St Knick wrote:
that's a super charitable and naive take. are you implying the govt is in fact worthy of our unquestioning trust and that they have seen the light? it's human nature; "absolute power corrupts absolutely"
LOL, and no.
And I worried after I'd had that little tiff with Spree that it could be misinterpreted.
Does the government lie - of course they do. Unquestioning trust, of course not.
And Spree made a list of examples, which is nice. I can give you a list of examples for why Babe Ruth was a terrible baseball player, but that doesn't make it so.
1) Too many strikeouts
2) Slow, can't run, can't steal bases
3) Bad fielder
4) Bat teammate
5) Unprofessional in his off-time
6) Doesn't listen to coaching
5) Overpaid.
There you have it. Babe Ruth isn't a good baseball player because . . . I made a list. Obviously, this is silly but take something like climate change, that's basically accepted as studied and verified truth, that every scientific organization and virtually every nation in the world agrees with. I've seen very long and very convincing lists about why man-made climate change is wrong, and those lists are meaningless, because one by one, every example can be explained as to why it doesn't meet the criteria of a debunk. A list doesn't prove a trend. It's not that easy.
So, I confess, I was reacting to his list, in a "come on, not this again" reaction and I should do better. I should just turn away next time.
And he's right, many times, the Government has lied. But his point seems to be that the lying is the primary thing government is . . . until he dialed it back and he said he posted that meme as a joke, but a few posts earlier, he was "challenging people's world view" . . . so I'm not sure he debated honestly.
This is my problem with his posts, in addition to just posting a list. He seems to think that the lies are so prevalent that both sides are the same. Biden lies just as much as Trump so it doesn't matter. I have a problem with that point of view because I think it's flagrantly untrue.
He liked occupy WallStreet, but he hates liberals. He thinks the all-powerful government shut down occupy WallStreet, but liberals today are telling everyone to drink the Kool-Aid and telling everyone what to do? I don't think that's a fair assessment of liberals and I KNOW a lot of liberals. I'm speaking from knowing many personally. So, we've butted heads before and it's just a thing I need to dial down.
He was right about angry bug-eyed lady though. I thought she was occupy WallStreet, but she was protesting Trump on one side of a fence, on the other, a Trump supporter and they were. It's still Ironic though because the first time "Angry feminist" appeared was on Alex Jones channel, where Jones wrote "Trump supporters shut down protestors" - that was 2016.
But today, in 2024, there's a meme of the same photo that says "Left Wing 2020s, F*ck you do what they tell you" - how does that make any sense? It's like the truth no longer means anything, and just say whatever you can about liberals, and I'm tired of that.
Call people out all you want, you know, if you must, but call them out for what they did, not what you've made up.
OK, so that's my take on that, but I don't think I've answered your post.
- - -
I have more sympathy for government than most because I think governing is hard. I think it's incredibly important to get the right people elected, who try to make good choices for the people, so I tend to be very concerned about who wins elections but less concerned about the evil in government. More concerned about the evil in individuals.
Should government go unchecked? I think if you're not specific to individuals it's a waste of time. "Government" isn't anything specific. People get voted or chosen for office and those people make choices. So "don't trust government" . . . OK, but where do you go with that? I mean, sure. It's true enough, don't blindly accept what government tells you, but if you're not talking about individual people, you're much too generalized for me. It's not interesting and it's not helpful.
So, when ask me:
"are you implying the govt is in fact worthy of our unquestioning trust?"
No. I wasn't implying that at all, and I even said government lies more than once, but I then turned it back on Spree and pointed out that lying isn't the only thing, it's not even the primary thing that government does, which seemed to be what he was implying. When I say "it's not all lies", that's not the same thing as offering unquestioning trust. I think that should be obvious.
When you say
" that they have seen the light?"
