• Changing RCF's index page, please click on "Forums" to access the forums.

Trump

Do Not Sell My Personal Information
The ironic thing is, he might not exactly be WRONG, at least when it comes to the opinions of a lot of soldiers that is. I've heard lots of varies opinions from soldiers on this, and lots of them don't view this thing as heroism at all. Just doing your job.

But there's no place for someone like Trump, who has never served, to even comment on that at all. To us, people who never served our country that is, they're all heroes, or should be to us.

How those in the military view it, entirely different, and is allowed to be different among them.

Trump doesn't have thick skin at all. He got trolled by John McCain. He obviously said it to be an ass.

McCain destroyed him and his "crazies" publicly, and Trump took the bait.

McCain couldn't be happier over this.

Being captured isn't in itself heroic: Enduring it is. We are not talking about spending a couple years at a Luftwaffe POW camp with decent food and hijinks, but rather five years of unremitting torture after barely surviving bailing out of his aircraft and initial capture (three broken limbs, beaten and bayoneted).

There is a sliding scale, really. Bergdahl is no hero, nor really is Jessica Lynch and that whole invented narrative. But McCain, there is no argument that the man deserves heroic status. Particularly because he didn't have to remain as a POW; they offered to exchange him. He stayed because he knew it was the proper thing to do. Many weaker men would have leapt at the chance.
 
Being captured isn't in itself heroic: Enduring it is. We are not talking about spending a couple years at a Luftwaffe POW camp with decent food and hijinks, but rather five years of unremitting torture after barely surviving bailing out of his aircraft and initial capture (three broken limbs, beaten and bayoneted).

There is a sliding scale, really. Bergdahl is no hero, nor really is Jessica Lynch and that whole invented narrative. But McCain, there is no argument that the man deserves heroic status. Particularly because he didn't have to remain as a POW; they offered to exchange him. He stayed because he knew it was the proper thing to do. Many weaker men would have leapt at the chance.

No, I agree he's a hero and should be seen as one. I never cared for his view as a politician. I think he's a hero. I think anyone that serves our country with honor is a hero..

I was just pointing out that people who serve sometimes view it differently. Some get offended when something is labeled heroism. They view it as what you're supposed to do.

I don't know how they view McCain overall for example. I never served, who am I to say what counts as heroism and not, since I think they're all heroes, and they're all doing heroic acts, period.

There's no debate what McCain did is heroic. To say those who serve our country is not heroic, is one of the dumbest things one can say.
 
Well, Rome was governed by elites.far more than we are, and it lasted longer than anything else. And the Founders of our own country were much more the elite of their time than modern pols are now.

Arguably, the first "common man" President was Andrew Jackson, who I think was a shitshow.

I'm not saying governance by elites is a good thing. I'm just saying that may not be the problem.

I knew someone would bring up Rome. The actuality of the situation is the exact opposite of what you may think. The Republic was ruled by elites and it fell apart thanks to intercene rivalry and squabbling over who could fleece the people the most (Crassus won that contest until he decided he needed military glory). Whereas elites run nations into the ground, a powerful Elite (singular or slightly plural) controls the elites and channels their energies into developing a stronger society. Caesar put an end to the Republic for that reason and Pax Romana (20 BC-180 AD) succeeded only because strong emperors used a professional (middle class) bureaucracy to keep the senators, the patricians and the obscenely wealthy in line. The 3rd Century crisis was precipitated by the collapse of that power and the subsequent scramble for the throne and resources by the elite. The Tetrarchy and subsequent Constantinian dynasty once again imposed controls on the elite and managed to buy the Western Empire another century of peace. It would take a few thousand pages to explain in detail of why and how, but that is the general outline.

Byzantine history (the difference between Basil II and the conquest of Bulgaria versus the disaster at Manizkert under Romanus only 50 years later) reveals the same pattern, as does the success and failures of other historical kingdoms. England was strong under the imperious Henry II, Richard I and Edward I. Weak under John, Edward II and Richard II. Why so? Those weak men couldn't control their rapacious nobles who bled England dry. It isn't a mistake that The US has been at its strongest when the wealthiest were at their weakest (in a manner of speaking) and the middle-class strongest.

History demonstrates that the wealthiest will undermine the defense of their own empire if it means profits. There is also ample example in recent US history to suggest the same (business with the Nazis after the declaration of war, pushing trade agreements they know will gut large sectors of the US economy, etc.).
 
It's too bad McCain went batshit crazy. I really liked him back when he was a middle of the road guy.
 
Stannis, all you've really done is distinguish between good elites, and bad elites. The Five Good Emperors are still (by the definition of "emperor") "elites". They were just good, moral, and competent elites, selected by a fellow member of the elite.

Edward I was of the elite. You don't get more "elite" than inheriting a crown from your father. And Richard I was actually a pretty shitty King.

I mean, you complained about a lack of true democracty, the need for "electoral reform", etc, and then hold up a bunch of absolutist (relatively speaking) Emperors and Kings as being good rulers. I agree that generally with you that they were good, but they were still the elite.

And perhaps more relevant to your point about elections, which Emperors/Kings were good and which weren't had absolutely nothing to do with how they elected. Because in just about every case, the good rulers you identified weren't elected at all.
 
Last edited:
I thought Caeser ended the republic, because he was a power hungry tyrant.
 
Stannis, all you've really done is distinguish between good elites, and bad elites. The Five Good Emperors are still (by the definition of "emperor") "elites". They were just good, moral, and competent elites, selected by a fellow member of the elite.

Edward I was of the elite. You don't get more "elite" than inheriting a crown from your father. And Richard I was actually a pretty shitty King.

I mean, you complained about a lack of true democracty, the need for "electoral reform", etc, and then hold up a bunch of absolutist (relatively speaking) Emperors and Kings as being good rulers. I agree that generally with you that they were good, but they were still the elite.

And perhaps more relevant to your point about elections, which Emperors/Kings were good and which weren't had absolutely nothing to do with how they elected. Because in just about every case, the good rulers you identified weren't elected at all.

Perhaps I didn't make myself as clear as possible as I was about to start a movie.

I. The point isn't whether which Emperor or King was an elite. The vast majority were, though some Emperors had very humble origins. There is a difference between someone of the elite class ruling and elites as a class ruling. When someone was elected Emperor (for the most part, and it did become an elected office through acclamation as time went on) they generally ceased being a member of the elite as a class and became an entity in their own right and usually found themselves in opposition to Senatorial class. Augustus and the majority of his successors did hail from the Patrician and Senatorial ranks. However, as history shows, the second they assumed the purple they spent most of their time keeping the Senate in line. The same could be said of any King in mediaeval Europe. Whereas the King was, yes, an elite, the second they assume the throne they are now in opposition to the nobility who consistently scheme to undermine royal power for their own gain.

Moreover, you brought up the Republic as an example of where the elites as a class ruled without interference. The result was utter chaos and the collapse of the system because elites as a class, when allowed to rule unfettered, are driven by greed and fight amongst themselves to gain the most power and wealth. @godfather, the Republic ended because it was no longer tenable as a system. Even before Caesar it was necessary for a Triumvirate to govern because the Senate couldn't. The Republic was dying and Caesar, or rather Augustus, put it out of its misery.

The grand point of all this is pointing out that throughout history, there has been a necessary mechanism for constraining the elites as a class from completely ruling the polity as they run things into the ground. In the past, that mechanism was a strong monarchy, whether a Constantine or a Louis XIV, to suppress the avaricious designs of the nobility.

II. In this day and age, the mechanism is the democratic process, which, in theory, is supposed to increase the voice of non-elites by ensuring they elect leaders who represent all of society. Clearly, this is no longer as an efficient mechanism as it once was even 35 years ago. Though, it should be noted that the Founding Fathers never intended for anyone but the elite to rule. In the US the democratic process of elections has been somewhat circumvented by the reality of anyone with money being able to essentially buy the services of representatives to serve their very narrow purposes. The ability of the elite as a class to corrupt the process through enormous sums of campaign contributions and PAC money has seriously eroded the responsiveness of those elected to the vast majority of the electorate. The more and more the elites are able to tip the table in their favor, at the cost of everyone else, the more it effects the nation's strategic interests simply because the nation's best interests are not their interests much of the time.

III. As for reform, the current distribution of representatives, as pointed out, was never meant to include so many people. When the formula was re-calibrated 100 years ago a Representative had a little 200,000 constituents. Now it ranges between 750,000 to near a million. It is simply impossible for the level of responsiveness intended for the role when a single person has to report to so many people. The other consequence of constituent bloat is the cost of campaigning that continues to skyrocket.

As for Campaign Finance Reform, it speaks for itself. Elections awash in special interest money have one effect: It diminishes the voice of the many and amplifies the demands of the few. Lip service can be paid to parties representing the ideology of its voters but the reality has long been that elected leaders only really work for those who pay their campaign bills. Hard limits on individual, PAC and corporate (and union) donations will help the little guy have more of a voice.

I am not saying elites shouldn't have the most important role in governance. However, history shows us that national success seems to hinge on the perfect balance of constraint on elites as a class and the national interest.
 
Last edited:
Well, I will say that I dont think an elite class SHOULD rule, but it is systemic that they DO rule. There is no correlation between legslation wanted by John Q Public and legislation actually passed, but this has not changed much in 50 years. The vectors for this systemic problem are essentially greed, opaque spending, and lack of education and/or interest in the general electorate.

No working man (blue collar or white collar) can read legisaltion like the Affordable Health Care Act for example and particpate in a meaningful debate about its merits. In fact most of the elected officials did not and could not either. The buerocracy designed it and wrote it with their own agenda, some of which might have been intended to serve the public and a lot of which was less than that. That is one piece of legislation, and there were hundreds if not thousands that "the people" could not even enumerate happened.

I agree that the campaigns awash in special interest money lessens the Republic's ability to elect representative candidates. But I dont agree that limiting contributions will improve the situation. I think it would only transfer the power to control the agenda to the organized media, which are partisan and can be bought the same way elected officials are and maybe moreso..And while in some ideal space the power of the internet should moderate this influence, in fact the internet has been coopted by state ( or at least politically sponsored) sources. There is so much propoganda spewing into that space, you cannot trust anything.

This is the general line of thinking toward taking an axe to Government revenue and spending. Concentration of wealth in the hands of a political elite is a breeding ground for corruption of the political process. The formula is simple. Publicly pander to the largest voting blocks, channel the shit ton of money borrowed from the future into your own agenda. As long as the media is freindly to the agenda or can be bought, nobody bats an eye. The money flows to the people or organizations with access, which is not you or me. The next step to this logic is for those who are able, to give up and get out while they can. ( Q-tip and Sweden) The wealthy in Greece dont have significant funds in greece. They got out and are living somewhere warm and safe.

My wife is traveling in South America this summer. She has run into a bunch of older Americans learning Spanish so they can retire as ex-pats. When somebody decides their future is more secure in a third world than here, we have screwed the pooch. The people who will go, are the people who can go. The rest wil be left holding the tab.

I understand the electorate is as divided as it can be. This is not a coincidence. A divided public can be manipulated easier. The British built an empire on balancing power between thier adversaries so they could leverage their own game plan, and that is exactly where we are. Unlike Q, I think that real leadership could bring americans together. But it is a dice role. Real leadership can be good and it can be evil, and unfortunately the people are nto always good at discerning the difference between them. Hence we have Hitler and Kennedy, both elected.
 
Well, I will say that I dont think an elite class SHOULD rule, but it is systemic that they DO rule. There is no correlation between legslation wanted by John Q Public and legislation actually passed, but this has not changed much in 50 years. The vectors for this systemic problem are essentially greed, opaque spending, and lack of education and/or interest in the general electorate.

No working man (blue collar or white collar) can read legisaltion like the Affordable Health Care Act for example and particpate in a meaningful debate about its merits. In fact most of the elected officials did not and could not either. The buerocracy designed it and wrote it with their own agenda, some of which might have been intended to serve the public and a lot of which was less than that. That is one piece of legislation, and there were hundreds if not thousands that "the people" could not even enumerate happened.

I agree that the campaigns awash in special interest money lessens the Republic's ability to elect representative candidates. But I dont agree that limiting contributions will improve the situation. I think it would only transfer the power to control the agenda to the organized media, which are partisan and can be bought the same way elected officials are and maybe moreso..And while in some ideal space the power of the internet should moderate this influence, in fact the internet has been coopted by state ( or at least politically sponsored) sources. There is so much propoganda spewing into that space, you cannot trust anything.

This is the general line of thinking toward taking an axe to Government revenue and spending. Concentration of wealth in the hands of a political elite is a breeding ground for corruption of the political process. The formula is simple. Publicly pander to the largest voting blocks, channel the shit ton of money borrowed from the future into your own agenda. As long as the media is freindly to the agenda or can be bought, nobody bats an eye. The money flows to the people or organizations with access, which is not you or me. The next step to this logic is for those who are able, to give up and get out while they can. ( Q-tip and Sweden) The wealthy in Greece dont have significant funds in greece. They got out and are living somewhere warm and safe.

My wife is traveling in South America this summer. She has run into a bunch of older Americans learning Spanish so they can retire as ex-pats. When somebody decides their future is more secure in a third world than here, we have screwed the pooch. The people who will go, are the people who can go. The rest wil be left holding the tab.

I understand the electorate is as divided as it can be. This is not a coincidence. A divided public can be manipulated easier. The British built an empire on balancing power between thier adversaries so they could leverage their own game plan, and that is exactly where we are. Unlike Q, I think that real leadership could bring americans together. But it is a dice role. Real leadership can be good and it can be evil, and unfortunately the people are nto always good at discerning the difference between them. Hence we have Hitler and Kennedy, both elected.

Nice post.

I think we all agree that we need campaign finance reform in this country; but you also say that removing money from politics won't help - I'm not sure I understand your logic here. It seems that you laid out exactly the issue, including "opaque spending" which seemingly leads to transparent corruption.

I'm not saying that reducing spending will fix the problem entirely, but surely it would help tremendously, no?
 
Nice post.

I think we all agree that we need campaign finance reform in this country; but you also say that removing money from politics won't help - I'm not sure I understand your logic here. It seems that you laid out exactly the issue, including "opaque spending" which seemingly leads to transparent corruption.

I'm not saying that reducing spending will fix the problem entirely, but surely it would help tremendously, no?

Removing money from donations wont fix a problem if the money just changes directions,ie funding media to buy the message anyway. People, countries and businesses with agenda in legislation will buy airtime or even entire media companies ( can you say FOX?) and social media activity directly if they dont do it through direct donation to parties or candidates..This still corrupts candidates since the airtime /media is a strong vector to election. And election is a money train, even if you dont hand the candidate a check. Candidates make bank through books sales and speaking engagements, TV Shows ( thats coming), not to mention post service jobs..and even if we could have tracked those dollars at one time ( which is debatable) today we cant really. This is the day of bitcoin. Who is to say where the money is coming from?

I will never forget my first attempt at getting involved in politics. I was a liberal republican in the south, and I showed up for the caucus. There was no discussion of ideas or candidates or platforms. You showed up and identified yourself as a bush man or a dole man or a kemp guy. That was it. From there you were "guided" by the party mechanism to write letters, go door to door to get out the vote, make calls to raise money, and vote on what your were told to vote on ( in Carolina at the time it was Pat Robertson) The ideas and the candidates were decided by the party mechanism, which was a good old boy network of wealthy locals. It was not overtly pay to play, but access went to the biggest donors, so there you go..

I agree reducing spending makes the problem better, because there is less slop at the trough. smaller budget more transparency, easier to spot the pigs.. Today the spending could be transparent, which most of it is in theory, but the sheer magnitude means that average people cant see it at a detail level, so the opportunity for corruption of the process is there. And who writes the legislation? It sure as hell is not your elected official, at best it is a burocratic expert, and at worst it is the lobbiest. And even more important, who writes the regulation based on the law? You dont even know that guy's name..

And here is how it works. I worked for a company that made technical products used in testing. The principles got connected (through access) with a person in government who wrote the testing standards. They suggested language for the standards to require a process which reduced the risk of contamination of samples, which coincidentally could only be achieved by thier patented equipment. There were meetings at trade shows and high stooch restraunts, and female employee who was fond of low cut tops and foot massages,also entirely coincindental....The language got in, jobs flowed to the state, the goverment guy got promoted, everybody was happy. The details were never written into laws that got looked at in congress, and John Q Public had no say or even awareness of the matter. The principles were wildly successful, with boats and planes, new wives and beach houses. There are thousands of these things happening, not just in our goverment, but in every government on the planet..

I have been told point blank by a professional lobbiest, that they would not imagine taking any idea regardless of merit to any congressman unless it needed a 100 million $ or more budget, becuase thier fees would not be big enough otherwise. When George Washington was President, being Commander in Cheif was a pain in the ass for an already wealthy guy. James Madison ( who wrote most of the constitution) went broke running his plantation. Elected Government service was a public responsibility, not a career choice. These guys did it because they were pissed off at a government that took advantage of them, and did not represent their interests. They were trying to fix it. And that is what has changed.

Goverment today is a path to get paid. Even the idealogues that start out to change the world learn to play, or get crucified. Some might argue there are a few idealogues in the field who genuinely want to serve. Crazy Bernie for example or ted cruz on the other side. But in the end they want to be president and that alone means I dont trust them.

So this is why I started the Stannis for president thread. I am pretty sure Stannis does not want to be president, and would regard it as a special pain in the ass. I am also pretty sure he feels a responsibility to America ( or else he would not have gone to Iraq and let some dude take pot shots at him), and I think he genuinely considers other peoples points of view with respect ( follow some of his discussions in off topic wih Gour for example, where he displays a zen like patience I cannot hope to achieve) . I would highlight to stannis that good leaders that came from the educated classes were not motivated by personal agrandizement, but by this patrician sense of responsibility. Charlemagne was trying to create a better france, for all of france, but when his progeny disconnected from Jaques (let them eat cake!) the state failed. So which of these candidates are forced to take up the mantle for america because it is what we need, as opposed to fulfilment of an ambition. The former is how you get Eisenhower, and the latter how you get Hitler..
 
Removing money from donations wont fix a problem if the money just changes directions,ie funding media to buy the message anyway. People, countries and businesses with agenda in legislation will buy airtime or even entire media companies ( can you say FOX?) and social media activity directly if they dont do it through direct donation to parties or candidates..This still corrupts candidates since the airtime /media is a strong vector to election. And election is a money train, even if you dont hand the candidate a check. Candidates make bank through books sales and speaking engagements, TV Shows ( thats coming), not to mention post service jobs..and even if we could have tracked those dollars at one time ( which is debatable) today we cant really. This is the day of bitcoin. Who is to say where the money is coming from?

I will never forget my first attempt at getting involved in politics. I was a liberal republican in the south, and I showed up for the caucus. There was no discussion of ideas or candidates or platforms. You showed up and identified yourself as a bush man or a dole man or a kemp guy. That was it. From there you were "guided" by the party mechanism to write letters, go door to door to get out the vote, make calls to raise money, and vote on what your were told to vote on ( in Carolina at the time it was Pat Robertson) The ideas and the candidates were decided by the party mechanism, which was a good old boy network of wealthy locals. It was not overtly pay to play, but access went to the biggest donors, so there you go..

