Holy......

[AI Wessex]

"Lastly, you're entitled to your opinion as to whether she should have been indicted despite Comey's  exhaustive investigation that examined all of the available facts"

ROFL!

I have no opinion as to whether indictment was proper, but your phrase "exhaustive investigation that examined all the AVAILABLE facts" (emphasis added) does Secretary Clinton no favors with an intelligent and attentive readership.

The availability of evidence is not an issue that Hillary supporters want to beg and highlight.

I don't understand you're laughing quibble.  After 6 Congressional investigations and the FBI investigation involving something like 75 agents nobody came up with a prosecutable offense.  In theory, there could be more that could damn her, but in practice it doesn't exist.

[cherrypoptart]

To most people when you get rid of evidence that makes you look more guilty, not less. In fact, in most cases destruction of evidence is in itself a serious crime. Wasn't she ordered to turn over these emails and didn't she have them bleached instead?

[Seriati]

The email issue wasn't negative news coverage, it was just plain old news coverage whose effects harmed her.

Fenring, the only possible legal violation associated with the handling of classified information is if any spillage is intentional

[/quote]

What law did you read?  That's flat out misinformation you are passing on.  The history of prosecution in this area (and conviction) makes that claim absolutely laughable.  Please cite your authorities.  Look at the statute, which also makes this a laughable claim. 

[Pete at Home]

"Lastly, you're entitled to your opinion as to whether she should have been indicted despite Comey's  exhaustive investigation that examined all of the available facts"

ROFL!

I have no opinion as to whether indictment was proper, but your phrase "exhaustive investigation that examined all the AVAILABLE facts" (emphasis added) does Secretary Clinton no favors with an intelligent and attentive readership.

The availability of evidence is not an issue that Hillary supporters want to beg and highlight.

I don't understand you're laughing quibble.  After 6 Congressional investigations and the FBI investigation involving something like 75 agents nobody came up with a prosecutable offense.  In theory, there could be more that could damn her, but in practice it doesn't exist.

Are you claiming that she's been CLEARED on obstruction of justice charges?  Or that there is no prose cut able offense related to obstruction?

(I focus on obstruction only because that is the issue that your earlier posts very conspicuously leap over and dance around.

[rightleft22]

To most people when you get rid of evidence that makes you look more guilty, not less.

"USA Today reported in June on a decade-old civil case pitting Trump Hotels and Casino Resorts against an employee, in which it turned out that Trump’s business erased emails as a matter of course, and had no records for the years 1996 through to 2001."

"Trump businesses had “systematically destroyed or hidden thousands of emails, digital records and paper documents demanded in official proceedings, often in defiance of court orders."

"1973, when Trump and his father fought civil charges accusing their company of refusing to rent apartments to African-Americans."

"Trump’s lawyers spent months delaying court requests for documents, and when Trump himself testified in a deposition, he said the company had been destroying their corporate records for the past six months, in order to “save space.”


Of course we don't hold Trump to the same standards of well anyone else.  I wonder how long people will keep excusing him.

[AI Wessex]

To most people when you get rid of evidence that makes you look more guilty, not less. In fact, in most cases destruction of evidence is in itself a serious crime. Wasn't she ordered to turn over these emails and didn't she have them bleached instead?

No, the absence of evidence is not the proof of guilt unless you don't need evidence to find someone guilty at all.  You've used that approach on every issue in which you've attacked both Obama and Clinton.  I must have pointed this out a dozen times by now.  The more you dig and find nothing only confirms your rigid belief that there is something even more damning to find, so let's keep digging.

Pete:

Are you claiming that she's been CLEARED on obstruction of justice charges?  Or that there is no prose cut able offense related to obstruction?

I'm not ignoring it.  Comey addressed that, too:

FBI Director James Comey said Tuesday his investigators looked very intently at whether there was obstruction of justice in the investigation into Hillary Clinton's email account, but concluded they could not prove a criminal case against anyone.

"We looked at it very hard to see if there was criminal obstruction of justice," Comey said at a Senate Homeland Security Committee hearing, under questioning by Chairman Sen. Ron Johnson (R-Wis.)

"We looked at it very hard. We could not make an obstruction case against any of the subjects we looked at," Comey said. He did not identify those whose conduct the FBI investigated for potential obstruction.

[noel c.]