This bothers me. What does this actually mean. Lets pretend that we get Jim Carry from liar liar elected to office? Then what? Would not being able to tell a lie fix everything? Would it make the withdrawal from Afghanistan any easier? Would it make reducing inflation easier, or the national debt, or climate change, or the partisan battle going on? Would it fix the supreme court or the guns issue? Would it solve the debate on trans-rights? Elect a saint and we'd still have the same problems we have now, because the problems aren't simply fixed by "lets finally do the right thing. THAT'S Nieve. OK, maybe we avoid the Vietnam war if LBJ doesn't set up the gulf of Tonkin, and in a sense, he took responsibility for that by not choosing to run for a 2nd term, and John McCain said that Vietnam was actually good, despite it's unpopularity, because it showed the Russians we wouldn't let them do whatever they want. I don't think McCain is right, but I do think there's some room for debate and it goes beyond "how could they do the wrong thing there", or Bush's fake yellowcake report shortly after 9-11 to get votes to invade Iraq. In hindsight, a big mistake, but let me ask you this? Do you want Saddam back? Would 15 more years of Saddam have been better? I still think Bush was wrong to push so hard for the Iraq war, but there are shades of grey. There almost always are. It's not like Obama's peace keeping efforts and attempts to support regional protest supported new governments fared any better. Obama really tried, but foreign policy is hard.
I think Obama was more honest than not. I think Biden was more honest than not. I think Clinton was a bit more underhanded, but he generally had good intensions for the country. I think even Trump has good intentions for the country, but I think he's a lying, vindictive, cruel, self-serving scumbag who caters to the powerful far right when he ran on the promise that he'd stand against the rich and wall-street, but he's done nothing but serve them. I also think he's an ignoramus. Utterly incompetent and he's done things that are bad for America, because he thought it would improve his election chances. That's the absolutely worst type of person that could be elected.
So, when you ask me "have they seen the light?", I have a few answers. What good would it do if they did? What dark secrets do you think would be uncovered if they had? OK, maybe the NSA never spies on foreign countries and that was embarrassing. Edward Snowden did embarrass the US government, and we even spied on allies, and that's a mess, but that's only a small part of what goes on in the government. Would I have liked it better if Obama (I think it was Obama at the time) had told the NSA, shut it down. Yes, that would have been a better choice from my perspective, but I don't think that one decision means it's all lies. I still think Obama had the best intentions for the people in the USA most of the time. I still think he was generally fair, a good diplomat, and interested in raising the standard of living for the lower half, not just trickle down, and that's much harder, but I think it's a better approach.
That's why I didn't really care if it was Hillary or Bernie because I knew that congress would block both of their ideas and it wouldn't make much difference. I never understood democrats who were so heartbroken and outraged when Hillary won. Were they not watching what congress did, blocking Obama for 8 years? Bernie would make some pretty speeches from the Oval office I'm sure, but he's less savvy than Obama. Do you really think he'd change much? If you want the kinds of changes Bernie was promising, you'd need 60 Bernie's in the senate and a majority in the house and then you could get Bernie's ideas written into law, but one Bernie in the oval office, come on. Not much changes. Maybe the foreign policy is different, but domestically, economically? Not a big difference. That's why I was fine with either one, and oh boy did some of my liberal acquaintances curse at me for that one. I was a centrist, not a liberal. hmm. OK. You heard me say I was fine with Bernie, right? I'm a tax the rich, ban guns, pro-choice, pro-environment and former hippie, but I'm a centrist because I didn't bang the drum for Bernie.
And don't get me started on Edward Snowden because . . . OK, he exposed something he believed was wrong but he also put US citizens who were overseas lives at risk and gave up some US tactical advantages to other nations. He made it easier for Russia to invade Crimea and parts of the Ukraine because they had access to US spy satellite information.
to quote morgan freeman
Seen the light? Now let me see. You know, I don't have any idea what that means.
when you say:
"it's human nature; "absolute power corrupts absolutely"
I heard that in school too, but you're missing something. Obama got told "No" a LOT. Biden got told "No" a Lot.
Have you read Machiavelli? "The Prince". How to rule? There's a lot of cut-throat stuff in there, but one of the things Machiavelli says that applies today is "don't surround yourself with yes-men. If you're going to lead, have people who will challenge and disagree with you around you".
