In the realm of the presidency of the United States, representative government has failed the People.

We should get rid of the presidency, not representative government.

Thank you for your attention to these matters.

I mean, what percentage of people who have terribly strong opinions about the Trump candidacy can name both their congressman and both senators, let alone state and local officeholders?

See what I'm getting at here?

Of course you do.

But there's no need to send flowers to the office or anything... My secretary has a full day of chores ahead even without having to drop off the overflow blossoms at hospitals and orphanages.

Also.

I wanna see his tax return, but have well-earned the privilege.

Listen, rather than think of a Trump presidency as the end of the world, let's just think of it as a notably harsh and percussive refutation of the broad (and demonstrably baseless) presumption by so many Americans that government is the best expression of our righteousness and decency.

And then hope it works out okay. Somehow.

Let's do that.

Because when you see the essentially religious enthusiasm so many have for regulation and intrusion, you know it had to end sometime. Better to have it happen this way than through a collapse of financial credit systems, right?

Right?

Damn it's good to have you back Crid.

Trump is the dynamite many want to use to pull the whole thing down. For good or ill, we'll see.

Yesterday we got notice we're being audited. For the second time in 5 years. Our tax responsibility is less than one auditor earns in a month. There are people in Gov't, and friends of people in gov't, who owe millions with no repercussions. The system needs to go. I think I'll be throwing my match in with the Trump dynamite.

I welcome the reign of our Crid designed new robot overlords. No, really, I do.

Huh:

http://www.usatoday.com/story/life/movies/2016/05/10/emma-watson-named-panama-papers/84196712/

Perhaps our lovely blog hostess can help with an explanation?

http://www.mirror.co.uk/tv/tv-news/transgender-girl-says-rejected-straight-6857022#ICID=sharebar_twitter

Or...as one wit put it guys are dicks.

Boo frickin' hoo, indeed:

http://pjmedia.com/instapundit/233606/

> I wanna see his tax return, but have well-earned
> the privilege.

"I wasn't sure about Trump, but now that I've seen his tax returns I support him!" - What no one will say.

Jeremy Stahl at Slate interviews Nicholas Sarwark of the libertarian party:
http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2016/05/12/why_a_mitt_romney_third_party_run_is_crazy_talk.html

Volokh Conspiracy writes about a some good free speech on campus news you may have missed:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2016/05/10/university-of-minnesotas-proposed-free-speech-protections-would-be-the-most-comprehensive-to-date/

> now that I've seen his tax
> returns I support him!" -
> What no one will say.

Expose the data, let the chips fall. We don't have to choose the consequences, we just have to know the truth.

> I welcome the reign of our
> Crid designed new robot overlords.
> No, really, I do.

Not sarcastic and not ironic, merely foggy... That thing where an insecure teenager mutters edgy comments which aren't sustained by logic, hoping to prove to him/herself that he/she does have the power to hurt other people's feelings, without actually having a good reason (or the courage) to do so.

What will Trump's tax returns show us? That he's rich? We already know that; and for those who don't know it by now, he keeps reminding us. Why do we need to put a number on it?

Better a candidate that flat out admits he's rich than one that tries to have a beer with blue collar workers and pretend he is just one of the guys when he has a lifestyle to which only a small percentage of the population can aspire.

Supreme Court nominee, Zoe Baird, made a fiasco out of trying to portray herself a just another working mother trying to find childcare when she got caught stiffing the help on Social Security and hiring illegal aliens - despite having a combined household annual income in the 7-figure range.

The birth certificate reveal is important because there is an actual Constitutional requirement that a president by a natural born citizen of the US. There is not a requirement that he be rich, poor, or middle class.

The tax return reveal actually tells us very little about a candidate that we can't pick up from other reveals. We saw from his tax returns that Mitt Romney gives a great deal of his income to charity, if you count the Mormon Church as charity. Same with Hillary Clinton. Her "charitable" donations go to a foundation started by herself and the main purpose of which is to promote the her interests. Did we need a tax return to tell us Romney was a devout Mormon or that Clinton is a narcissist?

You prefer bureaucratic overlords Crid? Because we've already got those. Getting rid of the president wouldn't make a difference there. I was just hoping for an upgrade if we are changing things.

"Expose the data, let the chips fall. We don't have to choose the consequences, we just have to know the truth."

Nope. You didn't with Obama.

And you probably didn't know this.

"Whoever we elect better not be successful." - the American public, clamoring for somebody just like them to oversee a nation and capabilities about which they have no clue.

We should get rid of the presidency, not representative government. ~ Crid at May 12, 2016 12:36 AM

The English tried that in the 1600s - beheaded the king and went with a Parliament-based government. That plan didn't work and dissolved into a dictatorship.

