Trump

Usenko · Post by **Usenko** » Sat, 25. Feb 17, 10:34

Again, that's a bit of a misunderstanding. I don't support the "Press" as though they were some above-suspicion paragon of virtue. Rather, I assume that the Press are lying weasels, but you can get a reasonable idea of what is going on by taking an average.

And Trump's accusations of dishonesty towards them is definitely the pot calling the kettle black . . . .

birdtable · Post by **birdtable** » Sat, 25. Feb 17, 10:41

I apologise Usenko if you believe my comments were directed at you because they certainly were not ,,, Talking in generalisations and as you say i see no difference in the kettle or the pot, each equally reflect the poor state of democracy at the moment.

Usenko · Post by **Usenko** » Sat, 25. Feb 17, 11:11

No harm done. And yes, democracy is not at its best right now . .

pjknibbs · Post by **pjknibbs** » Sat, 25. Feb 17, 11:20

Usenko wrote:No harm done. And yes, democracy is not at its best right now . .

I'd have to take issue with that statement. The thing you have to live with when you live in a democracy is that sometimes you're not on the winning side and something you dislike will come to pass. That's still better than living in a dictatorship, where it might be the case that *everything* that happens is something you disagree with and you have absolutely no power to change that!

Usenko · Post by **Usenko** » Sat, 25. Feb 17, 11:29

Total agreement; a poor democracy is better than any dictatorship (with the possible exceptions of Ataturk and Lee Kwan Yue, and even then both of those made some serious errors).

But still, democracy isn't working as well as it sometimes does (in some countries).

philip_hughes · Post by **philip_hughes** » Sat, 25. Feb 17, 11:55

2 things-

-we always get exactly what we vote for, the blame is purely on our collective shoulders.

-democracy is not the goal, good government is. How that is achieved without a democracy is another story.

mrbadger · Post by **mrbadger** » Sat, 25. Feb 17, 14:35

I don't think good government is the goal of democracy.

Good is subjective. To millions of Americans, Trump is the President, the Government, they have always wanted, always been denied, so to them he is good government.

The goal of democracy as I see it, it to seek the middle ground, to make sure no one group keeps power in perpetuity.

I rather suspect, and have said in the past, that he will harm the Republicans so much that they may struggle for decades to regain their former dominance.

Post Trump we might see the emergence of Independents with a real shot at victory.

Yes, I mean Zuckerburg.

Just be glad Jobs is dead, or the iStates could have been a real thing.....

BugMeister · Post by **BugMeister** » Sat, 25. Feb 17, 15:06

- eh?

birdtable · Post by **birdtable** » Sat, 25. Feb 17, 15:24

- eh?

Morkonan · Post by **Morkonan** » Sat, 25. Feb 17, 16:30

Note: My apologies for using a vulgar term in a post, above. I was incensed, but thought better about it, later, and was going to bleep it out, but that's already been done - Thanks/sorry.

Usenko wrote:Separate reply to a separate question:

I COULD be misunderstanding stuff, being an Australian and all . . but, aren't the Press supposed to come to Press Briefings? Isn't that sort of the POINT of Press Briefings?

The White House can invite whoever they wish or deny entry to whoever they wish.

The "gaggle" that was held is a sort of very informal press briefing where no cameras/recording instruments are allowed. Think of it as a "fireside chat" sort of thing, with everyone sipping cocoa by a cozy fire and holding relaxed and friendly discourse on the topics of the day... OR, an angry mob of people cursing at each other and throwing chairs - Your pick.

Note: There is a neutral "Press Corps" that acts to collect information from any/all briefings and pass it along to news agencies that aren't large enough or do not have a reserved chair for briefings. IIRC, any "news agency", and we're still arguing about just who qualifies for that sort of title, can apply for seating at a press briefing. I don't know how they're vetted, though. But, some surprisingly "small", yet fairly highly regarded, news agencies have had seats at these briefings.

However, just like you choose every morning whether or not to crap on your neighbor's lawn, the White House has made a choice and that choice will have consequences. Here, they've chosen to purposefully shun news agencies that have been pursuing Trump's relationship/shenanigans, if any, with Russia. This childish slight has been noticed and is only adding fuel to the growing fire.

mrbadger wrote:..I don't think good government is the goal of democracy.