Obama made 100 promises to win the election, then when he got into office, the republicans delayed Al Sharpton for months, so he never had the 60 votes. Then he had it for about 8 weeks, then Ted Kennedy dies and a rare republican victory in Massachusetts happened. Also, some of those 60 votes were centrist democrats or independents. Joe Lieberman campaigned for John McCain against Obama and he was one of the 60 senators in Obama's so called "filibuster proof" senate. Lieberman played spoiler to Obama's healthcare plan, basically gutting it before it even made it to his desk. Mitch McConnell played spoiler to Obama every way he could. Obama was told no a hell of a lot more than he was told yes. How much power do you think he really had?
Trump was also told no, early in office, many times.
Trump to congress "Give me money to build a wall" Congress "No, not unless you give us something really good back, like full amnesty to the dreamers would have done it" - Trump wouldn't do that. He didn't care as much that the wall was built, he cared that he'd look bad if he compromised, so he never got this wall, his primary promise, because congress said no.
Trump to Jeff Sessions "Head up the Russia investigations because you're my guy and you can keep me informed and we can dial it down" - Sessions said no. That would have been a gross conflict of interest and sessions knew that. Sessions correctly recused himself, effectively saying "No way, Donnie, not a chance". Trump never forgave sessions for that, or so I've read.
Trump to James Comey, after Comey helped him beat Hillary. (I'm paraphrasing with this one), but Trump said "You're my guy, right? You work for me". Comey reportedly said nothing during their first meeting, but he left very disturbed. Some time later, Trump fired Comey and Comey wrote a book about Trump. I don't think either guy came out looking good on this one.
As time went on, Trump surrounded himself with more and more "yes" men. Bill Barr was (in my opinion) an absolute scoundrel who'd do anything short of breaking the law to help Trump. Even Barr, in time, grew to think Trump was a terrible politician and a terrible person.
Trump to Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger. "Find me 12,000 votes" and we all know how that worked out.
The US constitution was set up with checks and balances. Politicians are told no a lot. FDR wanted to expand the supreme court. He was told to pound sand. His own party wouldn't back him on that venture, though there's no specific reference to any one person telling FDR those words. FDR had more power than any president since but even he couldn't do everything he wanted. He was met with resistance and told no more than once.
Does power corrupt? Well, sure. This is the full quote in a letter moralist Lord Acton sent to Bishop Mandell Creighton in 1887
"Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Great men are almost always bad men"
though he didn't come up with the idea, it had been around for some time. It's not a very surprising idea.
This is the question that I think is worth asking, given that US politicians are limited by their fellow politicians. Corruption requires teamwork. This happens more at the state level than the national level, because there's less visibility. Less media coverage. There's some, but less.
Do I think Obama became corrupt when he became president? Hard no from me.
Do I think Biden became corrupt when he became president? Again, hard no. I don't see it. Do you?
Do I think Trump became corrupt when he became president? I think Trump was already corrupt. That's who he was going in. Though I think the throne in his case, may have corrupted him more.
But if you think I'm wrong. If you think Obama became corrupt when he got the seat of power, give me some examples. I already mentioned what I think was his error with the NSA, so . . . maybe on that one. It's possible he didn't even know. Maybe that's thin, but it's possible.
See, the difference between Spree and Me, is Spree wants to say "both sides are corrupt and I'm sorry if that upsets your world view". I want details. I want specifics. I'm willing to be wrong, and I invite counter arguments. I'm willing to dig deep into why I said the things I said and why I believe what I believe.
But no, I don't think we should blindly accept government. I do think, often, the libertarian point of view, the "fear big government", the "The statist government is biggest problem we have", misses the point. We need government if we're going to solve climate change or avoid price gouging. Address things like recession or inflation. We need government for anti-terrorism and national defense, and that doesn't make everything government does right but "fear big government" feels like a lack of understanding to me.
Elect good people. That's where my attention is at. And try to dial back the partisan war a little. That too. I don't fear big government. I fear people who vote far right almost universally, because they fear big government. That doesn't feel like a legitimate solution to a problem they don't even understand . . . but that's just me. They passion of many far-right voters, and their scale in numbers scare me more than government does, at least, so far. Maybe if our government becomes a dictatorship that will change, but for now, the voters and the hot tempers in the USA scare me more than the government.
All of that said, I'm open to correction.
too long?
God invented war so Americans would learn geography.
