Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.
Why the feth did they change that to Airforce One?!?
I fething love that!
Sacred Cow was just the name of the plan.
Before 1953 air traffic control assigned the President's plane a call sign like anyone elses. In 1953, there was an incident where a plane (not the Sacred Cow anymore) carrying President Dwight Eisenhower was confused by air traffic controllers with another aircraft because their call signs were very similar; Air Force 610 and Eastern Airlines 610. Eisenhower's pilot then suggested permanently assigning the call sign "Air Force One" to any aircraft carrying the President.
As someone who is trans, having to deal with the next four years of the Trump administration is going to be infuriating, with name change and gender marker change on a variety of state and federal papers.
But what I am primarily worried about is all the things that have been going on with internet data caps. I mean, AT&T is trying to create its own little biome for its users. It is extremely worrying that they are making a financial incentive to visit approved websites. If corporations want to control what information voters see, they can do that it a much bigger way if AT&T's little experiment is a success. And with a Trump presidency I doubt that net neutrality and the free internet are going to high on his list of things to preserve.
Another reason, I think, for there to be a significant gap between the time they leave the military and the time they can be SoD is something like a personal conflict of interest. With 7 years, there's a good chance that any old grudges or other personal issues they might have with other officers might be gone by then.
"Through the darkness of future past, the magician longs to see.
One chants out between two worlds: Fire, walk with me." - Twin Peaks
"You listen to me. While I will admit to a certain cynicism, the fact is that I am a naysayer and hatchetman in the fight against violence. I pride myself in taking a punch and I'll gladly take another because I choose to live my life in the company of Gandhi and King. My concerns are global. I reject absolutely revenge, aggression, and retaliation. The foundation of such a method... is love. I love you Sheriff Truman." - Twin Peaks
d-usa wrote: How many #NeverTrump Republicans do you guys think will bend the knee?
In the Game of POTUS, you either win or die.
This is literally the only good thing to come out of this election.
Although I still wish Sanders had a fair chance, because he could have probably out-memed trump
Easy E wrote: Sebs.... you forgot one key point. It feels good to the base. There is no arguing about the Feelz. It's what plants crave!
I saw the headline article, and didn't read the article. From the headline alone most people's immediate thought was probably.... "huh, maybe is going to try and do something for the working class". I am guessing that is the exact reaction he wanted from his base too. We are in post-modern politics now. it is nto about governance, it is about showmanship. There has always been an element of this showmanship in politics, but I have a feeling it is about to go to 11. I mean, we are being led by a professional showman!
Yeah, it has been all show, no substance. My hope is that the trend towards that nonsense might see a sudden course correction after four years of this bs. People might learn that govt is more important than the feelz you get from the odd PR stunt.
Of course, I've called the bottom on this descent a lot of times before...
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Frazzled wrote: Its nice to feel superior, however considering the utter lack of concern by the previous Presidents and HRC at least something is being done. I know people on the coasts don't seem to give a gak, but then again thats why they've lost nearly everything.
My post that you quoted mentioned the auto-bailout, that saved 1.5 million jobs, which makes a mockery of Trump's big sell of his Carrier deal. You ignored that, and then make a claim that Obama didn't do anything, despite just one of his actions saving 1,500 more jobs than Trump's little PR stunt. You have done because on a basic level you just do not give a gak about reality.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Prestor Jon wrote: The electorate stopped caring about politicians' and parties' principles years ago. Here's an old interview between John Cusack and Jonathan Turley that raises some good points about that. People keep voting for the lesser of two evils because its become ingrained in them that the other party is always the greatest evil. We're voting out of spite and turning elections into pyrrhic victories.
This is Newt Gingrich's con. Make government stop working, spread the blame across all politicians, ride the upset in to power. It worked pretty well in 1994 & 1998, and arguably again in 2014, and definitely in 2016. And of course, it will keep working until people call an end to the con.
And until people call an end to the con, you will continue to get a Republican which exists in opposition purely to prevent anything happening and ride the subsequent frustration in to the whitehouse. And, from the look of things, we now have a Democratic party that's learned the same lesson.
Nope, that's crap. The issue that what can be done is in terms of minimising job losses, re-skilling, and income support. Which is important to stop the harm, but it's nothing compared to a nice, shiny new job.
Trump promised the jobs would come back. The rubes believed him, and the election was decided.