Good is subjective. To millions of Americans, Trump is the President, the Government, they have always wanted, always been denied, so to them he is good government.

The goal of democracy as I see it, it to seek the middle ground, to make sure no one group keeps power in perpetuity...

A legitimate government is one that is empowered by the People to govern for the Greater Good of all.

That's a somewhat loaded statement, taken at face value. But, in essence, a legitimate government must derive its power through the Will of the People that it governs and must act for "the Greater Good."

Here, IMO, things get a bit murky. See, while a government must be empowered by the Will of the People and the People must be willing to sacrifice a small portion of their Liberty to do so, it is not, necessarily, only a Democracy that can serve such a standard. However, it's difficult to say what other form of government comes as close to justifying calling any form of government "legitimate."

But, the "Greater Good", in my opinion, has a couple of components. First, we have to consider the Will of the People in a Democracy. This is the concept of "Majority Rule", since its only the aggregate will of the people being directly represented in a Democracy. So, along with this notion, we must also protect the liberties of those who's desires are not directly reflected in their government. In that case, we have to protect their Liberties, just as we protect the liberties of the majority. That's where "tyranny towards none" comes into play - Majority Rule with Tyranny Towards None.

In short, since I'm a long-winded blowhard - The goal of a legitimate government, in this case a Democracy, is NOT to seek a "middle ground."

For instance, if a majority of people wish to kill and eat a small minority of their fellow citizens, the government is not empowered to find some sort of "middle ground" which allows a smaller portion of citizens to be killed and eaten or, perhaps, only their extremities, which they can likely live without... A legitimate government must also protect the liberties of people who are unpopular, hold dissenting views or those who actively work to change popular opinion to an alternate one.

HOWEVER - The goal of a politician is, quite often, to work towards a common understanding with their policy/governing opponents in order to formulate the best policy and one which, hopefully, represents an agreeable and equitable compromise position between any extreme views they may represent, but one that does not also infringe upon the personal liberties of any of their constituents, regardless of their political views.

felter · Post by **felter** » Sat, 25. Feb 17, 21:12

Morkonan wrote:The White House can invite whoever they wish or deny entry to whoever they wish.

The "gaggle" that was held is a sort of very informal press briefing where no cameras/recording instruments are allowed. Think of it as a "fireside chat" sort of thing, with everyone sipping cocoa by a cozy fire and holding relaxed and friendly discourse on the topics of the day... OR, an angry mob of people cursing at each other and throwing chairs - Your pick.

Note: There is a neutral "Press Corps" that acts to collect information from any/all briefings and pass it along to news agencies that aren't large enough or do not have a reserved chair for briefings. IIRC, any "news agency", and we're still arguing about just who qualifies for that sort of title, can apply for seating at a press briefing. I don't know how they're vetted, though. But, some surprisingly "small", yet fairly highly regarded, news agencies have had seats at these briefings.

However, just like you choose every morning whether or not to crap on your neighbor's lawn, the White House has made a choice and that choice will have consequences. Here, they've chosen to purposefully shun news agencies that have been pursuing Trump's relationship/shenanigans, if any, with Russia. This childish slight has been noticed and is only adding fuel to the growing fire.

This is not what happened, originally it was meant to be a press briefing that was downgraded to what you are talking about, I think they call it the press pool (not sure on that ,can't be bothered looking it up). It contains 13 different press parties, from all types of the press, and they have to share what happens. The problem was, it contains the ones that the WH wanted to ignore, and ban so it was once again downgraded to what Spicer is calling a gaggle. It did not contain all the different kinds of press parties, and the parties involved are under no obligation to share anything that was said. Two groups refused to attend, two others didn't realise what it was all about till after the fact, and have said they would not have attended if they had known, and are not going to attend if it happens again. You can tell that it was wrong though, as even Fox are complaining about it and they are Trumps strongest press allies, that normally don't say boo to anything he says.

To think this is all over the press covering what his election party and himself was up to with Russia. makes me wonder if it's not true, because why are they going way and beyond to try and stamp it out, as doing that actually just makes me believe it's all true. Hell they even tried to get the FBI to say it wasn't true, and they have refused to comment on it, normally when that happens the group keeping quiet is doing so because they know it's true.