RL22,

Trumps emails are not subject to FOIA petitions because, as private records, they are not "the People's property", and are not required to be preserved under Federal law. Hillary's work emails, during her term as SOS, do not belong to her. Further, the lives of ground intelligence assets were put at risk by Hillary's reckless handling of information classified top secret by other agencies, who were  the only entities entitled to place such classifications on the material which Hillary routinely instructed her staff to cut-and-paste sans the classification heading.

Having said that, Trump is not inclined to transparency. Whether his business practices carry over into public office remains to be seen, but he would have been foolish to behave as a public employee while engaged in private enterprise.

[cherrypoptart]

AI Wessex

"No, the absence of evidence is not the proof of guilt unless you don't need evidence to find someone guilty at all."

Proof that someone destroyed evidence is certainly an indication of guilt.

Just like witnesses being murdered or dying suspiciously just before they are about to testify doesn't look good either.

It may not be enough evidence to convict someone in a court of law but it could certainly be enough to keep people from voting for her.

[AI Wessex]

One wonders why all of the things Trump was accused of for which there was ample and obvious evidence didn't prevent people from voting for him.  Not to mention, as someone else already has, that he routinely lies and has a long history of destroying evidence that he was supposed to produce in court when he has been sued by people he harmed through his business practices.  I don't doubt that you picked a winner, it's that how he wins says a lot about the kind of person he is and the kind of President he will be.

[Gaoics79]

Well Al you come to the meat of it. It seems many would rather choose a *censored* sandwich for themselves rather than have one picked for them. I'm the same way - I never go for the set menu, always a la carte.

[AI Wessex]

This is neither the set menu nor the a la carte selection, but the chef's surprise.  Enjoy!

[noel c.]

Al,

"One wonders why all of the things Trump was accused of for which there was ample and obvious evidence didn't prevent people from voting for him." ...

Yes, that was baffling to just about everyone who votes with any regularity.

[AI Wessex]

Yes, people are drawn to disasters.  Perhaps he can brand his Presidency as something like "Governing Bad" and his voters will love it so much they'll ask for 4 more seasons.

[Fenring]

Yes, people are drawn to disasters.  Perhaps he can brand his Presidency as something like "Governing Bad" and his voters will love it so much they'll ask for 4 more seasons.

Except in this series they're buying the red version rather than the blue.

[Seriati]

To most people when you get rid of evidence that makes you look more guilty, not less.

"USA Today reported in June on a decade-old civil case pitting Trump Hotels and Casino Resorts against an employee, in which it turned out that Trump’s business erased emails as a matter of course, and had no records for the years 1996 through to 2001."

Can you provide context, its perfectly legal for businesses to have and maintain record retention policies that involve deletion of old records.  It's generally only an issue if they delete items outside of those policies, or in reaction to a demand (or even an expectation of a demand) for those records, or fail to stop scheduled deletions after they receive a subpoena.  Of course, none of that has anything to do with Government record retention requirements.

To most people when you get rid of evidence that makes you look more guilty, not less. In fact, in most cases destruction of evidence is in itself a serious crime. Wasn't she ordered to turn over these emails and didn't she have them bleached instead?

No, the absence of evidence is not the proof of guilt unless you don't need evidence to find someone guilty at all.  You've used that approach on every issue in which you've attacked both Obama and Clinton.  I must have pointed this out a dozen times by now.  The more you dig and find nothing only confirms your rigid belief that there is something even more damning to find, so let's keep digging.

In fact, the courts routinely hold that destruction of records requires that an inference be entered that the records contained materials detrimental to the person that held such records.  You're literally just flat wrong, again, about how destruction of records is interpreted, and should be interpreted.  It's almost impossible to imagine that anyone could delete records in the manner Hillary did, after she knew they were being demanded, and not face a severe consequence in any civil or criminal matter.

Pete:

Are you claiming that she's been CLEARED on obstruction of justice charges?  Or that there is no prose cut able offense related to obstruction?

I'm not ignoring it.  Comey addressed that, too:

No, he's pretending that declining to prosecute is the same thing as being cleared, notwithstanding that prosecutorial discretion is mutable and being cleared offers the protection against double jeopardy. 

[AI Wessex]

Perhaps you can provide the legal definition of "cleared".  Is that an official status or a description of the outcome of an investigation where the DA (or FBI in this case) declines to prosecute?

FWIW, KellyAnne Conway said today that Trump won't pursue further legal investigations against Clinton.

[Seriati]

Sorry about the delay on this, want to respond to the original post first.  I was stunned with this result.  Definitely living in a left wing bubble, didn't even think this result was possible.  I thought the campaign's talk about going after the Blue Wall was desperation speak that meant they'd given up on the states they really needed to win, like North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania and Florida.