Now we get to sit back and watch Trump play around with some flashy showpieces like 1,000 jobs saved here or there, while doing absolutely nothing on a major scale, and certainly not actually bringing jobs back. Because Trump, if you hadn't noticed, was lying. He was promising something that can't be done.
Now everyone gets to learn the problems with believing obvious lies from an obvious liar.
There's an alarming view that you can only succeed if you have a college degree... that there's this backhanded insults to blue-collar jobs.
I know of two professional welders (with HS diplomas only), that are making as much, if not more than me (a college graduate). The single guy.... he has a lot of fething toys!
Sure, as well as college there's a wide range of vocational qualifications that can be satisfying jobs and also earn a nice income. The economy has lost semi-skilled and skilled manufacturing jobs, but the need for plumbers and the like is as high as ever.
This isn't about telling people they have to go to college. There's other ways to succeed, and college doesn't guarantee success either. This is about telling people that the world has changed, that just because their dad only ever had a highschool education but still got a good wage working in a factory, they aren't entitled to the same. The world has changed, and buying in to the promises of a reality star/dehydrated orange is a false hope. You have to get a qualification in a field that is employing, and if there's nothing like that in your town, you have to move. That's hard, of course, but the world hasn't ever been easy.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Prestor Jon wrote: Nobody wants to pay for them because we have protectionist labor policies. We make labor more expensive so we get less of it. That's not going to change because it's always going to be more expensive to manufacture things in the US than it is in places like China and SE Asia. Paying good wages and providing good benefits costs and the higher those costs get the more incentive there is to find other places to put manufacturing where the labor cost is lower.
Worrying about union controlled wages misses the problem entirely.
There's probably in excess of 20 posts in this thread pointing out that the US manufactures more now than ever before. You haven't lost manufacturing to China, instead the two countries have specialised in the kinds of manufacturing that best suit their skill levels and technology base. So the US focuses on high end stuff like aircraft and pharmaceuticals. China focuses on low end stuff like textiles*.
The issue for manufacturing jobs in the US is that industry there has followed a natural economic path in to highly automated manufacturing with a small number of high skilled staff. The big consolidated steel mills of the 70s just don't create employment for a whole region any more.
*Although the twist in this tale is that China has steadily improved its skill level and tech base, and is now moving in to higher level manufacturing. As wages have grown its began losing its low low skilled jobs to countries like Vietnam. Probably somewhere in China right now there's a strangely orange former TV star giving a rally to a crowd of unemployed seamstresses, promising he'll get their jobs back from Vietnam.
This message was edited 8 times. Last update was at 2016/12/02 04:36:24
“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”
Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something.
Reports that President-Elect Trump will nominate retired Marine General James Mattis as Secretary of Defense have brought to the public’s attention a 1940s-era statute that purports to limit the power of the president to nominate recently retired military members to the SecDef job. Federal law provides that a “person may not be appointed as Secretary of Defense within seven years after relief from active duty as a commissioned officer of a regular component of an armed force.” (The ban used to be 10 years, but was shortened sometime in the last couple decades).
On its face, this law means that Congress will have to enact a statutory exception to permit General Mattis to serve as Secretary of Defense, something it apparently has only done once in the case of George Marshall in 1950. At that time, Congress also noted “the sense” of the lawmakers that “no additional appointments of military men to that office shall be approved.”
This statutory limitation on the president’s power to appoint officers of his choosing is almost certainly unconstitutional. The constitution vests the President with the sole authority to nominate executive officers of his choosing. The only constitutional limitation is the incompatability clause – which prevents a member of Congress from serving in any “Office of the United States.”
Congress has no role in deciding whom the president can nominate. Congress does have a role in the appointment of those officers, but that is limited to the Senate’s “advise and consent” role. In both the nomination and appointment process, the ultimate power lies with the President. Congress cannot limit who the president chooses to appoint as an executive officer. The Senate can withhold consent, but that is as far as they can go in preventing the president’s appointment.
So can the legislation be viewed as a condition of the Senate’s consent? That’s also doubtful – or better yet, just plain wrong. The House can have no role in how the Senate exercises its constitutional authority, and even more, no individual Senator can be beholden to a legislative whim of prior Congresses in deciding how to exercise the advice and consent role. So legislation that directs the Senate how to vote on a confirmation would be equally problematic.
There may be very good policy reasons behind this limitation on retired military serving as Secretary of Defense – i.e., concerns about maintaining civilian control of the military. Both the President and Congress may want to respect those policy concerns in most instances. But Congress cannot prevent Donald Trump from nominating Mattis, no matter when Mattis retired from active duty.
