What does a TRUMP presidency look like?

[garbon]

The US is a pretty great country compared to most others, but that is mostly because the others have their own historical baggage to contend with as well - there is a real problem that we, meaning human societies, have yet to figure out how to make social, political, and economic advancement happen in a controlled, predictable manner.

Maybe because we aren't machines? I don't understand what exactly would be desirable about controlled social/political/economic advancement. 

We simply have no idea how to implement new structures while maintaining the emotional faith in institutions that are necessary for rule of law and respect for those institutions. It seems like the only way we enact real structural political change is by radical violence and overthrow. There is little or no meaningful incremental change.

Maybe but I think that's a bit despairing. Certainly there has been incremental progress on many fronts, even in terms of government structures, during the course of US history.

Not really. There has been very little progress in any kind of structural change, in fact.

It is a testament to the success of the founders that absent any structural change the country has done very well, because that structure was setup well to begin with...but for the most part we still operate under that same structure, with only very minor changes.

Is this excluding the amendments post founding fathers? Or is the impact of those being downplayed?

[Agelastus]

But it IS a big issue. Some votes shouldn't count more than others simply because where you live. No other election in the US is run this way.

How would you describe elections to the US Senate then? Surely that induces an even bigger discrepancy in the worth of an individual vote compared to the Electoral College of the Presidential election?

[Berkut]

The US is a pretty great country compared to most others, but that is mostly because the others have their own historical baggage to contend with as well - there is a real problem that we, meaning human societies, have yet to figure out how to make social, political, and economic advancement happen in a controlled, predictable manner.

Maybe because we aren't machines? I don't understand what exactly would be desirable about controlled social/political/economic advancement. 

We simply have no idea how to implement new structures while maintaining the emotional faith in institutions that are necessary for rule of law and respect for those institutions. It seems like the only way we enact real structural political change is by radical violence and overthrow. There is little or no meaningful incremental change.

Maybe but I think that's a bit despairing. Certainly there has been incremental progress on many fronts, even in terms of government structures, during the course of US history.

Not really. There has been very little progress in any kind of structural change, in fact.

It is a testament to the success of the founders that absent any structural change the country has done very well, because that structure was setup well to begin with...but for the most part we still operate under that same structure, with only very minor changes.

Is this excluding the amendments post founding fathers? Or is the impact of those being downplayed?

Those amendments, by and large, have had very little structural impact. They are basically re-arranging deck chairs. If the ship is sinking, how we pick a new President if the current one dies isn't very interesting.

The only truly significant structural change that has happened post founding fathers took a civil war to enact.

[derspiess]

Derspeiss was like one of those guys who joined the party right after '33.

  "I supported you all along!!"

[Valmy]

But it IS a big issue. Some votes shouldn't count more than others simply because where you live. No other election in the US is run this way.

How would you describe elections to the US Senate then? Surely that induces an even bigger discrepancy in the worth of an individual vote compared to the Electoral College of the Presidential election?

I would say that everybody in a state gets an equal vote in a senatorial election. This is how the interests of the smaller states should be protected. By the Senate and their individual state governments. But those institutions are specifically designed to protect state interests, the President is not. And it creates a dangerous question of the legitimacy of the election and the office.

[Tamas]

When do we get to throw out that term? Clearly the 'alt-right' is mainstream now and maps onto the position of the 'right'.

I hate that term anyways. What is so "alt" about being arrogant racists anyways? That's probably the oldest political stance in the history of humanity.

[garbon]

The US is a pretty great country compared to most others, but that is mostly because the others have their own historical baggage to contend with as well - there is a real problem that we, meaning human societies, have yet to figure out how to make social, political, and economic advancement happen in a controlled, predictable manner.

Maybe because we aren't machines? I don't understand what exactly would be desirable about controlled social/political/economic advancement. 

We simply have no idea how to implement new structures while maintaining the emotional faith in institutions that are necessary for rule of law and respect for those institutions. It seems like the only way we enact real structural political change is by radical violence and overthrow. There is little or no meaningful incremental change.

Maybe but I think that's a bit despairing. Certainly there has been incremental progress on many fronts, even in terms of government structures, during the course of US history.

Not really. There has been very little progress in any kind of structural change, in fact.

It is a testament to the success of the founders that absent any structural change the country has done very well, because that structure was setup well to begin with...but for the most part we still operate under that same structure, with only very minor changes.

