My Heart Does Not Desire To

[Belindi]

mention it but it's better said than ignored: the biggest danger from the Trump administration is their ignorant attitude to what they call "politicised science" and climate change.

[Renee]

Belindi, looks like you object to politicizing science and scienticizing politics. Yet there are two things that are vehemently accepted by you? Political science, and Scientific American.

I agree that the things you mentioned are horrible things. But there are other horrible things: Donald having the power to launch the bomb, Donald not knowing what to do whatsoever, because this is no longer show business, Donald finding that the job is too hard (he said so), and Donald being able to forcefully convince folks that nothing is something, that poise is everything, that the medium is the message.

[LuckyR]

To me the recent election is the culmination of the cheapening of facts and truth by entertainment and bluster, which is a web media side effect, BTW. This, not specific policy decisions is way, way more dangerous since it changes the relative role of logic in Modern thought and decision making. Quite to the negative, I might add.

[Renee]

To me the recent election is the culmination of the cheapening of facts and truth by entertainment and bluster, which is a web media side effect, BTW. This, not specific policy decisions is way, way more dangerous since it changes the relative role of logic in Modern thought and decision making. Quite to the negative, I might add.

Incredibly interesting what you said there. That people give up their chance to vote for policy, exchanging it for voting for poise.

This you say is horribly wrong. I agree.

But I say that the previously employed systems, that is, fighting over policy, was somewhat horrible too. Because -- at least in Canada -- the parties can promise anything, and do anything after the election is over. The two anythings do not have to coincide in any way. Case in point: all the criticised actions that had been fanned against the ruling party previously, which was toppled in the most recent election, are now employed in full gear by the new, oppositional party that got in with a majority.

In American elections, if there are specific promises, then the voted-in member will fight for that. I grant that much. Obama wanted to bring in general medicare, release the prisoners from Quantanimo Bay, reduce gun use, and abort the abortion of abortion clinics. But??? HE GOT NONE OF THESE DONE.

So... your objection is valid, but one has to ask oneself: Is the new system of voting for poise ANY different in effect, than the old system of voting for policy?

As it stands, the only difference is a FALSE belief of hope, a FALSE illusion of making a difference on the side of the policy votes.

[LuckyR]

To me the recent election is the culmination of the cheapening of facts and truth by entertainment and bluster, which is a web media side effect, BTW. This, not specific policy decisions is way, way more dangerous since it changes the relative role of logic in Modern thought and decision making. Quite to the negative, I might add.

Incredibly interesting what you said there. That people give up their chance to vote for policy, exchanging it for voting for poise.

This you say is horribly wrong. I agree.

But I say that the previously employed systems, that is, fighting over policy, was somewhat horrible too. Because -- at least in Canada -- the parties can promise anything, and do anything after the election is over. The two anythings do not have to coincide in any way. Case in point: all the criticised actions that had been fanned against the ruling party previously, which was toppled in the most recent election, are now employed in full gear by the new, oppositional party that got in with a majority.

In American elections, if there are specific promises, then the voted-in member will fight for that. I grant that much. Obama wanted to bring in general medicare, release the prisoners from Quantanimo Bay, reduce gun use, and abort the abortion of abortion clinics. But??? HE GOT NONE OF THESE DONE.

So... your objection is valid, but one has to ask oneself: Is the new system of voting for poise ANY different in effect, than the old system of voting for policy?

As it stands, the only difference is a FALSE belief of hope, a FALSE illusion of making a difference on the side of the policy votes.

In ordinary circumstances voters have additional information besides campaign promises, they have the candidate's track record. In the case of the recent US election, of the main 4 candidates, one had a track record of significant Public Service where a reasonable prediction of future decisions could be assessed. Sad, but true. Thus applying what I posted before, in the new paradigm, having no experience was spun into being a great qualification. No reasonable person would use that logic in choosing a roofer or a surgeon.

[Burning ghost]

I think in the weeks and months to come we're going to be hearing a lot more about politics and science/philosophy.

It is an issue that is, for me, an extremely important one for a number of reasons.

[Renee]

In ordinary circumstances voters have additional information besides campaign promises, they have the candidate's track record. In the case of the recent US election, of the main 4 candidates, one had a track record of significant Public Service where a reasonable prediction of future decisions could be assessed. Sad, but true. Thus applying what I posted before, in the new paradigm, having no experience was spun into being a great qualification. No reasonable person would use that logic in choosing a roofer or a surgeon.

But we can use that logic freely to vote in a president.

Because essentially the president has nothing to do. He has veto power and that's all. He can get away with and be called to be doing a good job just signing Congress- and Senate-passed laws.