The next day when I started seeing the absolute distress appear on FB from Hillary supporters (and honestly, I didn't realize there were as many who legitimately supported her, rather than just being anti-Trump), I went out and posted a conciliatory message.  I pointed out that Trump didn't have the full support of his own party, and he'd have to govern with a broader coalition to get anything done because they wouldn't support him acting as an autocrat, in the same post I reminded my friends on the right what it felt like to be systematically excluded from the government and urged them to reach out.

Three days later, I'd frankly had enough of the hate being spewed by those on the left convinced that it was the end of everything.  Reading about parents having to "explain" things to their kids because they had filled they kids with hateful lies in the first place.  The idea  that losing with grace is something that we can demand of Republicans but shouldn't expect from Democrats was shocking, the idea that people should be beaten up because they didn't vote for one of the least ethical candidates of all time was appalling.  There was an endless litany of hate being spewed by the same people who claimed, "Love would Trump Hate" without the least bit of shame. 

[Fenring]

There was an endless litany of hate being spewed by the same people who claimed, "Love would Trump Hate" without the least bit of shame.

Around half the anti-Trump posts I see in my feed are about how he is about to institute fascism in America. The funny thing about that is that in previous administrations, when seriously anti-liberty laws have been passed, the word "fascism" has always been derided as being tinfoil-hat whacko nonsense. Now it seems like it's become mainstream, even prior to Trump taking office. I find it ironic that there is nothing wrong with drone strikes, metadata collection, domestic surveillance, and the Patriot Act, while Trump wasting his time asking some Broadway actors to apologize is the end of free speech as we know it and the ushering in of jackboots.

It's worth noting, however, that since I'm in the arts a lot of people on my FB feed are also artists, which does tend to place them within a certain socio-political milieu.

[Seriati]

People did not vote against Hillary Clinton. They voted for Donald Trump.

Sure, many people voted for Donald Trump because they disliked Hillary Clinton and wanted someone else.  Nevertheless, it was still Donald Trump they voted for.

Most people make the rational decision to vote for the candidate they think is better and that has a chance to win.  The fact is, that there were voters who could have been convinced to not put Trump's name on the ballot if the other choice was someone other than Hillary Clinton.  I know many of them.  I did not see any result of a Clinton Presidency that would have led to a lessening of executive authority and I'm anti-royalist at heart.  The Democrats have proven to me that they will protect (in the Senate) unconstitutional acts of a President if they agree with the outcome, and I find that a far bigger threat than anything Trump is likely to achieve.

He was not the Democrat's choice for an opponent.

Sure he was, he was not only their choice, he was expressly their fantasy for an opponent.  It's literally almost inconceivable that they lost an election running against him, they only managed to do it by finding the one candidate who may not have been able to beat any Republican that ran against her. 

You can blame the Democrats for not winning, for not nominating a candidate who could have won--even though the candidate was fully qualified, with years of experience as both a Senator and a Secretary of State, and was one of the most respected women in the world at one time, not so long ago.  But you can't blame them for who did win.

I don't have any reason to "blame" them.  I think however, the lack of soul searching that your post has built in is missing the point.  There is literally, no good reason that Hillary Clinton should have been the candidate.  There are tens of millions of Democrats that were better choices to be the candidate.  Party insiders picked her for you, and party insiders helped other potentially strong candidates decide not to run against her (no Biden, no Warren), because they know better than you do (or so they believe).

Voters could have voted for any other candidate than Donald Trump.  But, instead, they voted for him.

Not in the general election they couldn't have.  By that point, it really is a choice of direction for the country.  You can vote because you really love the message of one candidate, or you can vote because you're convinced one candidate's vision for the country is really wrong and you have to vote to prevent it from occurring.

Now they are going to have to live with the responsibility of that choice.

We all have to live with the responsibility of putting forward two candidates, neither of whom should have been there, leaving the decision up to people to pick which they hated less.  And that is really what it was, I said 6 months out that the campaign that wins will be the one that stays out of the news more at critical points.  People hated these two enough that the more they were reminded of them the less likely they were to vote for them, and in fact the more likely they were to go out to vote to stop them.

[Pete at Home]

would I find tremendously funny is the rise of the term "Progressive" as euphemism for liberal, when less than a century ago progressive clearly referred to fascism. 

[AI Wessex]

There is literally, no good reason that Hillary Clinton should have been the candidate.  There are tens of millions of Democrats that were better choices to be the candidate.