Is this excluding the amendments post founding fathers? Or is the impact of those being downplayed?

Those amendments, by and large, have had very little structural impact. They are basically re-arranging deck chairs. If the ship is sinking, how we pick a new President if the current one dies isn't very interesting.

The only truly significant structural change that has happened post founding fathers took a civil war to enact.

Okay, our views are probably too far apart on this for it to be worthwhile to have a discussion.

[garbon]

When do we get to throw out that term? Clearly the 'alt-right' is mainstream now and maps onto the position of the 'right'.

I hate that term anyways. What is so "alt" about being arrogant racists anyways? That's probably the oldest political stance in the history of humanity.

I think the 'alt' was that it was an alternative from mainstream. Which to be fair to the right, even though racism was there, it generally wasn't allowed to be so blatant. Same thing with the crazy, conspiracy views.  Now though, it is so mainstream so yeah, nothing alt about it anymore.

[Siege]

[Valmy]

Awww what a softy.

Also glad to see Jews finally getting into the spirit of Christmas.

[Berkut]

The US is a pretty great country compared to most others, but that is mostly because the others have their own historical baggage to contend with as well - there is a real problem that we, meaning human societies, have yet to figure out how to make social, political, and economic advancement happen in a controlled, predictable manner.

Maybe because we aren't machines? I don't understand what exactly would be desirable about controlled social/political/economic advancement. 

We simply have no idea how to implement new structures while maintaining the emotional faith in institutions that are necessary for rule of law and respect for those institutions. It seems like the only way we enact real structural political change is by radical violence and overthrow. There is little or no meaningful incremental change.

Maybe but I think that's a bit despairing. Certainly there has been incremental progress on many fronts, even in terms of government structures, during the course of US history.

Not really. There has been very little progress in any kind of structural change, in fact.

It is a testament to the success of the founders that absent any structural change the country has done very well, because that structure was setup well to begin with...but for the most part we still operate under that same structure, with only very minor changes.

Is this excluding the amendments post founding fathers? Or is the impact of those being downplayed?

Those amendments, by and large, have had very little structural impact. They are basically re-arranging deck chairs. If the ship is sinking, how we pick a new President if the current one dies isn't very interesting.

The only truly significant structural change that has happened post founding fathers took a civil war to enact.

Okay, our views are probably too far apart on this for it to be worthwhile to have a discussion.

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.

[derspiess]

When do we get to throw out that term? Clearly the 'alt-right' is mainstream now and maps onto the position of the 'right'.

I hate that term anyways. What is so "alt" about being arrogant racists anyways? That's probably the oldest political stance in the history of humanity.

Not all of them are racists. Not all of them are any one thing.  Much easier to define what they're against, I guess.

[viper37]

It is kinda weird to see far-right governments cheering each other, when at the end of the day they hate the guts out of foreigners. I can kinda understand alpha male nations doing that, but Orban should be aware that in a world full of Putins and Trumps, it's the Hungaries the ones that will get shafted

IIRC, in the nazi race ranking system, the Asians and the Arabs weren't far above the Jews, in fact, they were at the bottom, far below the Aryans.  Once they got allied, the Japs were elevated to honorary aryans and the Arabs hated the Jews as much as the Nazis so they didn't really care about informal alliances.  Germany and Russia got along pretty well for a while.

So, not kinda-weird.  Authoritarian countries tend to have good diplomatic relations.

[Tamas]

When do we get to throw out that term? Clearly the 'alt-right' is mainstream now and maps onto the position of the 'right'.

I hate that term anyways. What is so "alt" about being arrogant racists anyways? That's probably the oldest political stance in the history of humanity.

Not all of them are racists. Not all of them are any one thing.  Much easier to define what they're against, I guess.

I am sorry but if you stand silently in support behind racists, you are not better than they are, if anything, you are worse.

[Siege]

When do we get to throw out that term? Clearly the 'alt-right' is mainstream now and maps onto the position of the 'right'.

I hate that term anyways. What is so "alt" about being arrogant racists anyways? That's probably the oldest political stance in the history of humanity.

Not all of them are racists. Not all of them are any one thing.  Much easier to define what they're against, I guess.

The CTRL Left is far more detrimental to our future than the Alt Right will ever be.
Raciss people are on the way out, but communists and socialists, sadly, are not.