The reports are certainly correct that Congress is likely to go through the utterly unnecessary step of “waiving” the applicability of the statute. But if 51 Senators simply chose to ignore the statute and vote for Mattis without observing the statutory ban, there’s every reason to think that their actions would be legal under the constitution.
whembly wrote: Like what Mike Rowe has always advocated... you have to find where those jobs are and determine what you're willing to do to "work it".
Simply getting HS diploma, or even getting a collegiate degree doesn't guarantee that there are jobs for you around the corner.
Bootstrapp'n is an attribute that ought to be praised.
Sort of. I agree that its a key to the individual to be realistic about their work prospects, identify a career which has job openings, and then do whatever it takes to get and to keep that job.
But bootstrapping has taken on a whole other meaning, it most often isn't used as an ethos that an individual takes on for themselves, but as something a person just throws at another person so that they can ignore the difficulty that a person might be in. It's one thing for a person to decided for themselves to bootstrap themselves up by a skill in an expanding field, it's another thing to tell a 50 year old who's factory just shut that he ought to bootstrap himself up, somehow. The former is an acceptance of personal responsibility, the latter is a rejection of social responsibility to help someone pull themselves up.
“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”
Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something.
whembly wrote: Like what Mike Rowe has always advocated... you have to find where those jobs are and determine what you're willing to do to "work it".
Simply getting HS diploma, or even getting a collegiate degree doesn't guarantee that there are jobs for you around the corner.
Bootstrapp'n is an attribute that ought to be praised.
Sort of. I agree that its a key to the individual to be realistic about their work prospects, identify a career which has job openings, and then do whatever it takes to get and to keep that job.
Yup.
But bootstrapping has taken on a whole other meaning, it most often isn't used as an ethos that an individual takes on for themselves, but as something a person just throws at another person so that they can ignore the difficulty that a person might be in. It's one thing for a person to decided for themselves to bootstrap themselves up by a skill in an expanding field, it's another thing to tell a 50 year old who's factory just shut that he ought to bootstrap himself up, somehow. The former is an acceptance of personal responsibility, the latter is a rejection of social responsibility to help someone pull themselves up.
Nah... the origin of that phrase was really what it meant, meaning to improve one's position by one's own efforts.
It's just been made into mockery in recent years to admonish anyone advocating to take more responsibility in their lot in life.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/12/02 03:51:56
It's worse, because 1,000 jobs still moved to Mexico. So Trump started with a position of 'you will keep jobs here or we'll tax you', and ended with a position of paying 7 million and still losing half the jobs.
Are you all sick winning, yet?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
cuda1179 wrote: What I'm saying is, gross income isn't the best indicator on value of life. Sure I might be making less, but I'm also spending less. The difference in net worth is to me worthless compared to the extra time I have for family, friends, and hobbies.
This is true, but it's worth noting that you have a hell of a lot more options available when you have a piece of paper. Employers are a lot more willing to accept flexible work arrangements from their skilled worker than their semi-skilled workers.
Your situation is a little different, but for the most part if you think what you want in later life will be flexibility and some work life balance, the best way to get that is with the right qualification.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
jreilly89 wrote: To be fair, I'd be interested in what those degrees are in. I have a bunch of college friends as well, and those with STEM or business degrees rarely seem to be as bad off as those with liberal arts degrees.
The college also counts. A lot of people sign up for some really expensive schools despite missing the scholarship, then look surprised when they come out the other end with a pile of debt that's really hard to pay off.
If you get a great scholarship, or if you're parent's own half a county, then Ivy league and other pricy schools are a good option. But if you're paying for it with debt you'll take on - then state schools are by far the best value for money.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2016/12/02 04:09:56
“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”
Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something.
Reports that President-Elect Trump will nominate retired Marine General James Mattis as Secretary of Defense have brought to the public’s attention a 1940s-era statute that purports to limit the power of the president to nominate recently retired military members to the SecDef job. Federal law provides that a “person may not be appointed as Secretary of Defense within seven years after relief from active duty as a commissioned officer of a regular component of an armed force.” (The ban used to be 10 years, but was shortened sometime in the last couple decades).
On its face, this law means that Congress will have to enact a statutory exception to permit General Mattis to serve as Secretary of Defense, something it apparently has only done once in the case of George Marshall in 1950. At that time, Congress also noted “the sense” of the lawmakers that “no additional appointments of military men to that office shall be approved.”