And tens of millions of Republicans who were better choices than any of the 17 candidates who entered the derby at the start.  You go to election with the candidate you have, not the candidate you want.  I said here previously that Trump was my ideal GOP candidate because he was so completely unelectable.  I don't think Clinton lost because of who she is as much as because of how hated party politics has become.  We should remember that neither Party's Congressional favorable ratings are above 20%, which appeared to make Trump viable by non-association.  Imagine if any of the other GOP candidates who have served in Congress or the State House had uttered any one of the things that were laughed off or tolerated when Trump said them.  Given the choice between demagogues, hypocrites, liars, dynastic scion or religious intolerance, they chose the clown.

[noel c.]

"... they chose the clown." ...

If you are genuinely against the populist Trump, it would be unwise to be quite so dismissive at this stage. He is about to deliver a sucker-punch that will leave you eating those words.

[AI Wessex]

You're unaware of the clown attacks that have been happening across the country, I assume.  Trump is scarier than any of them.

[godsblackestcrow]

We all have to live with the responsibility of putting forward two candidates, neither of whom should have been there, leaving the decision up to people to pick which they hated less.

We disagree (noting that for a self-described anti-royalist, and conservative, you seem to me to be a bit liberal with your use of our royal we).

The actions of the two major parties are the responsibility of all of the voters who by their own actions have made themselves responsible for supporting Democrats and Republicans (all while doubtlessly applauding themselves for their dutiful civic participation in the ridiculous popularity contest procedure this circus uses to determine who gets to be head clown) in the latest contest of this perpetually silly game, not of everybody else who helplessly watched while you morons went through your regularly scheduled incredibly stupid process of tearing the peace of our social fabric apart.

Democracy itself is clearly the rule of the mob, and thus a shame against the name of all society, but just because you regret the riot you and your kind ran the other night, let's not forget that only the mobbers among society are truly responsible for the damage they do in their perennial socially destructive folly.

Looked at logically, the census puts the US population at 318 million, and there were 62 million who voted for the p#ssy-pawing president-elect, and 64 million who voted for the alleged (but never formally charged) anti-christ, which means that just over one in five Americans voted for Clinton, and just under one in five Americans voted for Trump. So sure, shame on every single one of you--this part of your point is totally true!--but do note that a solid majority of Americans had nothing at all to do with the shameful party games you bipartisan idiots play to give your favored flavor of the policy mob the putative right to rule.

[D.W.]

So you suggest we go all W.O.P.R. and the only winning strategy is not to play?   

[AI Wessex]

W.O.P.R.

Is that a radio station?

Looked at logically, the census puts the US population at 318 million, and there were 62 million who voted for the p#ssy-pawing president-elect, and 64 million who voted for the alleged (but never formally charged) anti-christ, which means that just over one in five Americans voted for Clinton, and just under one in five Americans voted for Trump. So sure, shame on every single one of you--this part of your point is totally true!--but do note that a solid majority of Americans had nothing at all to do with the shameful party games you bipartisan idiots play to give your favored flavor of the policy mob the putative right to rule.

It's a typical level of participation in the active voting process (Clinton 1992 = 23% of eligible voters, 10% of the overall population).  The passive way to participate is to insist that you don't care and then complain about whatever the result turns out to be.

FWIW, I had an epiphany the other day (gin and tonic followed by several glasses of wine) that this election had almost nothing to do with the candidates or their positions.  Trump had no real positions and few people bothered to read any of Clinton's voluminous proposals. It was all about the establishment vs people who hate the establishment.  Trump's mantra should have been broadened beyond "Lock Her Up!" to "Tear it Down!"  No other Republican candidate could have beaten her, but Trump wasn't a Republican candidate.  He was the anti-candidate who could say anything as long as he didn't get along with anybody in Congress. He had almost no endorsements from any Senator, Representative or Governor, wasn't even popular among the "mainstream" right wing loudmouths, many of whom directly attacked or opposed him.  He had no organized support, didn't run an organized campaign, didn't tell the truth, promised to do things he could never accomplish, lies like a rug, abuses women, is xenophobic, is blatantly self-serving and narcissistic.........and won the election.

Einstein said that explanations should be as simple as possible, but not moreso.  I think mine is good.

[D.W.]

I know you're a LITTLE older than me AI, but you didn't somehow miss the movie "War Games" did you?

[AI Wessex]

No, I think that movie got evicted from my memory by Weekend at Bernies II.  I never actually saw that, but the idea itself was damaging.

