Phi for All Posted June 8, 2017 Posted June 8, 2017 You could tell Comey was struggling to understand what the hell McCain was even talking asking about because the logic was so broken and the premises some of the questions were founded upon were themselves simply wrong. Comey strikes me as a person who learns first, decides what the right thing to do is, and then gets passionate about that, which I wish more people would do. The more unclear the question, the more careful and precise he was about answering it. But over the question of the integrity of the bureau, he's made his decision and you can hear the emotion in his voice. I can understand how a man like that was torn about the right thing to do just before the election.
Airbrush Posted June 8, 2017 Author Posted June 8, 2017 (edited) You could tell Comey was struggling to understand what the hell McCain was even talking asking about because the logic was so broken and the premises some of the questions were founded upon were themselves simply wrong. Good observation. I was waiting for the CNN reporters to notice that after the hearing, since McCain was the LAST one to question Comey. The contortions McCain went through to come to the conclusion there was a "double standard" for Trump and Clinton seemed absurd. McCain was acting rather senile, but I had great hopes for him to contribute to the hearing. This hearing is at least another "cut" of the thousand cuts, a very big cut, it may take to impeach Trump and rid the USA and the world of this nightmare. Edited June 8, 2017 by Airbrush
Delta1212 Posted June 8, 2017 Posted June 8, 2017 Comey strikes me as a person who learns first, decides what the right thing to do is, and then gets passionate about that, which I wish more people would do. The more unclear the question, the more careful and precise he was about answering it. But over the question of the integrity of the bureau, he's made his decision and you can hear the emotion in his voice. I can understand how a man like that was torn about the right thing to do just before the election. If nothing else, it was a very interesting opportunity to get some insight on what makes Comey tick and how he makes decisions.
iNow Posted June 8, 2017 Posted June 8, 2017 McCain came across as a tired old man, and it was sad. He even kept mistakenly confusing "Mr.Trump" with "Mr.Comey" while asking his questions. Another point he was (maybe?) trying to make: Why comment on the Clinton investigation before the election, but not Trump investigation? Who knows, though... he may as well have been yelling at kids to get off his lawn. Disappointing.
CharonY Posted June 8, 2017 Posted June 8, 2017 I think he even said "president Comey". It was really bizarre.
KipIngram Posted June 8, 2017 Posted June 8, 2017 Well, McCain is getting old. Probably represents yet another plug for term limits, but we'll never get those unless we cram them down their throats via a constitutional convention, so oh well. Sometimes I think if I could have a time machine conversation with the Founders that's the one thing I'd urge them to add to their work. We'd be enormously better off if things were structured so that it wasn't possible to make politics a career.
Airbrush Posted June 8, 2017 Author Posted June 8, 2017 (edited) Any of my American friends think this is terminal for the Donald? Yes, friend, this finally looks terminal, but I also thought Trump would lose the election. That is how wrong I can be. Edited June 8, 2017 by Airbrush
Phi for All Posted June 8, 2017 Posted June 8, 2017 We'd be enormously better off if things were structured so that it wasn't possible to make politics a career. Or, considering we all know what expertise brings to the table, perhaps we could structure politics so there's not so much personal advantage gained. It's out of proportion with the rest of society, and causes some of our worst abuses.
Delta1212 Posted June 8, 2017 Posted June 8, 2017 Yes, friend, this finally looks terminal, but I also thought Trump would lose the election. That is how wrong I can be. This is not terminal. It's not good for him, but it's not even close to terminal.
KipIngram Posted June 8, 2017 Posted June 8, 2017 Or, considering we all know what expertise brings to the table, perhaps we could structure politics so there's not so much personal advantage gained. It's out of proportion with the rest of society, and causes some of our worst abuses. Yes, that's a good point. But I sure wish something could be done.
Phi for All Posted June 8, 2017 Posted June 8, 2017 This is not terminal. It's not good for him, but it's not even close to terminal. It should be. It probably would have tanked anybody else, but the bar is set so low now that only extremism will have any effect. I honestly think his true base would forgive him for treason if he explained it as a deal too good to pass up, something that made him very wealthy personally. Ironically, the message in all this is that the skillsets for running the government and running a real estate business don't overlap in ways that benefit the country as a whole. Trump's experience in business has not translated to the office at all, imo. 1
KipIngram Posted June 8, 2017 Posted June 8, 2017 It should be. It probably would have tanked anybody else, but the bar is set so low now that only extremism will have any effect. I honestly think his true base would forgive him for treason if he explained it as a deal too good to pass up, something that made him very wealthy personally. Ironically, the message in all this is that the skillsets for running the government and running a real estate business don't overlap in ways that benefit the country as a whole. Trump's experience in business has not translated to the office at all, imo. Totally agree with that last statement - it's all too clear. Regarding the first paragraph, it wouldn't surprise me if there's an extreme core of his supporters that feel that way, but surely not enough to elect him. I feel certain we're looking at a one-term President here, even if he doesn't get "taken down" by any of this.
