9 ms·

Shamelessness is a bit like alcohol: it amplifies the characteristics of the subject. This can be a good thing when it allows a good talent to be expressed, or

by blunte 6y ago

Shamelessness is a bit like alcohol: it amplifies the characteristics of the subject. This can be a good thing when it allows a good talent to be expressed, orit can be terrible if it allows a broken person to spread destruction upon others. In lesser bad examples, it can mean glorifying excessive selfish activities which take away from society in general. But what particularly bothers me as an outcome of the last 5 years of US political shamelessness is how it has lowered the standard of discourse to literal schoolground name calling and blatant, even absurd fabrication of lies. I honestly don't know if that can ever be undone.

Pxtl 6y ago
I'm more worried about how it's revealed how much of the us governance was run essentially on the honor system. Did it never occur to the framers that a popular corrupt president could completely end-run around the judicial branch by pardoning everybody on their speed dial? The rule of law has been completely castrated.
- blunte 6y ago
  As I have observed my Texan elder family during this time, "rule of law" has really been "rules if i like them". The facade began to vanish once a black man moved into the White House.
  - loopz 6y ago
    Agreed. The backlash has been horrible, even if the feelings behind understated. I'm afraid we're up against genetic and cultural traits that are biased against equal opportunity and fair play. However, people can today claim higher autonomy and need to change strategy to become counted.
- bjornsing 6y ago
  There is only so much you can do to protect the electorate from themselves...
- travisjungroth 6y ago
  Apparently not. The US is a young country but an old government. Most other governments have been totally overhauled well after ours was formed. The way the electoral college, Senate and impeachment work mean a minority elects a king every four years. It’s not a good system.
  - JoeAltmaier 6y ago
    5 times the electoral college has opposed the popular vote, sometimes by very tiny margins. Out of about 60. So maybe an exaggeration.
    - rootusrootus 6y ago
      5 out of 60 is still almost 10%, so it's definitely a topic worth debate. The EC seems to have outlived it's original intent, so we should probably clarify it -- either formalize the process to remove the human uncertainties, or eliminate it altogether in favor of a national popular vote.
      - JadeNB 6y ago
        > The EC seems to have outlived it's original intent, so we should probably clarify it Its original intent was to give disproportionate weight to lower-population states, which is still an intent that is very much alive, at least among those lower-population states. It hasn't outlived that intent, but that intent always was, and remains, an anti-democratic thing.
        rootusrootus 6y ago
        I think the original intent was more along the lines of giving political elites the power to subvert the will of the voter when necessary. Otherwise having human electors serves no real purpose. The math part (how votes are summarized based on state population) is, IMO, a separate issue and definitely a topic for debate as well. I'd love to see us get past the idea that the founders were infallible, and be somewhat more willing to adapt the constitution as the country grows.
- rootusrootus 6y ago
  We got the Electoral Count Act back in 1887 as a result of misbehavior, perhaps 2020 will be a catalyst for a new round of legislation to add additional checks on power. Though as long as 50% of the voting population thinks this strategy is completely okay, that might be just a dream.
  - JadeNB 6y ago
    > Though as long as 50% of the voting population thinks this strategy is completely okay, that might be just a dream. Significantly less than 50% of the population that, thanks to gerrymandering, controls significantly more than 50% of the representation.
- Symmetry 6y ago
  The framers intended for the legislature to be far less reluctant to impeach presidents than they've proven to be. Probably because of party politics, which they thought was avoidable.
- throw0101a 6y ago
  > Did it never occur to the framers that a popular corrupt president could completely end-run around the judicial branch by pardoning everybody on their speed dial? The framers believed without individual virtue it didn't matter what kind of system(s) you put in place as they would be by-passed. James Madison: > I have observed, that gentlemen suppose, that the general legislature will do every mischief they possibly can, and that they will omit to do every thing good which they are authorised to do. If this were a reasonable supposition, their objections would be good. I consider it reasonable to conclude, that they will as readily do their duty, as deviate from it: Nor do I go on the grounds mentioned by gentlemen on the other side--that we are to place unlimited confidence in them, and expect nothing but the most exalted integrity and sublime virtue. But I go on this great republican principle, that the people will have virtue and intelligence to select men of virtue and wisdom. Is there no virtue among us? If there be not, we are in a wretched situation. No theoretical checks--no form of government can render us secure. To suppose that any form of government will secure liberty or happiness without any virtue in the people, is a chimerical idea. If there be sufficient virtue and intelligence in the community, it will be exercised in the selection of these men. So that we do not depend on their virtue, or put confidence in our rulers, but in the people who are to choose them. * 20 June 1788; Papers 11:163. https://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/v1ch13s36.html https://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/v1ch13s36... Key line: > Is there no virtue among us? If there be not, we are in a wretched situation. No theoretical checks--no form of government can render us secure.