[godsblackestcrow]

So you suggest we go all W.O.P.R. and the only winning strategy is not to play?

I suggest that we go back to the drawing board and assemble another constitutional convention. Everybody apotheosizes the wisdom of the founding fathers, but the game has changed, and the rules they wrote don't really work anymore.

2A is a good example: the original intent behind the amendment has basically zero relation to the interpretation and application today, because technological and social changes have so altered the environment within which the right is operable.

Meanwhile, representative democracy was considered an optimal solution by the framers largely because of the contemporary constraints related to the pre-industrial transportation and communications infrastructure--constraints which simply do not exist today.

If people do really have a right to pursue happiness, and governments are instituted to secure such a right, isn't it relevant that these elections are really functioning to create increasing unhappiness and division among the people whose happiness the contests were intended to secure?

"...whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."

PS: Tic Tac Toe is a dumb game because--played correctly--nobody wins. But at least it doesn't result in Donald Trump being in charge--in Democracy, as should be clear by now, everybody loses...

[NobleHunter]

So you suggest we go all W.O.P.R. and the only winning strategy is not to play?

I suggest that we go back to the drawing board and assemble another constitutional convention. Everybody apotheosizes the wisdom of the founding fathers, but the game has changed, and the rules they wrote don't really work anymore.

2A is a good example: the original intent behind the amendment has basically zero relation to the interpretation and application today, because technological and social changes have so altered the environment within which the right is operable.

Meanwhile, representative democracy was considered an optimal solution by the framers largely because of the contemporary constraints related to the pre-industrial transportation and communications infrastructure--constraints which simply do not exist today.

The commerce clause is an even better example. What was originally intended to limit the ability of the federal government to meddle in state level economies and transactions now implicates almost all economic activity. A restrictive statement about government power has now become an expansive statement without even the slightest change of word or meaning.

[Pete at Home]

"I suggest that we go back to the drawing board and assemble another constitutional convention. Everybody apotheosizes the wisdom of the founding fathers, but the game has changed, and the rules they wrote don't really work anymore"

So you trust our current Tea Party overlords to rewrite the entire constitution from the ground up?

If not, then exactly who will decide exactly who gets to write our new founding government?

Which begs the question, who exactly are "we" to begin with?  The original 1989 writers were the elected reps of the states that had just defeated the British Empire, or so they could llausibly imagine.  Dissolve the constitution today and what unites us?

[TheDeamon]

would I find tremendously funny is the rise of the term "Progressive" as euphemism for liberal, when less than a century ago progressive clearly referred to fascism.

You're not supposed to bring up language shifts. And this is one many liberals have pushed, they're pushing for "progress on social issues" and have claimed the term "progressive" once more, just like their Democratic reformer brethren of the 1910's under the Wilson Administration. You know, the Democratic President who was a rather proud supporter of the KKK, the guy who re-segregated the military(for another 40 years), and implemented the first round of homophobic policies in the War Department?

Of course, 200 years ago, a Liberal was someone who advocated for the government to have less influence in the daily lives of the average citizen, and talked about the importance of individual rights(and Egalitarianism--"Enlightened self-interest") rather than worrying about any kind of collective.

[Pete at Home]

"PS: Tic Tac Toe is a dumb game because--played correctly--nobody wins. But at least it doesn't result in Donald Trump being in charge--in Democracy, as should be clear by now, everybody loses."

He cant do worse than Andrew Jackson, the man on our $20 bill, and who gave us this whole democratic disease in the first place. But Democratic BS may be the price we pay for maintaining the rule of law and general peace. the last time large numbers of Americans talked about scrapping the constitution because they didn't like the new president elect, more Americans died than in any other war.

Substantially more Americans die of prescription painkiller overdose than of guns, and the civil war it would take to suppress that right would make that look mighty small.

[TheDeamon]

FWIW, I had an epiphany the other day (gin and tonic followed by several glasses of wine) that this election had almost nothing to do with the candidates or their positions.  Trump had no real positions and few people bothered to read any of Clinton's voluminous proposals. It was all about the establishment vs people who hate the establishment.  Trump's mantra should have been broadened beyond "Lock Her Up!" to "Tear it Down!"  No other Republican candidate could have beaten her, but Trump wasn't a Republican candidate.  He was the anti-candidate who could say anything as long as he didn't get along with anybody in Congress. He had almost no endorsements from any Senator, Representative or Governor, wasn't even popular among the "mainstream" right wing loudmouths, many of whom directly attacked or opposed him.  He had no organized support, didn't run an organized campaign, didn't tell the truth, promised to do things he could never accomplish, lies like a rug, abuses women, is xenophobic, is blatantly self-serving and narcissistic.........and won the election.

