What does a TRUMP presidency look like?

[CountDeMoney]

No comments on Mad Dog Mattis confirmed as Secretary of Defense?

Appointed; I learned from NPR that he'll need a special waiver from Congress in order to be confirmed, since he left the military less than seven years ago and is being appointed to a senior position.  Democrats could hypothetically block that waiver with a filibuster. 

Would they have a reason to?

Only been done once, for General George C. Marshall, and that was for Truman during the Korean War.

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/12/kirsten-gillibrand-mattis-waiver-232099

[Savonarola]

No comments on Mad Dog Mattis confirmed as Secretary of Defense?

Appointed; I learned from NPR that he'll need a special waiver from Congress in order to be confirmed, since he left the military less than seven years ago and is being appointed to a senior position.  Democrats could hypothetically block that waiver with a filibuster. 

You listen to NPR???

Don't worry, I also read the Victor Davis Hanson columns on NRO.

[Valmy]

From what I understand Mattis is quite popular among both Democrats and Republicans alike, and the stories coming out about him make him sound pretty intelligent and reasonable.

I know nothing about him, though, so this could be just LOL LAMESTREAM MEDIA LMAOOO

Yeah typically the Secretary of Defense is a fairly unpolitical military man both sides respect. I mean unless it is Donald Rumsfeld.

[Savonarola]

You listen to NPR???

Those deep velvety public radio voices are relaxing.

That they are.  My favorite is Robert Siegel who (like many DJs) is in love with the sound of his own voice so much so that he'll hang on to the last syllable of words; yet talks in the NPR drone.  It's a bizarre combination.

[CountDeMoney]

No comments on Mad Dog Mattis confirmed as Secretary of Defense?

No, but you're banned for spamming.

Gonna need a waiver for that.

[CountDeMoney]

Seigy post the stupid Facebook shit in the stupid Facebook shit thread, please.

Posts deleted.  Like his brain.

[Berkut]

In regards to what you bolded, I am not arguing that the ship is in fact sinking.

Just that the changes we have made are not adequate to argue the claim that if the ship were sinking, we could fix it under the current structure.

Oh, I see. Fair enough but yeah as you say that's been a general issues across gov'ts and time. Only rarely has large overhaul been able to take place without violence and other negative forms of upheaval.

Exactly, I don't think this is unique to the US by any means.

I don't think the US has solved the problem either - rather we came up with a structure that was, honestly, much much better than what came before, such that the system itself has worked rather well. But it's basic inflexibility is still there.

I liken this to science. For a long time, it was really damn hard to get people to shift their thinking on the state of nature, because we lacked the framework to evaluate and select competing theories. So change was very hard. But since the Renaissance, we've developed this framework for how to evaluate claims about nature that works really, really well to help us choose between competing theories, and implement them into our systems and lives in a manner that doesn't require radical change...mostly.

We don't have any kind of similar framework when it comes to competing social or political structures. There really isn'y any way to try out and measure different ideas for social and political organization and then see what works and what does not, that doesn't seem to involve killing a lot of people before, during, or after the process.

[Berkut]

Dude you really need to stop believing what the mainstream media tells you.
Demonizing your political enemies are the oldest trick in the hat.

Irony much?


You need to stop believing in something as silly as the idea that there is a "mainstream media" with some kind of agenda to fool people.

[CountDeMoney]

You need to stop believing in something as silly as the idea that there is a "mainstream media" with some kind of agenda to fool people.

I never understood the hostility towards an open and liberal (little "l") media, one that acts as both an advocate for us, and as a counterbalance with the government.

The other options are: the state itself, the state's faux mouthpieces such as Pravda, or nothing.  Really don't see why people would prefer these instead.

[celedhring]

Spanish media are going nuts, apparently they are taking his surname literally and assume that "Perro Loco" is some kind of trigger happy general. But the few things I have read about him sound okay.

[CountDeMoney]

Shut up, Megito.

[The Minsky Moment]

What does upstate New York and New York City have in common politically, economically, or demographically such that it makes sense to include both in the same political body? Absolutely nothing that I can think of.

They both hosted Dutch settlers 350 years ago
Meanwhile, I've spent much of my life in a relatively small compact area that is fully integrated economically, socially, and shares vital transport links and yet is split between 3 different state governments.  Which can be a problem say when 1 of the governors decides to be a dick and blocks off a bridge.

[MadImmortalMan]

Exactly, I don't think this is unique to the US by any means.

I don't think the US has solved the problem either - rather we came up with a structure that was, honestly, much much better than what came before, such that the system itself has worked rather well. But it's basic inflexibility is still there.

I liken this to science. For a long time, it was really damn hard to get people to shift their thinking on the state of nature, because we lacked the framework to evaluate and select competing theories. So change was very hard. But since the Renaissance, we've developed this framework for how to evaluate claims about nature that works really, really well to help us choose between competing theories, and implement them into our systems and lives in a manner that doesn't require radical change...mostly.

We don't have any kind of similar framework when it comes to competing social or political structures. There really isn'y any way to try out and measure different ideas for social and political organization and then see what works and what does not, that doesn't seem to involve killing a lot of people before, during, or after the process.

Some people probably think the Scientific Method is too inflexible for the same reason as our political system. Not allowed to adopt my pet theory without all this pesky evidence and experimentation? Nobody got time for that.

I think most people are impatient by nature.

[OttoVonBismarck]

I like federalism.

[Barrister]

I like pie.