9 ms·

In ancient Rome, the senators thought that it was in the good of the republic to disband Julius Caesar. A group of them banded together and killed him. What th

In ancient Rome, the senators thought that it was in the good of the republic to disband Julius Caesar. A group of them banded together and killed him. What they failed to realize was how popular he was with the lower and middle classes. His reign had drastically improved their quality of life. His murder led to a string of civil wars and instability. Think hard before disbanding populist figures.

Grimm1 6y ago
Your point is noted, but Trump is popular with less than 44% [0] of people currently and has done nothing to improve their lives. Comparing the current admin with Caesar is giving a huge compliment to them, that they do not deserve. [0] https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/trump-approval-ratings/ https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/trump-approval-ratings/
- kingkawn 6y ago
  Trump is a symptom of a deeper cultural problem for which we are all participants. Take him out too viciously and the entire country would implode forever. Our chance is to address the problem directly by economic relief for rural poor (among others) so that the symptom resolves.
  - louwrentius 6y ago
    Exactly, Trump is an outcome, a symptom of a deeper, more systemic cultural problem within the US. It's not only him, look at the entire GOP, and what forces are at play to keep these people in place. The people currently in charge are there to protect historic interests/positions and they know they will lose them forever in a fair election. Because most of the country has moved on culturally.
    - frockington1 6y ago
      The cultural lines with the two parties seem to be changing. Back in early 00's, I remember the conservatives were saying you can't say ______ because God forbids it. Now it seems to be liberals saying you can't say _______ because it offends XYZ. I don't know why this is happening but it is kind of strange to see as censorship and silencing has never been a popular position
      - epistasis 6y ago
        Liberals have always said "you can't say X" for all sorts of things, not as a matter law, but because they don't want people to be assholes. The term "PC" was invented a looong time ago for this. The only thing that's changed is that people are pretending that it's new and unprecedented, as a way to garner more outrage.
  - eli_gottlieb 6y ago
    We can kill two birds with one stone: let's onshore a productive non-virtual, "building shit" economy, and use geographical anti-concentration laws to ensure areas outside the professional-class urban centers get a slice of the pie.
    - germinalphrase 6y ago
      “geographical anti-concentration laws” Any examples of this in practice?
      - eli_gottlieb 6y ago
        https://washingtonmonthly.com/magazine/novdec-2015/bloom-and-bust/ https://washingtonmonthly.com/magazine/novdec-2015/bloom-and... >What, then, is the missing piece? A major factor that has not received sufficient attention is the role of public policy. Throughout most of the country’s history, American government at all levels has pursued policies designed to preserve local control of businesses and to check the tendency of a few dominant cities to monopolize power over the rest of the country. These efforts moved to the federal level beginning in the late nineteenth century and reached a climax of enforcement in the 1960s and ’70s. Yet starting shortly thereafter, each of these policy levers were flipped, one after the other, in the opposite direction, usually in the guise of “deregulation.” Understanding this history, largely forgotten in our own time, is essential to turning the problem of inequality around. ... >Sometimes referred to by its supporters as “the Magna Carta of Small Business,” Robinson-Patman prevented the formation of chain stores even remotely approaching the scale and power of today’s Walmart or Amazon by cracking down on such practices as selling items below cost (a practice known as “loss leading”). The legislation also prohibited the chains from using their market power to extract price concessions from their suppliers, Similarly, the Miller-Tydings Act, enacted by Congress in 1937, put a floor on retail discounting, thereby ensuring that large chains headquartered in distant cities didn’t come to dominate the economies of local communities. This did not prevent innovation in retailing, such as the emergence of brand-spanking-new supermarkets to replace small-scale butcher shops and green grocers. But into the 1960s, these and similar laws would ensure that no supermarket chain would control more than about 7 percent of any local market.