Einstein said that explanations should be as simple as possible, but not moreso.  I think mine is good.

Welcome to what I was saying last spring, on this very forum. He was a terrible candidate, and he was winning because he was a terrible candidate, and his odds of winning the Presidency were likely to be very good if he continued to be a terrible candidate all the way to the end of the Election Process. He tapped into a lot of voter dissatisfaction with Washington D.C. and the politics of the beltway.

Hillary is too much of a D.C. critter anymore, and the constant swirl of controversy and condemnation surrounding Trump just further brought home "the fact" that he was not a candidate that was wanted by the D.C. Beltway. Which made him "the ideal choice" for the angry voter.

[Fenring]

He cant do worse than Andrew Jackson, the man on our $20 bill, and who gave us this whole democratic disease in the first place.

I've heard this claim before, but don't know what it means. What did he do?

[TheDeamon]

Meanwhile, representative democracy was considered an optimal solution by the framers largely because of the contemporary constraints related to the pre-industrial transportation and communications infrastructure--constraints which simply do not exist today.

James Madison and Thomas Jefferson, among others would likely disagree. Even with the information at our fingertips, how many people actually bother to inform themselves about anything that doesn't directly impact them? And do you really want the people who get directly impacted by rules/regulations/laws to be the ones directly involved in making them law?

There are plenty of claims and assertions that for many people at the Constitutional Convention, Democracy almost became a dirty word. For one big reason, and it's why some aspect of the Constitution are as obtuse as they are. They compared direct democracy to being ruled by an angry mob. Because that would be exactly what you end up with. Which is a bigger part why many of them argued for a Representative Republic instead, it provided the mechanism for democratic inputs. But it otherwise worked to put the brakes on any "angry mob scenario" that was likely to occur.... By essentially gridlocking the upper tiers of government for up to 6 years at worst(in theory).

Better to have a gridlocked government that is barely functional than to have a constantly ongoing civil war as one side pursues it grievances against the other through force of arms.

[TheDeamon]

He cant do worse than Andrew Jackson, the man on our $20 bill, and who gave us this whole democratic disease in the first place.

I've heard this claim before, but don't know what it means. What did he do?

He fired almost EVERY government employee at the time, and replaced them with political appointees/friends. He's the single biggest reason why Government Employees are so hard to fire now. He isn't the only reason, but he was the one that caused the laws to go on the books, and stay there long enough to be strengthened when later abusers came around.

Of course, he also was the one who authorized the "Trail of Tears," in direct defiance of the Supreme Court no less. A lot of other things happened under his watch as well the weren't particularly good, and many were fairly bad. 

He got away with much of it because a majority of congress supported him, as they were Democrats too.

Honestly, in terms of which President Trump is likely to be most like on the civil rights front, I think FDR or Woodrow Wilson are the two he'd come closest to. He's not going to pull a Hitler, although WW might have tried if he could have found a way to do so.

[TheDeamon]

"I suggest that we go back to the drawing board and assemble another constitutional convention. Everybody apotheosizes the wisdom of the founding fathers, but the game has changed, and the rules they wrote don't really work anymore"

So you trust our current Tea Party overlords to rewrite the entire constitution from the ground up?

The Tea Party lead initiative is a lot more restricted in its scope, they're amendments only, and have to be relevant to: 1) fiscal restraints, 2) federal jurisdiction, or 3) term limits.

http://www.conventionofstates.com/proposed_rules

If not, then exactly who will decide exactly who gets to write our new founding government?

Article V doesn't mean a complete rewrite, depending on how the convention is chartered, it could become a runaway, or it may be tightly restricted in what it does, as the Tea-Party initiated effort is seeking to do.

[Pete at Home]

He cant do worse than Andrew Jackson, the man on our $20 bill, and who gave us this whole democratic disease in the first place.

I've heard this claim before, but don't know what it means. What did he do?

Genocide. Ethic Cleansing.  And promoted VP Calhoun, the architect of the great White Supremacy lie that Dr. king spoke of after the Selma March. The lie that kept poor uneducated starving white trash in the pockets of the aristocrats that ran their blood hot and cold from the tap during the civil war.

[godsblackestcrow]

Meanwhile, representative democracy was considered an optimal solution by the framers largely because of the contemporary constraints related to the pre-industrial transportation and communications infrastructure--constraints which simply do not exist today.