The president's job is as involved or not, as busy as not, as demanding or not, as he wants it. He has no active say in lawmaking.

People, outside and inside the USA, have a wildly tilted angle on what the president does, and what his powers are.

So a completely untrained president can do as good a job as a trained one. Which is do nothing, just sign name. That requires no skills. And that's what a president at minimum must do.

[Burning ghost]

The president of the US has political influence within government and outside of it.

-- Updated November 27th, 2016, 1:59 am to add the following --

I should add, I certainly don't see the position as having great influence in every area. I imagine presidents have to do many things they don't want to do in order to create one possible opportunity to make a fundamental change.

I just hope the whole political system has come into view of the public more so that the public can insist on and pursue a greater amount of choice and transparancy in the future.

[Renee]

I just hope ... the public can insist on and pursue a greater amount of choice and transparancy in the future.

I should have thought The Donald was transparent enough. (-;

[LuckyR]

In ordinary circumstances voters have additional information besides campaign promises, they have the candidate's track record. In the case of the recent US election, of the main 4 candidates, one had a track record of significant Public Service where a reasonable prediction of future decisions could be assessed. Sad, but true. Thus applying what I posted before, in the new paradigm, having no experience was spun into being a great qualification. No reasonable person would use that logic in choosing a roofer or a surgeon.

But we can use that logic freely to vote in a president.

Because essentially the president has nothing to do. He has veto power and that's all. He can get away with and be called to be doing a good job just signing Congress- and Senate-passed laws.

The president's job is as involved or not, as busy as not, as demanding or not, as he wants it. He has no active say in lawmaking.

People, outside and inside the USA, have a wildly tilted angle on what the president does, and what his powers are.

So a completely untrained president can do as good a job as a trained one. Which is do nothing, just sign name. That requires no skills. And that's what a president at minimum must do.

Huh?? Just because someone can skate by as a Do Nothing, does not mean that that makes that President superior, which was the pitch: "I don't have any experience, so that makes me, not As GOOD AS, but better than my opponent who has lots of experience."

[Renee]

Huh?? Just because someone can skate by as a Do Nothing, does not mean that that makes that President superior, which was the pitch: "I don't have any experience, so that makes me, not As GOOD AS, but better than my opponent who has lots of experience."

This comes then under the heading "promise anything, you won't be held to it," as I expounded that earlier.

In the democracy we live today, the most damage a voter can meet out to a president is not to re-elect him. This is not so bad as dethrowning him and feeding him to the wolves.

I know there is such a thing as an impeachment. But the president has to actively DO something horrible to earn that. A prez that just signs can't be impeached.

[LuckyR]

Huh?? Just because someone can skate by as a Do Nothing, does not mean that that makes that President superior, which was the pitch: "I don't have any experience, so that makes me, not As GOOD AS, but better than my opponent who has lots of experience."

This comes then under the heading "promise anything, you won't be held to it," as I expounded that earlier.

In the democracy we live today, the most damage a voter can meet out to a president is not to re-elect him. This is not so bad as dethrowning him and feeding him to the wolves.

I know there is such a thing as an impeachment. But the president has to actively DO something horrible to earn that. A prez that just signs can't be impeached.

You are correct that the current system has as it's unwritten/unspoken foundation the assumption that at some level the president has a basic desire to have the US succeed. To Do No Harm as it were. There aren't a lot of rules and punishments to externally regulate presidential behavior since the general rule was that the egregious stuff was kept in check by internal self motivation to not screw over the country. That is not to say that Trump lacks these qualities per se', it is an unknown and there is circumstantial evidence based on rants etc that are consistent with but not yet proof of, such a disregard. It is clearly a majority chance, which is itself scary.

[Belindi]

Lucky_R wrote:

You are correct that the current system has as it's unwritten/unspoken foundation the assumption that at some level the president has a basic desire to have the US succeed. To Do No Harm as it were.

The basic principle "to have the US succeed"is what I presume too. I question if someone who is morally immature can adhere to that principle whether they are elected president or not. Someone morally immature will abandon that principle if and when it suits his own desires.

The question about Donald Trump is therefore : is he morally mature enough to have the interests of the country override his own interests?

For instance, President Kennedy did in fact risk his own interest when he supported racial integration in Alabama against Governor Wallace and most of the white Alabama or Southern states electorate. But how will Donald Trump fare when his interests are threatened?Is Trump sufficiently morally mature to be the President? Moral maturity is not about breaking a law or saying impolite things, it's about risking all for what is right.