This statutory limitation on the president’s power to appoint officers of his choosing is almost certainly unconstitutional. The constitution vests the President with the sole authority to nominate executive officers of his choosing. The only constitutional limitation is the incompatability clause – which prevents a member of Congress from serving in any “Office of the United States.”
Congress has no role in deciding whom the president can nominate. Congress does have a role in the appointment of those officers, but that is limited to the Senate’s “advise and consent” role. In both the nomination and appointment process, the ultimate power lies with the President. Congress cannot limit who the president chooses to appoint as an executive officer. The Senate can withhold consent, but that is as far as they can go in preventing the president’s appointment.
So can the legislation be viewed as a condition of the Senate’s consent? That’s also doubtful – or better yet, just plain wrong. The House can have no role in how the Senate exercises its constitutional authority, and even more, no individual Senator can be beholden to a legislative whim of prior Congresses in deciding how to exercise the advice and consent role. So legislation that directs the Senate how to vote on a confirmation would be equally problematic.
There may be very good policy reasons behind this limitation on retired military serving as Secretary of Defense – i.e., concerns about maintaining civilian control of the military. Both the President and Congress may want to respect those policy concerns in most instances. But Congress cannot prevent Donald Trump from nominating Mattis, no matter when Mattis retired from active duty.
The reports are certainly correct that Congress is likely to go through the utterly unnecessary step of “waiving” the applicability of the statute. But if 51 Senators simply chose to ignore the statute and vote for Mattis without observing the statutory ban, there’s every reason to think that their actions would be legal under the constitution.
Whoever wrote this might want to read again (assuming they read in the first place cause jesus this is 5th grade Civics);
He (the President) shall have the Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two-thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments.
Indeed the President is given the power to appoint, but it is not a de facto power. Congress is afforded the sole power to define the scope of government positions.
Basically what the Constitution actually says is that Congress has the power to define the scope of government positions, how many exist, and whether or not the position is appointed at all. The President doesn't actually have a de facto power to appoint officials, only the vest to do so where Congress has afforded him the opportunity. Congress defines the positions that need filling, and logically that includes the ability to define who is eligible to fill those positions. If Congress created a "Department of Keep'n it Fresh" they could include in that law that "The Secretary of Fine must be at least 16 years old, and hold a platinum album with no more and no less than 6 honnies." It's their granted power to do so, with the Senate granted the additional power to "advise and consent" the President on such matters which can easily be construed as "tell the President who he can and can't appoint."
Functionally, those positions are not that well defined. The US doesn't really have Ministers or Consuls and the Supreme Court has tackled "other officers" and "inferior officers" terminology on a case by case basis (Buckley v Valeo and Morrison v Olsen are relevant SCOTUS cases). Note that Congress isn't given the power to appoint in the above clause, merely the power to establish by law whether a position is or is not appointed by the President. The actual process of the Senate voting up or down a nominee is not a Constitutional power per se, but rather the practical exercise of "Advice and consent" as the government currently chooses to run things.
History with Hats
The Founders did this for a very obvious reason; an executive who can create departments of government is a road to corruption and tyranny (created offices of government was a popular political end run in Medieval Europe).. Therefore the ability to define the size and scope of the Executive Branch was given to Congress, not the President as a check. There was actually disagreement among the founders as to whether the "advice and consent" of Congress should come before or after an appointment. Should the President be able to appoint whomever they desire, or should Congress be able to limit the office's ability to do so? They decided that question took to much screaming to answer and the above wording was given as a compromise specifically because it can be read either way. Functionally the US government actually takes a middle road. Some presidents have talked to Congress about their appointments before making them, others after.
Why even include this section then you ask? Well I'll tell you! Because the Founders were still scared of that damnable tyranny of the majority. They didn't want Congress to be able to isolate the President into a purely ceremonial position by giving Congress the power to appoint officials. So this is actually a two way check between Congress and the President (technically three, cause Supreme Court judges but we'll ignore that one for the moment). Someone obviously has to make the day to day wheels of the state turn, and this clause is explicitly designed to both keep the Executive and Congressional branches separate from one another, checked on one another, and forces them to work together to actually fill the positions needed to make the wheels turn.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2016/12/02 04:26:03
The college also counts. A lot of people sign up for some really expensive schools despite missing the scholarship, then look surprised when they come out the other end with a pile of debt that's really hard to pay off.
