Trump Kicking and Screaming Transition Thread

Rudy wouldn't be drunk tweeting would he?
Oh and I saw an amusing Fox News promo during the Thursday night (gridiron) football game: it was touting the nighttime lineup of right wing loonies. The last one was a clip of Tucker Carlson next to a picture of Fearless Leader. Carlson was saying "we deserve better!" To which all I can say is: No Shit!

I think he will, it's just that for reasons I'm still yet to fathom questions regarding current US politics are frequently answered with a history lesson about how it came into being.

That then somehow becomes the justification.

That's not a @Lanzman thing, its much more of an accepted norm to a certain mindset.

Funny thing is, most of us have at least an order if magnitude more history and tradition but manage to focus on today.

*Hits buzzer* - "What is conservative thinking?"

And sometimes the most dangerous phrase is "I'm making it up as I go along."

Who said that? It might be dangerous but it depends on several factors. In any case admitting it is healthy.

What exactly do you think the Founding Fathers were doing?

Basing their system of government on Enlightenment ideas and Classical Greek and Roman models of republican governance.

At its heart, American conservatism resists change for one specific reason: any change might result in more equitablity, and that is anathema to conservatives. An individualist doesn't want things to be as fair as possible for the largest amount of people. If you can 'get yours," great; if not, then tough shit. It's not exactly a great recipe for a functioning society, but who cares? Social Darwinism may be passe nowadays in polite company, but it still heavily influences American conservatism. That, and fear. Fear that someone will take what is 'rightfully' theirs--regardless of how much the work of others enabled them to get it.

What's that quote? That conservatism is essentially trying to find a moral justification for selfishness? Very, very apt.

More on the Brits they had overthrown, who in turn had overthrown the Romans.

This shitshow is getting really hard to watch. I predicted that Trump would make an orderly transition basically impossible but I did not think that they'd go a far as to try and actually start violence.

What, violence?!

Yes. Of course Rudy doesn't believe the shit he's puking. He and the others are trying to rail the 'law abiding citizens'. They know those types are stupid enough to believe all the conspiracy crap. So they are feeding it to them, stirring the pot, hoping for some kind of violent outbreak. Which could be used to invoke the Insurrection Act. Which, in turn, means no more Posse Comitatus because that's the big glaring exception.

Thus, the firings and the new spitlickers in the Pentagon make sense, don't they. Mark Esper was quite vocal against using the military on domestic ground. The new guy? Probably not.

Meh. Only superficially (the Greek and Roman part). Locke’s liberal philosophy, Blackstone’s idealization of the English system (Commentaries) and Montesquieu’s misinterpretation of the English system (Spirit of the Laws) were way, WAY more influential.

But naturally impossible to sell as such at the time given the circumstances.

Hence the trappings of neo classicism.

The enduring myth of America as the successors of the Greco-Roman legacy never fails to amuse. The Greeks and Romans were fairly awful people by modern (and even Enlightenment) standards. And honestly, I'd bet most Americans--consciously or otherwise--self identify with Judeo-Christian values filtered through centuries of Western cultural hegemony and American exceptionalism. Putting some columns on buildings in DC and having a Latin motto doesn't make this country directly descended from the Greco-Roman tradition.

So, (1) ideas -- which were not in practice in most of the world at the time -- and (2) heavily modified versions of what was practiced in two societies that ultimately collapsed?

Sounds like "making it up as they went along" to me.

There's a reason that's been my signature for the past several years.

Can we pelase get back on topic?

Trump is a dangerous asshole.

There.

Thanks.

He reminds me of Pericles, but fatter, dumber and more of an all around fuckhead.

Less Pericles, more perineum.

Some of it, sure.

But others of it were purely things of their own invention. The notion of an electoral college wasnowhere to be found in classical Greek and Roman models of governance, for instance. Or more broadly, the notion of a federal government co-existing with independent state governments, each being in many respects co-equal. Correct me if I'm wrong, but those are American innovations.

Not that there's anything wrong with making things up on the fly. It's how most of us exist.

Remember when the biggest scandal about a presidential transition was that some people in the Clinton White House supposedly removed the "W"s from keyboards?

Pepperidge Farm remembers.

https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/story?id=121980&page=1

@Lanzman's position that the candidate who gets the majority of the votes shouldn't win is a pretty extreme position to take just to suppress non-white voters. Lanz, just come out and say it, there's no use going through these mental gymnastics.

Just admit you don't want things to change. Our system was designed to be adaptable and flexible as times change, but you seem to hate that for some reason. Why?

And by and large the long established British constitution.

Let's not get it misinterpreted here, there were lots of good things the US founders put in place. A bill of rights (albeit focused mainly on the rights that would benefit those fighting it) was great to establish early on. The model of government was a solid one for the time, and for those it granted a say (which again, was basically just people like those writing the rules) it was about as democratic as the distances and communications of the time allowed. Voting rights were expanded beyond those seen in England at the time, but with only ~6% of the US population being eligible to vote it was more a good step than a giant leap.

In many ways though it is an evolution of the systems they already knew. A House of Representatives that includes representatives from smaller areas, able to introduce and pass legislation. A senate that represents land areas, replicating the role of the House Of Lords. Then a president, with similar powers and responsibilities to the monarch, but now with regular review of the individual holding that position baked into the system.

They could have made worse decisions in a bunch of areas for sure, but the hero-worship of the US founders as being geniuses who built things never imagined before also ignores that they were instead part of (near the front, but still buoyed by) a fledgling wave of democratic reforms and progressions.