by blunte 6y ago

Pxtl 6y ago

I'm more worried about how it's revealed how much of the us governance was run essentially on the honor system. Did it never occur to the framers that a popular corrupt president could completely end-run around the judicial branch by pardoning everybody on their speed dial? The rule of law has been completely castrated.

blunte 6y ago
As I have observed my Texan elder family during this time, "rule of law" has really been "rules if i like them". The facade began to vanish once a black man moved into the White House.
- loopz 6y ago
  Agreed. The backlash has been horrible, even if the feelings behind understated. I'm afraid we're up against genetic and cultural traits that are biased against equal opportunity and fair play. However, people can today claim higher autonomy and need to change strategy to become counted.
bjornsing 6y ago
There is only so much you can do to protect the electorate from themselves...
travisjungroth 6y ago
Apparently not. The US is a young country but an old government. Most other governments have been totally overhauled well after ours was formed. The way the electoral college, Senate and impeachment work mean a minority elects a king every four years. It’s not a good system.
- JoeAltmaier 6y ago
  5 times the electoral college has opposed the popular vote, sometimes by very tiny margins. Out of about 60. So maybe an exaggeration.
  - rootusrootus 6y ago
    5 out of 60 is still almost 10%, so it's definitely a topic worth debate. The EC seems to have outlived it's original intent, so we should probably clarify it -- either formalize the process to remove the human uncertainties, or eliminate it altogether in favor of a national popular vote.
    - JadeNB 6y ago
      > The EC seems to have outlived it's original intent, so we should probably clarify it Its original intent was to give disproportionate weight to lower-population states, which is still an intent that is very much alive, at least among those lower-population states. It hasn't outlived that intent, but that intent always was, and remains, an anti-democratic thing.
      - rootusrootus 6y ago
        I think the original intent was more along the lines of giving political elites the power to subvert the will of the voter when necessary. Otherwise having human electors serves no real purpose. The math part (how votes are summarized based on state population) is, IMO, a separate issue and definitely a topic for debate as well. I'd love to see us get past the idea that the founders were infallible, and be somewhat more willing to adapt the constitution as the country grows.
rootusrootus 6y ago
We got the Electoral Count Act back in 1887 as a result of misbehavior, perhaps 2020 will be a catalyst for a new round of legislation to add additional checks on power. Though as long as 50% of the voting population thinks this strategy is completely okay, that might be just a dream.
- JadeNB 6y ago
  > Though as long as 50% of the voting population thinks this strategy is completely okay, that might be just a dream. Significantly less than 50% of the population that, thanks to gerrymandering, controls significantly more than 50% of the representation.
Symmetry 6y ago
The framers intended for the legislature to be far less reluctant to impeach presidents than they've proven to be. Probably because of party politics, which they thought was avoidable.
throw0101a 6y ago
> Did it never occur to the framers that a popular corrupt president could completely end-run around the judicial branch by pardoning everybody on their speed dial? The framers believed without individual virtue it didn't matter what kind of system(s) you put in place as they would be by-passed. James Madison: > I have observed, that gentlemen suppose, that the general legislature will do every mischief they possibly can, and that they will omit to do every thing good which they are authorised to do. If this were a reasonable supposition, their objections would be good. I consider it reasonable to conclude, that they will as readily do their duty, as deviate from it: Nor do I go on the grounds mentioned by gentlemen on the other side--that we are to place unlimited confidence in them, and expect nothing but the most exalted integrity and sublime virtue. But I go on this great republican principle, that the people will have virtue and intelligence to select men of virtue and wisdom. Is there no virtue among us? If there be not, we are in a wretched situation. No theoretical checks--no form of government can render us secure. To suppose that any form of government will secure liberty or happiness without any virtue in the people, is a chimerical idea. If there be sufficient virtue and intelligence in the community, it will be exercised in the selection of these men. So that we do not depend on their virtue, or put confidence in our rulers, but in the people who are to choose them. * 20 June 1788; Papers 11:163. https://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/v1ch13s36.html https://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/v1ch13s36... Key line: > Is there no virtue among us? If there be not, we are in a wretched situation. No theoretical checks--no form of government can render us secure.