Ask me, it's just another major clusterf**k to the Trump name. That's what should be in the dictionary, Clusterf**k - a Donald Trump type of person.

Post by **Santi** » Sun, 26. Feb 17, 03:13

Trump announced via his weapon of choice (Twitter) that he will be not attending the White House Correspondents' Association Dinner this year, something that was coming as a boicot by several news companies has been brewing for weeks now, The New Yorker, Vanity Fair and Bloomberg decided not to host the after parties that accompany the Dinner. Also CNN and MSNBC have been considering not attending to the Association Dinner where they always had a preferential place.

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-t ... SKBN1640TF

As Morkonan said The White House can invite whoever they wish or deny entry to whoever they wish from the Press. So nothing wrong with it, information is shared.

Chips · Post by **Chips** » Sun, 26. Feb 17, 04:07

Usenko wrote:No harm done. And yes, democracy is not at its best right now . .

Going to agree with one or two others - isn't democracy at it's best right now? The unexpected happened, the continuation of the "same old same old" (allegedly) was defeated.

The outcome may be unpallatable, bad, dangerous, but those who voted for said change got it.

Democracy isn't broken... definitely not dead, or faulty. When it goes against the expected it proves, more than ever, that it's working.

Of course the voting system may be flawed depending upon your viewpoint (i.e. populous vote isn't actual outcome vote

), but again, not Democracies fault.

BugMeister · Post by **BugMeister** » Sun, 26. Feb 17, 06:46

- bloody right, it's not Democracy..
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/20 ... are_btn_fb

- no connection - pah!!?

birdtable · Post by **birdtable** » Sun, 26. Feb 17, 07:25

The problem with democracy at the present time is the lack of accurate informed information available to make voting decisions. Too many self interested parties desperate to put forward their own agendas regardless of outcome for the populace in general.. Has this ever been different ? but when it affects the fairly recent phenomenon called Democracy it should be analysed with a cautious eye and ear.

Warenwolf · Post by **Warenwolf** » Sun, 26. Feb 17, 07:55

birdtable wrote:The problem with democracy at the present time is the lack of accurate informed information available to make voting decisions.

Actually I would claim that historically there have never been more information sources available to the average voter than right now.

But since human ability to prosess objectively information about abstract concepts or not directly observable things (as in happening right now, in front of you) is really limited - the political landscape is formed by people able to influence us on the psychological level.

Or to put it another way - the human ability to make informed decisions rests heavily on the human ability to make objective decisions. Which is and always have been wishful thinking (but hey, modern democracy is based on this assumption and I don't have any alternative system that is better, so...)

birdtable · Post by **birdtable** » Sun, 26. Feb 17, 08:18

An accurate assessment Warenwolf ...we are a X2 sagt Bussi auf Bauch bunch of bipedal organisms .... long may it continue..

pjknibbs · Post by **pjknibbs** » Sun, 26. Feb 17, 08:32

Warenwolf wrote: Actually I would claim that historically there have never been more information sources available to the average voter than right now.

That's actually part of the problem, because all those different sources have their own spin on the news which follows on from their own prejudices, so the actual truth is buried somewhat.

Warenwolf · Post by **Warenwolf** » Sun, 26. Feb 17, 09:15

pjknibbs wrote: That's actually part of the problem, because all those different sources have their own spin on the news which follows on from their own prejudices, so the actual truth is buried somewhat.

Which has always been the case* - the difference is the quantity**. It is (as it has always have been) up to the reader to decide the reliabilityof the source or which part of the information is correct (or likely to be correct). And my theses is that we as human species are not very good at this.

*Just look at the role information manipulation played in the conflicts of 1800s and 1900s (way before the internet). Or see how popular perceptions of historic figures have been affected by sources.

**And of course ability to access that information. Which should ALSO make it easy for us to crosscheck information we are reading but of course, being lazy bipedals we are, we almost never do that.

philip_hughes · Post by **philip_hughes** » Sun, 26. Feb 17, 10:17

I'm perfectly capable of interpreting solid facts in a way that supports my world view. I presume everyone else can do the same

egosoft.com

egosoft.com

Trump