Posted                         

quote:

---

Originally posted by Boogie:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
This is another variant on the King Lear theme. Free click.

---

So true. It makes me pity him. Is it his fault he was treated so as a child, warping his personality into such a narcissist - then inheriting billions to squander as he wished?

I blame the voters - but would that be victim blaming?

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Boogie:
I blame the voters - but would that be victim blaming?

---

Posted                         

quote:

---

Originally posted by Crœsos:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Boogie:
I blame the voters - but would that be victim blaming?

---

Why? The voters preferred Hillary Clinton by about two percentage points.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Eutychus:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Crœsos:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Boogie:
I blame the voters - but would that be victim blaming?

---

Why? The voters preferred Hillary Clinton by about two percentage points.

---

One of the most cogent criticisms of outraged Democrat voters I've seen from the right (and let's face it, there aren't many...) is the impression the former sometimes give that the election was won unfairly.

I take all the points about voter suppression and other kinks in the system that mean that the popular vote doesn't decide the outcome, but I think it's especially pointless to bemoan the latter in particular for this mandate. It gives the impression that non-Republicans are essentially in denial about the outcome.

Activism to improve the voting system shouldn't be confused with criticism of the current administration.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Crœsos:
What I object to is translating that into portraying him as the choice of "the voters" or "the people". I concede that the U.S. uses a somewhat non-democratic method to select the president that sometimes vomits up a second-place finisher to head the executive branch. Unless you also win the popular vote you don't get to claim that "the voters" get credit/blame for your victory. I see repeated attempts to cast Trump in this light as of a piece with his claims about the size of the crowd at his inauguration: an attempt to portray an historically unpopular president* as being popular.

---

quote:

---

President Franklin Roosevelt rarely invoked the election result when he was presenting early New Deal ideas in 1933, but more recent presidents such as Bill Clinton and George W. Bush have frequently invoked the election to justify their policy ideas, big and small. The major turning point appears to have been the Nixon and Carter administrations, neither of which tend to come to mind when we think of major presidential mandates. Documents from these administrations reveal that references to election results were less about the results themselves and more about the need for presidents to justify their leadership in an increasingly hostile political environment. Party polarization had begun, trust in institutions had declined, and as a result, the presidency no longer commanded the respect it once did. In other words, reaching for rhetoric about “doing what I was elected to do” or “fulfilling the promises of my campaign” has become a standard way of defending presidential legitimacy in general.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Hedgehog:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Crœsos:
What I object to is translating that into portraying him as the choice of "the voters" or "the people". I concede that the U.S. uses a somewhat non-democratic method to select the president that sometimes vomits up a second-place finisher to head the executive branch. Unless you also win the popular vote you don't get to claim that "the voters" get credit/blame for your victory. I see repeated attempts to cast Trump in this light as of a piece with his claims about the size of the crowd at his inauguration: an attempt to portray an historically unpopular president* as being popular.

---

Regardless of who is President, there is often a claim that winning the election results in a "mandate." Here is an interesting pre-election analysis of the Presidential claims of mandates.

quote:

---

President Franklin Roosevelt rarely invoked the election result when he was presenting early New Deal ideas in 1933, but more recent presidents such as Bill Clinton and George W. Bush have frequently invoked the election to justify their policy ideas, big and small. The major turning point appears to have been the Nixon and Carter administrations, neither of which tend to come to mind when we think of major presidential mandates. Documents from these administrations reveal that references to election results were less about the results themselves and more about the need for presidents to justify their leadership in an increasingly hostile political environment. Party polarization had begun, trust in institutions had declined, and as a result, the presidency no longer commanded the respect it once did. In other words, reaching for rhetoric about “doing what I was elected to do” or “fulfilling the promises of my campaign” has become a standard way of defending presidential legitimacy in general.

---

(Emphasis added.)

So, while I agree with you that a politician shouldn't act as if their electoral victory was a signal that everything the politician thinks is endorsed by "the people," they will do so because politicians of whatever stripe love to wallow in rhetoric. It isn't just a Trump thing. It is a politician thing.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by cliffdweller:
But at least those prior examples were presidents who were, you know, elected by the majority of Americans.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe:

quote:

---

Originally posted by cliffdweller:
But at least those prior examples were presidents who were, you know, elected by the majority of Americans.

---

No. They were elected by the majority of Americans who bothered to vote. If voter turnout in the US were closer to what it is elsewhere, history would have run a very different course indeed.

---

Posted                         

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gramps49:
Even if, for some reason, no one was able to get a majority of the electoral college vote, the election would then go to the House, but each state would only have one vote. Again, it is about the state, not the voter.

---

Posted                         

quote:

---

Originally posted by mr cheesy:
I liked the part where he said he is going to stop the world laughing at the USA.

Believe me, we're already laughing.

---

I'm not laughing, I'm crying.

I want to

--------------------
"...that is generally a matter for Pigwidgeon, several other consenting adults, a bottle of cheap Gin and the odd giraffe."
~Tortuf

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Pigwidgeon:
I'm not laughing, I'm crying.