  - oblongx 6y ago
    This escalated quickly, murdering elected leaders...c'mon guys wtf.
    - kingkawn 6y ago
      im explicitly calling for a peaceful solution that allows everyone a way to move forward together, but read whatever strawman you'd like
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- ben_w 6y ago
  44 is indisputably a minority. It is still enough people that I wouldn’t want to see the corresponding headline.
- metalchianti 6y ago
  American Patriots were only 40-45% of the population in the 13 colonies [0]. [0]https://books.google.com/books?id=xK1NuzpAcH8C&pg=PA235#v=onepage&q&f=false https://books.google.com/books?id=xK1NuzpAcH8C&pg=PA235#v=on...
- Ididntdothis 6y ago
  The opposition party could easily end this if they actually tried and offered a competing vision and a compelling candidate. They didn’t do this in 2016 and neither are they doing it in 2020. No need to kill anybody.
  - Grimm1 6y ago
    I completely agree, and while Trump is my main focus of the above comment I honestly think we need to do full scrutiny of both GOP and Dems I imagine we could hand out a lot of arrests on both sides of the isle. The corruption runs both ways and I don't find democrats as some amazing preferable choice, in fact Joe is a wet noodle. I think we need a reset all around which I'd be comfortable with being achieved by a combination of term limits and arrests for those who have broken the laws.
    - Ididntdothis 6y ago
      I never understand why people think term limits would do anything. Instead of long term corrupt people you would get a steady flow of people who jump from industry to government, do the bidding of the industry, and then go back. The result would be exactly the same.
      - Grimm1 6y ago
        Because the full view is term limits + lobbying is illegal + any thing that looks like what you described triggers an investigation for something like "corruption of a public servant" + none of the money as speech + reduced campaign time + no pacs or super pacs + a few more other things. There needs to be a multifaceted implementation of new policy. Term limits in a vacuum are useless, but if we didn't have a government that was pretty much a proxy for large corporations we could do neat things that would make anyone engaging in that type of arrangement's life a lot harder.
        Ididntdothis 6y ago
        “if we didn't have a government that was pretty much a proxy for large corporations “ I agree with that. I just don’t think term limits will make a difference in this effort.
- joelbluminator 6y ago
  Well, I see his approval rating barely changed the last 3 years by the link you posted. It was 43.4% on March 2017 and it's 44% now. It means a huge chunk of the American public likes what he has been doing the last years, or at least can't find a better candidate. I'm afraid it's wishful thinking to think most Americans are sick of Trump. Some are, for sure, but the data you posted isn't showing anything significant happened. He will likely win again from what I'm seeing.
vvG94KbDUtRa 6y ago
Difference being Trump has improved nobody's life
- maest 6y ago
  That sentence is so extreme and definitive that it's most likely provably false. Separately, opinion polls show that plenty of people support the current US president, so, regardless if their lives have been "improved" (whatever that means), those people will be upset if the president leaves.
  - ironman1478 6y ago
    I mean, has he really improved people's lives outside of the really rich or the bigoted (which makes you technically right)? I'd like to see evidence because I'm not aware of him actually improving things for anybody else. the only policy I think that he's passed that makes sense is to force hospitals to make costs available up front and public.
    - Izkata 6y ago
      Very much so, article from Jan 2018: https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/working-class-families-are-winning-big-under-trump https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/working-class-families-ar... And more from Oct 2019: https://www.heritage.org/markets-and-finance/commentary/middle-class-incomes-surging-thanks-trump-policies https://www.heritage.org/markets-and-finance/commentary/midd...
- frockington1 6y ago
  My taxes are lower and I've made a considerable amount of money in the markets. Other than that not much has changed, I'm much better off than I was 4 years ago
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]