James Madison and Thomas Jefferson, among others would likely disagree.

Only if they misunderstood my statement the same way you seem to have, I think. I didn't actually argue that direct democracy would be a better solution (though I do think that if suffrage had to be earned by citizens through demonstrated competence/merit, it would effectively provide the benefit of reasoned competence which is ostensibly provided by representative democracy, without maintaining the actual tyranny of "popular people" which characterizes the current system), I simply pointed out that the choices they made were based on environmental constraints which are no longer extant.

Surely we agree that Madison and Jefferson would understand that the dynamics of social interaction are different today than they were two and a half centuries ago...no?

[TheDeamon]

Surely we agree that Madison and Jefferson would understand that the dynamics of social interaction are different today than they were two and a half centuries ago...no?

Only in the specifics and the speed in which it happens. Human behavior hasn't changed, so history is still a very powerful teacher.

As to the voting franchise being "retooled" I'd be all for that(except for the whole matter of "poll tests" in the south in years past). Perhaps some kind of tiered process so they don't end up fully disenfranchised? But how do you decide who gets to reside in the "higher" tiers?

I kind of like Heinlein's idea of "only Veterans," but I think that is far too extreme in a lot of ways too. Of course, he didn't "tier" that either, and that would create other issues as well(Such as: In order to have a "truly representative" and meaningful sample of the population engaged in Military service, you'd have to maintain a large military, particularly if they get "special benefits" for such service-- which then makes it appealing to groups that would otherwise avoid it).

[AI Wessex]

Which begs the question, who exactly are "we" to begin with?  The original 1989 writers were the elected reps of the states that had just defeated the British Empire, or so they could llausibly imagine.  Dissolve the constitution today and what unites us?

The "We" of now is not the same as it was in 1789.  I think we have moved well past the idea that we are a nation of individuals collected into states to now being a confederation of states and leagues of rival interests with membership.  If we were to rewrite the Constitution, it wouldn't be that people's rights would be either raised or lowered, but less important than what those other entities would demand and receive.  If you believe that the federal government is too powerful, you're in luck but then you'll have to contend with every state individually.  Choose where you live wisely, not because you were born there or were offered a job there.  Your freedoms and security will depend on that choice.

[Pete at Home]

Surely we agree that Madison and Jefferson would understand that the dynamics of social interaction are different today than they were two and a half centuries ago...no?

The Jefferson who wrote the D of I was far more like the better angels of our common nature today than like the son of a bitch named Thomas Jefferson who ran for president against Adams.  That later Jefferson was a much worse man than Trump.

[Pete at Home]

Which begs the question, who exactly are "we" to begin with?  The original 1989 writers were the elected reps of the states that had just defeated the British Empire, or so they could llausibly imagine.  Dissolve the constitution today and what unites us?

The "We" of now is not the same as it was in 1789.  I think we have moved well past the idea that we are a nation of individuals collected into states to now being a confederation of states and leagues of rival interests with membership.  If we were to rewrite the Constitution, it wouldn't be that people's rights would be either raised or lowered, but less important than what those other entities would demand and receive.  If you believe that the federal government is too powerful, you're in luck but then you'll have to contend with every state individually.  Choose where you live wisely, not because you were born there or were offered a job there.  Your freedoms and security will depend on that choice.

Indeed.  I would much sooner petition to rejoin the British Empire than return to pre-14th Amendment America.

I think the states should have more sovereignty than they do but not THAT much.

I opposed federal ssm precisely in order to avoid this current cultural backlash and the rainbow proto sedition that seems to be forming in response.  But would rather live with that crappy court decision than shred the constitution and 14a.

[Pete at Home]

Surely we agree that Madison and Jefferson would understand that the dynamics of social interaction are different today than they were two and a half centuries ago...no?

Only in the specifics and the speed in which it happens. Human behavior hasn't changed, so history is still a very powerful teacher.

As to the voting franchise being "retooled" I'd be all for that(except for the whole matter of "poll tests" in the south in years past). Perhaps some kind of tiered process so they don't end up fully disenfranchised? But how do you decide who gets to reside in the "higher" tiers?

I kind of like Heinlein's idea of "only Veterans," but I think that is far too extreme in a lot of ways too. Of course, he didn't "tier" that either, and that would create other issues as well(Such as: In order to have a "truly representative" and meaningful sample of the population engaged in Military service, you'd have to maintain a large military, particularly if they get "special benefits" for such service-- which then makes it appealing to groups that would otherwise avoid it).

