the White House.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/arts-and-entertainment/wp/2017/02/05/alec-baldwin-returns-as-snls-trump-where-an-evil-stephen-k-bannon-is-actually-president/?utm_term=.cb3e95141d87
FJAG said:It is advisable to remember that the winning faction wasn't even the majority of all who voted but was that portion (based on electoral college votes) that provided a majority of those electoral votes.
cupper said:Obviously you did not watch SNL last night, or you would have seen defifitive proof that satan is running the White House.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/arts-and-entertainment/wp/2017/02/05/alec-baldwin-returns-as-snls-trump-where-an-evil-stephen-k-bannon-is-actually-president/?utm_term=.cb3e95141d87
kkwd said:I haven't seen that show in about 30 years. Is it worth taking up watching it again?
I was going to give you Milpoints for that post but it seems you have topped out on contributions. ;D
FJAG said:The problem I see right now Chris, is the euphoria of the faction that has won the recent election and believes that they can now have everything their own way. "Consent by the governed" is not merely the consent of the majority but of all the people including the losing faction.
It is advisable to remember that the winning faction wasn't even the majority of all who voted but was that portion (based on electoral college votes) that provided a majority of those electoral votes.
The problem with democratic systems of government that have unrestricted powers is that it can lead to a condition of a "tyranny by the majority" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tyranny_of_the_majority which is why we have constitutions and a judiciary which are meant to keep the unbridled majority of the population (and their duly elected legislatures and executives) in check.
:cheers:
mariomike said::goodpost:
FJAG said:The problem I see right now is the euphoria of the faction that has won the recent election and believes that they can now have everything their own way.
milnews.ca said:I know I've been gently poked for not having a sense of humour when it comes to some of the digs going on. To pass along some sage advice, "we have to remember to check if we are in RADIO CHATTER before we want to "seriously" comment on a less than "serious" thread"![]()
cavalryman said:I've seen one side rioting and the other quietly going about their business.
mariomike said:Chris, it is also advisable to remember we are in Radio Chatter. The :goodpost: was for FJAG.
Chris Pook said:With respect -
The problem of the tyranny of the majority is confounded when the wishes of the majority are denied for an extended period. When the majority is told that they are wrong for too long eventually the governors run the risk of being ignored. If they continue with tone deaf beration then they run the further risk of not being ignored.
FJAG said:I agree in part with your observation and it's quite clear there is a large faction in the US that thinks that way. The problem is that we have two factions here who are each quite confident that the other one is the tone deaf party and that only they themselves have staked out the moral high-ground.
Where I disagree is that neither of these two factions are in the majority of the population because a large part of the population does not get involved in the elections. What we, in fact, have are minority groups that band together to raise enough votes to get someone elected. After an election we could argue forever (without anyone winning since no one trusts the polls anymore) about whether the elected official has the support of the majority of the people or just of the 'less than majority' faction that got him into power. Sadly, Nixon was right when he said that there is a "silent majority".
I also think it behoves us to remember that the "majority" have not been "told that they are wrong" for very long. Since WW2 the presidents were: Dem 8 yrs (Truman); Rep 8 yrs (Eisenhower); Dem 8 yrs (Kennedy, Johnson); Rep 8 yrs (Nixon, Ford); Dem 4 yrs (Carter); Rep 12 yrs (Reagan, Bush 1); Dem 8 yrs (Clinton); Rep 8 yrs (Bush 2); Dem 8 yrs (Obama).
It seems that every eight years or so the "majority" seems to flip so I guess they can only stomach one particular philosophy for eight years before they demand that the swamp be drained. It will be interesting to see if Trump will become the "Carter of the Republican Party" and be ousted after 4 years. ;D
:cheers:
I don't quite buy that bit about the DC vote. Dc is in a strange situation in that there are more jobs there (728k of which 213k are Federal govt) then residents(618k+ of which 307k are employed). (I'm using 2011 statistics here and acknowledge the the numbers have changed a bit but not significantly https://www.doleta.gov/performance/results/AnnualReports/2011_economic_reports/dc_economic_report_py2011.pdf)Chris Pook said:Sadly, the problem is not with the name of the party sitting in the Whitehouse. The problem lies with 94% of Washington voting for one party. The problem lies with civil servants actively campaigning against the government of the day and then cheering the replacement to the rafters. The problem lies with civil servants actively working against the wishes of the populace as voiced in a referendum. The problem lies with civil servants ignoring the wishes of their populations as expressed in referenda and imposing new constitutions on them. The problem lies with the transfer of power from laws enacted by sovereign elected parliaments to regulatory bodies staffed by careerists protected from democratic supervision.
And that, I am afraid, leads us to the courts that interpret those regulations.
Your good health, Sir.
:cheers: