Lilli Loofbourow at Slate argues that Trump isn't appeasing Putin.
… Trump has been told—by the very men he hired—that the United States has been and is currently under cyberattack by Russia. And his response was to praise Putin, defend his denials, and blame the United States for poor relations between the two countries. That is not appeasement toward another country; it is aggression against your own.
Calling Trump’s behavior appeasement … pre-emptively grants that Trump is trying to help his country rather than himself, even though those two interests are to his mind plainly opposed. Trump has made his loyalties clear, and they are not to the country he governs.
Trump has made no secret of the fact that he operates according to naked self-interest—…
Russia’s “election meddling” was done to help elect Trump. Trump benefited enormously from those efforts, and he is not in the habit of condemning those who personally benefit him until they stop. Putin … hasn’t stopped.
… Trump … is willingly and actively trading against his country, as its president. This is … unprecedented.
Bert, four days have passed and you’ve produced no evidence for the corruptibility of ballot measures by direct initiative. It’s time for Trump’s Guillotine. For info, see my post above to Cat’s post about Kevin Drum’s suggestion.
Do you have evidence that they aren't corruptible? All I know is that in Oregon anyway, there seems to be a direct proportion between how controversial a measure is and how much money gets spent on it, and the bigger corporate spenders seem to have a pattern of winning.
Bert, I do not have evidence that there is no teapot orbiting the Sun.
I do have evidence (your words here) that you don’t know how to define the word “corruptible”. I use the Oxford English D, and the New Oxford American D.
Voters can be manipulated by misinformation, spin, and lies in elections for candidates; the same applies to elections for ballot measures. (And ballot measures, like candidates, require scrutiny; they might not have the innocuous purpose they appear to have.)
Specific examples would be good here.
It appears that voting is not an assurance of the popular vote wins; nor is the Electoral College, and it seems, nor is the direct initiative.
We claim we are a democratic country and every vote counts. That is not true. First of all, we are not a democracy, we are a republic, meaning, we vote for representatives ... Oh dear! more corruption pops up.
Could it be that a Republic and a Democracy cannot assure that every vote counts?
If that assumption is true, what are the remedies? A Parliament? I don't see them as being any more fair or just. I could be wrong. What other remedies are there? Socialism? Nope! The wealth gap between those who labor and those who own capital is as wide or wider!
I give up, you win, we are doomed!
No! we are not doomed! We still have the guillotine! Should we start with the POTUS and work our way down through the legislatures and courts? Oh Yes, politicians and lawyers.
No! guillotines don't work either; those with the biggest muscles, bombs, and willingness to use terror win on that one!
Joan, we vote for representatives who, instead of representing voters, represent donors to their campaigns.
Which is to say we vote for predators and we are their prey.
Tom, great insight! May I post your comments in Quotes and with attribution to you?