This... and I'd go beyond just paying for the gak... Case in point, I am currently at a very well respected private school. It has limited Masters programs, but the majority of the bachelor's programs are well-known and well-respected around the state of Washington. Down the road a ways from me is Evergreen State University. I've talked to a number of people in a number of fields who have some measure of hiring control, and they all tell me the same thing: a Bachelors from that school ain't worth the paper its printed on, but a Masters from the school is well respected. On top of that, another buddy of mine from the rugby club, who's an engineer has experience with the UW and WSU divide... Basically, if you want a program that UW offers, go there. WSU is viewed largely as a "party school" within the state, and so, if you get a degree that is offered elsewhere and are in competition for a single job, the UW or other school graduate probably has a hefty leg up on you. The only programs offered at WSU that are safe from this practice, are ones that are essentially exclusive to the school (or at the very least, aren't offered at UW)
And I'm sure that damn near every state is like that.
However I'd like to point out that the success of constitutional separation of powers, as recognized by the founders, was predicated on each branch being jealous of its powers and prerogatives. The Founders don’t seem to have imagined a Congress happy to give theirs away to the Executive, by passing open-ended laws that allows the Executive massive regulatory powers.
Tannhauser42 wrote: Another reason, I think, for there to be a significant gap between the time they leave the military and the time they can be SoD is something like a personal conflict of interest. With 7 years, there's a good chance that any old grudges or other personal issues they might have with other officers might be gone by then.
It's also about getting outside the bubble. The military is no different to any other organisation - it's members develop a singular way of seeing problems, understanding those problems, and approaching those problems. This can lead to big blind spots. Companies will often make an active effort to bring in new blood, if not a new CEO then certainly new blood in other senior executive positions. The military isn't really able to do that, it can't decide to headhunt the VP of R&D at MSoft to be their new general overseeing R&D
But they do have a civilian position overseeing all of defense. Giving that position to a general who's just stepped out of the service means there's no-one in the upper ranks with any experience doing anything other being in the armed forces.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
whembly wrote: Nah... the origin of that phrase was really what it meant, meaning to improve one's position by one's own efforts.
It's just been made into mockery in recent years to admonish anyone advocating to take more responsibility in their lot in life.
It's been mocked recently, yes, but you're quite wrong in what has been mocked. If a person tells a story of living in poverty, but working and putting themselves through some kind of training, then going and gettign a good job, no-one mocks them for bootstrapping.
What is mocked is when a person tells the story of their own difficulties, and why it is hard for them to pull themselves up, and people come in and tell them they should do whatever it takes, while rejecting any idea that might make it easier to help that person help themselves. That's the 'bootstrapping' that gets mocked, this idea that it is enough to tell someone to just do it, while ignoring or even rejecting the possibility of giving help to make it happen.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2016/12/02 04:53:00
“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”
Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something.
Tannhauser42 wrote: Another reason, I think, for there to be a significant gap between the time they leave the military and the time they can be SoD is something like a personal conflict of interest. With 7 years, there's a good chance that any old grudges or other personal issues they might have with other officers might be gone by then.
It's also about getting outside the bubble. The military is no different to any other organisation - it's members develop a singular way of seeing problems, understanding those problems, and approaching those problems. This can lead to big blind spots. Companies will often make an active effort to bring in new blood, if not a new CEO then certainly new blood in other senior executive positions. The military isn't really able to do that, it can't decide to headhunt the VP of R&D at MSoft to be their new general overseeing R&D
But they do have a civilian position overseeing all of defense. Giving that position to a general who's just stepped out of the service means there's no-one in the upper ranks with any experience doing anything other being in the armed forces.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
whembly wrote: Nah... the origin of that phrase was really what it meant, meaning to improve one's position by one's own efforts.
It's just been made into mockery in recent years to admonish anyone advocating to take more responsibility in their lot in life.
It's been mocked recently, yes, but you're quite wrong in what has been mocked. If a person tells a story of living in poverty, but working and putting themselves through some kind of training, then going and gettign a good job, no-one mocks them for bootstrapping.
What is mocked is when a person tells the story of their own difficulties, and why it is hard for them to pull themselves up, and people come in and tell them they should do whatever it takes, while rejecting any idea that might make it easier to help that person help themselves.