In Heinlein's model (and I think it's an error to assume he embraces it except through his fictional narrator) the government can't turn down your service. Even a gimp like me has a right to serve, although it might assign me for the testing of land mines if I am deemed unsuitable for anything else.

[Pete at Home]

".  I think we have moved well past the idea that we are a nation of individuals collected into states to now being a confederation of states"

1789 itself moved beyond confederation, obviously.

Bear in mind that when you sum the votes for Trump, McMillan, and Johnson, that a MAJORITY of US voters, not plurality but majority, voted for options more conservative than anything that you or I could accept, Al.

But then I count votes as one counts Supreme Court opinions.

[TheDeamon]

In Heinlein's model (and I think it's an error to assume he embraces it except through his fictional narrator) the government can't turn down your service. Even a gimp like me has a right to serve, although it might assign me for the testing of land mines if I am deemed unsuitable for anything else.

I think Heinlein's model as per Starship Troopers was largely hyperbole and satire. Given the time-frame of the book, it was likely a sidelong commentary on a Military-Industrial Complex run-amok(which even the then President Eisenhower was going to start warning about just a year later). Although he sprinkles a lot of other stuff within the book that he probably did support to some degree, particularly given what is known of his personal life. He still does manage to make it hard to sort the wheat from the chaff on that one.

Although the "skin in the game" thing may very well have also been a poke at both WW2 and more specifically American involvement in the Korean War(as Vietnam hadn't involved the US just then), both of which involved large scale military drafts. (And ignores the even earlier WW1) Of course, the flip side is I don't think Heinlein was very sympathetic to the peace-nik types either, even without Startship Troopers, he did seem to come off as one of the "peace through strength" types.

[godsblackestcrow]

Surely we agree that Madison and Jefferson would understand that the dynamics of social interaction are different today than they were two and a half centuries ago...

Only in the specifics and the speed in which it happens. Human behavior hasn't changed

I suspect you mean something more along the lines of "Basic human motivations haven't changed." Human behavior absolutely has changed, in tandem with technology. The invention of the telegraph, for instance, represents the emergence of  socially complex behaviors related to the construction, operation and maintenance of the telegraphy system, as well as engendering entirely new modes of communicative behaviors that had previously been impossible. More germane to my point is the fact that the availability of instantaneous communication at a distance created the possibility of a completely new and different solution to complex social problems which require instantaneous interactivity between individuals belonging communities at great distances from each other. Prior to the invention of telecommunications, the only viable solution to these types of problems was to delegate an individual (or individuals) who were capable of transporting themselves to the location of an interactive meeting with delegated individuals from other communities, and competent to represent the interests in the home community in such a meeting. After telecommunications were invented, the availability of new type of communicative behavior changes the behavioral solution set to complex social problems which involve distant communities.

In other words, after the framers set up their framework, human beings learned to behave in new ways which permitted for an entirely different type framework to resolve the problems the initial framework was designed to resolve. Even if one assumes that they found the optimal solution set given the tools they had to work with, the availability of new, more sophisticated tools should be sufficient in and of itself to mandate a reanalysis of the chosen solution framework.

[TheDeamon]

Tweaks/changes to how people communicate and interact with one another still has little bearing as to underlying nature of those interactions. The motivations remain the same, the nature of the human("human nature") hasn't changed. Now once we all start getting cybernetic implants and the technology becomes capable of displacing biology, we'll have a different discussion.

Now as to certain specifics regarding the Constitution, yes, some of it should be adjusted to account for present day circumstances. Nuclear weapons were things of very wild speculation even into the 20th century, and it's doubtful most of the founders would support every citizen having 50 megaton ICBMs in their backyard for example.

[Kasandra]

The changes from the times of the Founders is far more pervasive than just a set of namable things like nuclear weapons or cybernetic implants.  They founded an agrarian "framework" organized and controlled by landowners befitting their contemporaneous world.  That world no longer exists.  Today we live in a technology based world organized and controlled by corporate owners that is far more complex and vastly bigger than theirs.  The Constitution that fit the Founder's world covers little today.  As a guide to behavior in our time it's an anachronism almost as obsolete as the bible.  Our puny individual rights and powers are laughably weak compared to those of corporations.  Trump's election is the natural realization of the state of affairs; he is far more powerful than the massive horde of peons that put him in power.  The Constitution written in 1789 can't contain him.  If we rewrote it today citizens would have all the rights of members in an organization owned and managed by a plutocratic oligarchy.