I want to

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ian Climacus:
BTW, McCain is (was? - not sure if he's left) here. . . . I still cannot separate him and Palin in mind.

---

Posted                         

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ian Climacus:
BTW, McCain is (was? - not sure if he's left) here. Odd that someone who stood next to Palin now looks exceptionally mainstream!

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

Originally posted by mr cheesy:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Pigwidgeon:
I'm not laughing, I'm crying.

I want to

---

I think I'm through the grief stage and into hysterical laughing.

---

Posted                         

quote:

---

Originally posted by Eutychus:
It seems that at least some state governors are saying they are intending to honour the spirit of the Paris agreement anyway. Could an issue such as this actually fragment the Union in the long term?

---

Jerry Brown of California, my governor, is one of them. From what I heard today, he has an upcoming meeting with China about the environment, but I'm not sure of the focus. I think it's good that Jerry is our governor now. He was gov. once before (late '70s?); trained as a Jesuit, but not ordained; into Zen back then, IIRC; an environmentalist, IIRC; fiery; a man of his times; some people made fun of him and California; and he and Linda Ronstadt were an item! He's grown and grown up a lot; has more balance; still fiery; and has become a bit of a curmudgeon. So he's ready to take this challenge on.

Not sure re fragmenting. We've got all sorts of fractures and fault lines, and we always have. Plus "states' rights"--which have often been used for evil; but there can be good uses, too. Saving the environment might be one of them.

I don't think this, *on its own*, would be enough to seriously fragment the US. But groups that are already leaning towards secession (many), and also believe in climate change (Cascadia independence movement* (Wikipedia)) , might take it as a "go!" signal.



*Presumed to believe in climate change, given the environmentalist streak in the places involved.

--------------------
Blessed Gator, pray for us!
--"Oh bat bladders, do you have to bring common sense into this?" (Dragon, "Jane & the Dragon")
--"Oh, Peace Train, save this country!" (Yusuf/Cat Stevens, "Peace Train")

Posted                         

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gramps49:
Even if, for some reason, no one was able to get a majority of the electoral college vote, the election would then go to the House, but each state would only have one vote. Again, it is about the state, not the voter.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Pigwidgeon:
McCain, a former Navy pilot, spent over five years in the notorious North Vietnamese prison known as the “Hanoi Hilton,” where he was repeatedly tortured, two of those years in solitary confinement.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Eutychus:
It seems that at least some state governors are saying they are intending to honour the spirit of the Paris agreement anyway. Could an issue such as this actually fragment the Union in the long term?

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Pigwidgeon:
McCain, a former Navy pilot, spent over five years in the notorious North Vietnamese prison known as the “Hanoi Hilton,” where he was repeatedly tortured, two of those years in solitary confinement.

---

And even now does not have full use of his arms. I've learned to respect John McCain. But let's see if his actions match his words.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
Simontoad: I understand your pain, but right now ronald rdump is king of California and the whole of America so far as the world sees and as foreign policy.

Is revolution possible? You had one before. Is this ruler as bad as the one for the last one?

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by romanlion:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Pigwidgeon:
McCain, a former Navy pilot, spent over five years in the notorious North Vietnamese prison known as the “Hanoi Hilton,” where he was repeatedly tortured, two of those years in solitary confinement.

---

And even now does not have full use of his arms. I've learned to respect John McCain. But let's see if his actions match his words.

---

I'd have more respect for him if he had died there.

---

Posted                         

quote:

---

Originally posted by simontoad:

quote:

---

Originally posted by romanlion:
I'd have more respect for him if he had died there.

---

Shame on you Romanlion. That is an awful post.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Pigwidgeon:
Now I think the only reason he's resisting Trump is because Trump hurt his feelings.

---

Is John McCain "resisting" Trump in any meaningful way? He often purses his lips, scowls, and talks about how "concerned" he is about various things the Trump administration has done (or is alleged to have done), but he hasn't actually done about these concerns that I'm aware of. Maybe if he were a member of an organization empowered to exercise oversight over the executive branch, perhaps even serving on a committee to keep an eye on "Governmental Affairs", McCain might be able to do something substantive. As it is, what can he do?

--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto

Posted                         

quote:

---

Originally posted by Eutychus:
It seems that at least some state governors are saying they are intending to honour the spirit of the Paris agreement anyway. Could an issue such as this actually fragment the Union in the long term?

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by cliffdweller:
McCain is a classic Greek tragedy set in three acts:
McCain 1.0 was reasonable, civil, centrist and incredibly witty. Even when I disagreed with him I liked him
McCain 2.0 emerged in 2008 when, after suffering as the first victim of Karl Roves unethical electioneering practices he decided to throw in his lot with the dark side. Ultimately he didn't have the stomach for it
McCain 3.0 is a grumpy old man who's been battered down by life, sitting on his porch yelling at the kids to get off his lawn

But every now and then we still see glimpses of 1.0. We need him now more than ever

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gramps49:
News Item: Three labor investigators looking at the Chinese shoe factory that produces shoes for Ivanka Trump clothing line have been arrested. Apparently, the Chinese want to keep on the good graces of Mr. Trump.

---