I agree reducing spending makes the problem better, because there is less slop at the trough. smaller budget more transparency, easier to spot the pigs.. Today the spending could be transparent, which most of it is in theory, but the sheer magnitude means that average people cant see it at a detail level, so the opportunity for corruption of the process is there. And who writes the legislation? It sure as hell is not your elected official, at best it is a burocratic expert, and at worst it is the lobbiest. And even more important, who writes the regulation based on the law? You dont even know that guy's name..

And here is how it works. I worked for a company that made technical products used in testing. The principles got connected (through access) with a person in government who wrote the testing standards. They suggested language for the standards to require a process which reduced the risk of contamination of samples, which coincidentally could only be achieved by thier patented equipment. There were meetings at trade shows and high stooch restraunts, and female employee who was fond of low cut tops and foot massages,also entirely coincindental....The language got in, jobs flowed to the state, the goverment guy got promoted, everybody was happy. The details were never written into laws that got looked at in congress, and John Q Public had no say or even awareness of the matter. The principles were wildly successful, with boats and planes, new wives and beach houses. There are thousands of these things happening, not just in our goverment, but in every government on the planet..

I have been told point blank by a professional lobbiest, that they would not imagine taking any idea regardless of merit to any congressman unless it needed a 100 million $ or more budget, becuase thier fees would not be big enough otherwise. When George Washington was President, being Commander in Cheif was a pain in the ass for an already wealthy guy. James Madison ( who wrote most of the constitution) went broke running his plantation. Elected Government service was a public responsibility, not a career choice. These guys did it because they were pissed off at a government that took advantage of them, and did not represent their interests. They were trying to fix it. And that is what has changed.

Goverment today is a path to get paid. Even the idealogues that start out to change the world learn to play, or get crucified. Some might argue there are a few idealogues in the field who genuinely want to serve. Crazy Bernie for example or ted cruz on the other side. But in the end they want to be president and that alone means I dont trust them.

So this is why I started the Stannis for president thread. I am pretty sure Stannis does not want to be president, and would regard it as a special pain in the ass. I am also pretty sure he feels a responsibility to America ( or else he would not have gone to Iraq and let some dude take pot shots at him), and I think he genuinely considers other peoples points of view with respect ( follow some of his discussions in off topic wih Gour for example, where he displays a zen like patience I cannot hope to achieve) . I would highlight to stannis that good leaders that came from the educated classes were not motivated by personal agrandizement, but by this patrician sense of responsibility. Charlemagne was trying to create a better france, for all of france, but when his progeny disconnected from Jaques (let them eat cake!) the state failed. So which of these candidates are forced to take up the mantle for america because it is what we need, as opposed to fulfilment of an ambition. The former is how you get Eisenhower, and the latter how you get Hitler..

I think any man that actually wants to be President is nuts. I am very suspicious of guys like Obama who have devoted their entire lives to that end without ever considering whether just because they could get elected that they should be elected.

My dream job is Ambassador believe it or not.
 
I thought Caeser ended the republic, because he was a power hungry tyrant.

The Republic, as incredibly successful as it was in expanding from one city to three continents, was governed by elites - the patrician class - much more than we ever were. One of the primary ways to get an office was to bribe the hell out of voters.
 
Last edited:
Your country has his rock bottom the day Donald Trump is a serious candidate for its presidency.

Democrats should actually use this. :chuckle:

I laugh, but I really mean it. The Dems should point out Trump's run & momentum when emphasizing the need for stronger education in this country.
 
I think any man that actually wants to be President is nuts. I am very suspicious of guys like Obama who have devoted their entire lives to that end without ever considering whether just because they could get elected that they should be elected.

My dream job is Ambassador believe it or not.

You've focused on a truly huge problem. People who are skeptical of the power of government, and don't like having power over other people, are much less likely to enter government in the first place.
 

Rubber Rim Job Podcast Video

Episode 3-13: "Backup Bash Brothers"

Rubber Rim Job Podcast Spotify

Episode 3:11: "Clipping Bucks."
Top