Phi for All Posted June 8, 2017 Posted June 8, 2017 Regarding the first paragraph, it wouldn't surprise me if there's an extreme core of his supporters that feel that way, but surely not enough to elect him. I feel certain we're looking at a one-term President here, even if he doesn't get "taken down" by any of this. Unfortunately, some of the business games he's playing require a lot more time. This renegotiation of treaties and accords simply to address bottom line monetary discrepancies is costing us orders of magnitude more power than the money can ever represent. A seat at the head of the table is priceless in terms of determining policy, and Russia, France, Germany, and China to name a few are happy to provide much needed leadership in the vacuum Trump has created. And at home, he seems happy to tie up Congress with privatized air traffic control because sabotaging healthcare isn't going so well either. His presidency seems tailored towards removing or reducing US influence globally. He's ignorant and ill-suited in too many ways to perform the job. This has been pointed out to him by many experts who understand these things, but he doubles and triples down on it, which tells me the ignorance is willful and unlikely to change while he's alive.
Airbrush Posted June 9, 2017 Author Posted June 9, 2017 (edited) He is not going to stop being delusional. His ignorance is from delusion. He lives by himself in Trump-la-la-land. He thinks he has the world all figured out, because the yes-people surrounding him always confirmed his view, or be fired. Then he is surprised, over and over again, that reality does not conform to his delusion. Or, considering we all know what expertise brings to the table, perhaps we could structure politics so there's not so much personal advantage gained. It's out of proportion with the rest of society, and causes some of our worst abuses. The presidency should not be a voluntary position. The best and brightest college grads, as determined by a special panel of experts, should be encouraged to join presidency school. Candidates are paid well and learn the subjects important to a good president, including economics, global and domestic politics, history, law, natural sciences, debate, (what other subjects?) etc. They are kept under constant surveillance while they attend presidency school, so the unfit candidates, wackos like Trump, would get weeded out. After they are well-educated, they can run for office. Edited June 9, 2017 by Airbrush
KipIngram Posted June 9, 2017 Posted June 9, 2017 (edited) Yeah, that sounds pretty right. Please let me clarify that this was in response to "He's not going to stop being delusional." Absolutely NOT in response to "The presidency should not be a voluntary position." So we want a President who feels he's being forced to do the job??? Sheesh. Edited June 9, 2017 by KipIngram
pavelcherepan Posted June 9, 2017 Posted June 9, 2017 The presidency should not be a voluntary position. The best and brightest college grads, as determined by a special panel of experts, should be encouraged to join presidency school. Candidates are paid well and learn the subjects important to a good president, including economics, global and domestic politics, history, law, natural sciences, debate, (what other subjects?) etc. They are kept under constant surveillance while they attend presidency school, so the unfit candidates, wackos like Trump, would get weeded out. After they are well-educated, they can run for office. While I'm totally in support for meritocracy, but this particular way leaves too much to be desired. There's endless opportunity for fraud and corruption. 1
Airbrush Posted June 9, 2017 Author Posted June 9, 2017 (edited) Who determines who gets to go to this school? A panel of experts, who are selected democratically. Transparency and objectivity in selection criteria would be paramount. Edited June 9, 2017 by Airbrush
Delta1212 Posted June 9, 2017 Posted June 9, 2017 (edited) A panel of experts, who are selected democratically. Transparency and objectivity in selection criteria would be paramount. Like the democratically elected panel of experts in the House Science Committee, currently chaired by a climate change denier? Edited June 9, 2017 by Delta1212
pavelcherepan Posted June 9, 2017 Posted June 9, 2017 A panel of experts, who are selected democratically. Transparency and objectivity in selection criteria would be paramount. Trump was elected democratically...
KipIngram Posted June 9, 2017 Posted June 9, 2017 He lost me when he removed "voluntary" from the job profile.
imatfaal Posted June 9, 2017 Posted June 9, 2017 He lost me when he removed "voluntary" from the job profile. there have been some very interesting and well thought out socio-political studies into leadership by lot (ie head of state chosen by lottery). In the small polities in which it happened naturally it was remarkably successful, some quite large (and very profitable) commercial enterprises have used it to guide future policy, and the drawbacks are often the same as current systems (worst that can happen is that some arrogant orange misogynist gets the job). Sorry if this is [OT] but I cannot talk about the current incumbant without breaking things and my office equipment store is down to a new low 1
Janus Posted June 9, 2017 Posted June 9, 2017 Trump was elected democratically... Not really. He was elected by an electoral system. In a purely democratic election, you have one man, one vote and every vote counts equally. With our present presidential election system a vote from a low population state like North Dakota has more voting power than one from a high population state like California. This is why it is possible to lose the popular vote and still win the election.
pavelcherepan Posted June 9, 2017 Posted June 9, 2017 Not really. He was elected by an electoral system. Well, technically, yes. But regardless of oddities of US electoral system, it's still generally considered to be a democratic one, so in generic sense my comment still stands.
Recommended Posts