Eh... he's been retired for over 4 years (may it's 5?). [edit: I was wrong, he retired in March 2013] So, it's not like he jump out of his uniform yesterday to jump into this job tomorrow.
Still... like hats stated up above, Congress will have to waive it for Mattis. The Democrats may not have the 41 votes needed to stop this as they may want to "save" the filibuster for the SCoTUS picks.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2016/12/02 04:53:55
Realistically, I don't see why they would. Unless they go down the Republican obstructionism for the sake of obstructionism route, he's about as good as they can expect from Trump.
Homosexuality is the #1 cause of gay marriage.
kronk wrote: Every pizza is a personal sized pizza if you try hard enough and believe in yourself.
sebster wrote: Yes, indeed. What a terrible piece of cultural imperialism it is for me to say that a country shouldn't murder its own citizens
BaronIveagh wrote: Basically they went from a carrot and stick to a smaller carrot and flanged mace.
However I'd like to point out that the success of constitutional separation of powers, as recognized by the founders, was predicated on each branch being jealous of its powers and prerogatives. The Founders don’t seem to have imagined a Congress happy to give theirs away to the Executive, by passing open-ended laws that allows the Executive massive regulatory powers.
Well the founders never envisioned a Federal state as large as the one that emerged from the end of the Civil War, let alone one as large as what emerged from the Depression and Second World War. The Federal government's expanded roles weren't nefarious plots to move the US ever closer to tyranny, but the product of necessity as the United States has dealt with the challenges before it. At the end of the day, the power of the state is in the people and the Federal government only exercises that power as the Constitution allows, but the Constitution is vague. For example, look up the executive departments; the Constitution doesn't define them at all. It merely states that they exist and that the heads of the departments advise the President (literally that's all the Constitution says on the matter).
Honestly what the founders imagined doesn't really matter to me. Their intent is interesting and at times useful in trying to define the vague tome that is the basis of American government, but when the Founders were in charge they were busy dealing with keeping the Colonies together, and learning how to turn a racoon into a hat.
I guess what I'm saying is, yes the Founders didn't imagine a Congress happy to legislate increasing amounts of leeway to the Executive, passing open-ended laws that allows the Executive to define itself some of the massive regulatory powers the Federal state now holds. But they didn't imagine a future with a power grid, running water plumbing, or that a soul stealing picture box doesn't actually steal souls (and that souls might not even be a fact anymore!).They certainly never envisioned a world where some douche named Lord of Hats and some nerd named Darth Lopez would debate in live chat whether or not linguistics is worthy of being called "scholarly" separated by all the miles between south central Pennsylvania and the territory of Michigan over some copper cables.
So really, who cares what they imagined and didn't imagine? Our world is so different from anything within their imaginations (they lived in a dark time before science fiction, poor damned fools...).
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/12/02 05:03:39
sebster wrote: What is mocked is when a person tells the story of their own difficulties, and why it is hard for them to pull themselves up, and people come in and tell them they should do whatever it takes, while rejecting any idea that might make it easier to help that person help themselves. That's the 'bootstrapping' that gets mocked, this idea that it is enough to tell someone to just do it, while ignoring or even rejecting the possibility of giving help to make it happen.
Ah... I must have missed that memo... that makes sense.
I always bristled at such admonishment because it was assumed that I was coming from your latter viewpoint... rather in reality I'm coming from your former.
On the one hand, I'll readily criticize programs like Affirmative Action and the like because of it's structural bias... however, at the same time, I'd tell everyone, if they can, to take advantage of it because it's hard enough to succeed anyways. knowwhatimean?
I like how everyone is saying the Carrier deal cost the government 7 million.
It did not cost the government a damn thing. The government is not going pay any money out.
That money, by rights, belongs to the company that earned it. Not the government.
Sure the corp might save some money on taxes over time, but the real boon is keeping those paychecks in the US. In the US where that money can be spent in out economy.
Lord of Hats and some nerd named Darth Lopez would debate in live chat whether or not linguistics is worthy of being called "scholarly" separated by all the miles between south central Pennsylvania and the territory of Michigan over some copper cables.
I'll have you know that Linguistics is not just scholarly but unlike the current president elect, Linguistics is also a legitimate selection of study for the American people.
Edit: yes I only show up here to discuss linguistics
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/12/02 05:05:15
Lord of Hats and some nerd named Darth Lopez would debate in live chat whether or not linguistics is worthy of being called "scholarly" separated by all the miles between south central Pennsylvania and the territory of Michigan over some copper cables.