Grimm1 6y ago

Your point is noted, but Trump is popular with less than 44% [0] of people currently and has done nothing to improve their lives. Comparing the current admin with Caesar is giving a huge compliment to them, that they do not deserve. [0] https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/trump-approval-ratings/ https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/trump-approval-ratings/

kingkawn 6y ago
Trump is a symptom of a deeper cultural problem for which we are all participants. Take him out too viciously and the entire country would implode forever. Our chance is to address the problem directly by economic relief for rural poor (among others) so that the symptom resolves.
- louwrentius 6y ago
  Exactly, Trump is an outcome, a symptom of a deeper, more systemic cultural problem within the US. It's not only him, look at the entire GOP, and what forces are at play to keep these people in place. The people currently in charge are there to protect historic interests/positions and they know they will lose them forever in a fair election. Because most of the country has moved on culturally.
  - frockington1 6y ago
    The cultural lines with the two parties seem to be changing. Back in early 00's, I remember the conservatives were saying you can't say ______ because God forbids it. Now it seems to be liberals saying you can't say _______ because it offends XYZ. I don't know why this is happening but it is kind of strange to see as censorship and silencing has never been a popular position
    - epistasis 6y ago
      Liberals have always said "you can't say X" for all sorts of things, not as a matter law, but because they don't want people to be assholes. The term "PC" was invented a looong time ago for this. The only thing that's changed is that people are pretending that it's new and unprecedented, as a way to garner more outrage.
- eli_gottlieb 6y ago
  We can kill two birds with one stone: let's onshore a productive non-virtual, "building shit" economy, and use geographical anti-concentration laws to ensure areas outside the professional-class urban centers get a slice of the pie.
  - germinalphrase 6y ago
    “geographical anti-concentration laws” Any examples of this in practice?
    - eli_gottlieb 6y ago
      https://washingtonmonthly.com/magazine/novdec-2015/bloom-and-bust/ https://washingtonmonthly.com/magazine/novdec-2015/bloom-and... >What, then, is the missing piece? A major factor that has not received sufficient attention is the role of public policy. Throughout most of the country’s history, American government at all levels has pursued policies designed to preserve local control of businesses and to check the tendency of a few dominant cities to monopolize power over the rest of the country. These efforts moved to the federal level beginning in the late nineteenth century and reached a climax of enforcement in the 1960s and ’70s. Yet starting shortly thereafter, each of these policy levers were flipped, one after the other, in the opposite direction, usually in the guise of “deregulation.” Understanding this history, largely forgotten in our own time, is essential to turning the problem of inequality around. ... >Sometimes referred to by its supporters as “the Magna Carta of Small Business,” Robinson-Patman prevented the formation of chain stores even remotely approaching the scale and power of today’s Walmart or Amazon by cracking down on such practices as selling items below cost (a practice known as “loss leading”). The legislation also prohibited the chains from using their market power to extract price concessions from their suppliers, Similarly, the Miller-Tydings Act, enacted by Congress in 1937, put a floor on retail discounting, thereby ensuring that large chains headquartered in distant cities didn’t come to dominate the economies of local communities. This did not prevent innovation in retailing, such as the emergence of brand-spanking-new supermarkets to replace small-scale butcher shops and green grocers. But into the 1960s, these and similar laws would ensure that no supermarket chain would control more than about 7 percent of any local market.
- oblongx 6y ago
  This escalated quickly, murdering elected leaders...c'mon guys wtf.
  - kingkawn 6y ago
    im explicitly calling for a peaceful solution that allows everyone a way to move forward together, but read whatever strawman you'd like
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
ben_w 6y ago
44 is indisputably a minority. It is still enough people that I wouldn’t want to see the corresponding headline.
metalchianti 6y ago
American Patriots were only 40-45% of the population in the 13 colonies [0]. [0]https://books.google.com/books?id=xK1NuzpAcH8C&pg=PA235#v=onepage&q&f=false https://books.google.com/books?id=xK1NuzpAcH8C&pg=PA235#v=on...
Ididntdothis 6y ago
The opposition party could easily end this if they actually tried and offered a competing vision and a compelling candidate. They didn’t do this in 2016 and neither are they doing it in 2020. No need to kill anybody.
- Grimm1 6y ago
  I completely agree, and while Trump is my main focus of the above comment I honestly think we need to do full scrutiny of both GOP and Dems I imagine we could hand out a lot of arrests on both sides of the isle. The corruption runs both ways and I don't find democrats as some amazing preferable choice, in fact Joe is a wet noodle. I think we need a reset all around which I'd be comfortable with being achieved by a combination of term limits and arrests for those who have broken the laws.
  - Ididntdothis 6y ago
    I never understand why people think term limits would do anything. Instead of long term corrupt people you would get a steady flow of people who jump from industry to government, do the bidding of the industry, and then go back. The result would be exactly the same.
    - Grimm1 6y ago
      Because the full view is term limits + lobbying is illegal + any thing that looks like what you described triggers an investigation for something like "corruption of a public servant" + none of the money as speech + reduced campaign time + no pacs or super pacs + a few more other things. There needs to be a multifaceted implementation of new policy. Term limits in a vacuum are useless, but if we didn't have a government that was pretty much a proxy for large corporations we could do neat things that would make anyone engaging in that type of arrangement's life a lot harder.
      - Ididntdothis 6y ago
        “if we didn't have a government that was pretty much a proxy for large corporations “ I agree with that. I just don’t think term limits will make a difference in this effort.
joelbluminator 6y ago
Well, I see his approval rating barely changed the last 3 years by the link you posted. It was 43.4% on March 2017 and it's 44% now. It means a huge chunk of the American public likes what he has been doing the last years, or at least can't find a better candidate. I'm afraid it's wishful thinking to think most Americans are sick of Trump. Some are, for sure, but the data you posted isn't showing anything significant happened. He will likely win again from what I'm seeing.

vvG94KbDUtRa 6y ago

Difference being Trump has improved nobody's life

maest 6y ago
That sentence is so extreme and definitive that it's most likely provably false. Separately, opinion polls show that plenty of people support the current US president, so, regardless if their lives have been "improved" (whatever that means), those people will be upset if the president leaves.
- ironman1478 6y ago
  I mean, has he really improved people's lives outside of the really rich or the bigoted (which makes you technically right)? I'd like to see evidence because I'm not aware of him actually improving things for anybody else. the only policy I think that he's passed that makes sense is to force hospitals to make costs available up front and public.
  - Izkata 6y ago
    Very much so, article from Jan 2018: https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/working-class-families-are-winning-big-under-trump https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/working-class-families-ar... And more from Oct 2019: https://www.heritage.org/markets-and-finance/commentary/middle-class-incomes-surging-thanks-trump-policies https://www.heritage.org/markets-and-finance/commentary/midd...
frockington1 6y ago
My taxes are lower and I've made a considerable amount of money in the markets. Other than that not much has changed, I'm much better off than I was 4 years ago

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]