I'll have you know that Linguistics is not just scholarly but unlike the current president elect, Linguistics is also a legitimate selection of study for the American people.
Edit: yes I only show up here to discuss linguistics
See!
I bet you right now Benjamin Rush never knew that Lopez would respond by letting out his inner Bernie supporter!
Lord of Hats and some nerd named Darth Lopez would debate in live chat whether or not linguistics is worthy of being called "scholarly" separated by all the miles between south central Pennsylvania and the territory of Michigan over some copper cables.
I'll have you know that Linguistics is not just scholarly but unlike the current president elect, Linguistics is also a legitimate selection of study for the American people.
Edit: yes I only show up here to discuss linguistics
See!
I bet you right now Benjamin Rush never knew that Lopez would respond by letting out his inner Bernie supporter!
My Passion for language is truly berning right now.
However I'd like to point out that the success of constitutional separation of powers, as recognized by the founders, was predicated on each branch being jealous of its powers and prerogatives. The Founders don’t seem to have imagined a Congress happy to give theirs away to the Executive, by passing open-ended laws that allows the Executive massive regulatory powers.
Well the founders never envisioned a Federal state as large as the one that emerged from the end of the Civil War, let alone one as large as what emerged from the Depression and Second World War. The Federal government's expanded roles weren't nefarious plots to move the US ever closer to tyranny, but the product of necessity as the United States has dealt with the challenges before it. At the end of the day, the power of the state is in the people and the Federal government only exercises that power as the Constitution allows, but the Constitution is vague. For example, look up the executive departments; the Constitution doesn't define them at all. It merely states that they exist and that the heads of the departments advise the President (literally that's all the Constitution says on the matter).
Honestly what the founders imagined doesn't really matter to me. Their intent is interesting and at times useful in trying to define the vague tome that is the basis of American government, but when the Founders were in charge they were busy dealing with keeping the Colonies together, and learning how to turn a racoon into a hat.
I guess what I'm saying is, yes the Founders didn't imagine a Congress happy to legislate increasing amounts of leeway to the Executive, passing open-ended laws that allows the Executive to define itself some of the massive regulatory powers the Federal state now holds. But they didn't imagine a future with a power grid, running water plumbing, or that a soul stealing picture box doesn't actually steal souls.They certainly never envisioned a world where some douche named Lord of Hats and some nerd named Darth Lopez would debate in live chat whether or not linguistics is worthy of being called "scholarly" separated by all the miles between south central Pennsylvania and the territory of Michigan over some copper cables.
So really, who cares what they imagined and didn't imagine? Our world is so different from anything within their imaginations (they lived in a dark time before science fiction, poor damned fools...).
That's a very sound position and really... I can't refute any of that.
It just seems that for all the acrimony Congress has about 'Executive Overreach'... this was loud even during both the Bush administrations, not just Obama's. I'm sure it was there prior to that... right History Professor Hats??
Anyway, the point is that Congress has a lot more prowess in their ability to shape the laws affecting how the Executive Branch operates. They even hold an extremely powerful tool, but political unpopular, in that they hold the 'power of the purse'.
I know we sometimes forget... that in politics and governance, nothing is ever easy and clean. Most often... it's very, very messy.
Lord of Hats and some nerd named Darth Lopez would debate in live chat whether or not linguistics is worthy of being called "scholarly" separated by all the miles between south central Pennsylvania and the territory of Michigan over some copper cables.
I'll have you know that Linguistics is not just scholarly but unlike the current president elect, Linguistics is also a legitimate selection of study for the American people.
Edit: yes I only show up here to discuss linguistics
See!
I bet you right now Benjamin Rush never knew that Lopez would respond by letting out his inner Bernie supporter!
My Passion for language is truly berning right now.
Yugely bigly... amirite?
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/12/02 05:10:34
Mitochondria wrote: I like how everyone is saying the Carrier deal cost the government 7 million.
It did not cost the government a damn thing. The government is not going pay any money out.
That money, by rights, belongs to the company that earned it. Not the government.
Sure the corp might save some money on taxes over time, but the real boon is keeping those paychecks in the US. In the US where that money can be spent in out economy.
That's 7 million less goverment has to balance it's budget. So yes it cost them. And guess whom they are going to pass the bill? Middle class and poor ones. They are ultimately the ones that pay for that deal.
saying there should be consequences for flag burning...
History with Hats 