Our forefathers, students of history, had studied this period of British history and set our government up with a strong executive limited by a strong legislature - as separate but equal branches of government.

The French also tried it. The Revolution and execution of the king begat the National Convention which begat the Committee of Public Safety, which decided the best way to keep the public safe was to slaughter it.

The Economist asks, Who's to blame for the mess in the Arab world? And answers, the Arab world.

"All this is not so much a clash of civilisations as a war within Arab civilisation."

Speech codes for lawyers.

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/435284/news-world-tolerance-american-bar-association-considers-speech-code-lawyers

There ain't no rest for the triggered:

https://youtu.be/SwYd5cRlROE

Hey Science Bunny!... Yeah, you.... Your ass looks fat in that lab coat!

> The English tried that in the
> 1600s - beheaded the king and
> went with a Parliament-based
> government.

Casual presumption that our President is a king is precisely the problem.

There's never been anything like the United States of America. It's our rulebook... But people are forgetting.

> You prefer bureaucratic
> overlords Crid?

What on Earth makes you ask? What on Earth makes you think that's our choice?





See, I think there are some people in the world who don't grow out of childhood the way they should, and so they accept "authorities" as necessarily intrusive support figures, rather than mere (and easily replaceable) public servants. They missed the musical --but individually challenging-- passages of our founding documents.

So they got servility baked right into their souls.

Well gosh, Mister, if not the King or the President, then who DO you want running your life???

"What on Earth makes you ask? What on Earth makes you think that's our choice?"

You didn't advocate getting rid of the bureaucrats en mass Crid. You only talked about getting rid of one. It is kind of like Trump's get rid of the IRS stance. The government has to generate revenue. Hence someone has to collect and count that revenue. Changing the title from 'IRS' to 'IRS (a subsidiary of the treasury)' doesn't make a difference. Same with the president. Someone has to manage the government's employees. Congress is slow and plodding (and for good reason). So putting them in charge of the executive would just make those bureaucrats even more unaccountable. I chose to dream of an alternative, the robomanager.

If you want more freedom you need to cut off the base of the pyramid, not the top. The president doesn't run my life. It is the guy 30 layers below him.

Were you advocating anarchy, Crid? If so I misunderstood your comment.

The government has to generate revenue. ~ Ben at May 13, 2016 7:11 AM

Government doesn't "generate" revenue. It imposes taxes on productive activity and collects a portion of revenue generated by others.

Government tax collection is a drag on the economy. It motivates no new production or taxable activity. In fact, it sucks the economy dry as economic energy begins being directed toward tax avoidance instead of production. The goal should be to minimize taxation processes in order to minimize the drag on the economy and stimulate productive economic activity.

Casual presumption that our President is a king is precisely the problem.

There's never been anything like the United States of America. It's our rulebook... But people are forgetting.

~ Crid at May 12, 2016 6:52 PM

An unchecked avaricious legislature is no cure for an avaricious executive, whether king or president.

I have presumed that when people say they want to do away with the IRS they mean they want to do away with income taxes.

The founders created a fairly unique system of government.

People routinely think its the three beaches of government balancing each other out, but its actually more complex than that.

Most people envision a triangle with the three branches of government in each corner.

But what was created was a triangle with congress in two corners, the executive branch in the other, and that triangle balancing on the judicial branch.

When this country started senators were appointed by the state legislature.

The president was to safeguard the interests of the federal government, the Senate was to safeguard the interests of the individual states, and the House was to safeguard the interests of the people.

The problem isnt that we have an ever more powerful presidential office.

The problem is we have gone from a balanced republic to an oligarchy masquerading as a democracy.

Make political parties illegal

> An unchecked avaricious legislature
> is no cure for an avaricious
> executive, whether king or president

So who's asking for "An unchecked avaricious legislature"?

> You didn't advocate getting rid
> of the bureaucrats en mass

Is that what you need to hear?

You guys are rote, constrained thinkers. You know exactly what argument you want to have... And if someone doesn't read your imaginary script correctly, you'll try to power through anyway.

Like, I never *said* those things, capiche? It's kinda offensive but mostly silly.

Look up the definition of the word revenue Conan. I stand by my statement. That the income is gathered through threat of force changes nothing. If you expect the government to have employees or actually do anything it will need money. And hence it will need people to account for that money (both in and out).

Gooseegg, then those people should be clear. We certainly have people who want to go to a sales tax system, or a vat, or even a tariff funded scheme. But when I hear get rid of the IRS I assume the speaker is just being emotional and irrational. Which accurately describes much of Trump's support.

Lujlp, making political parties illegal is asinine. You are going to ban free association and assembly? Look at how banning political advertising has worked in other democracies. You just concentrate power in the hands of people who already have a news outlet. Want to get elected in Britain, then you better have a friend who owns a TV station. Or just buy such a friend. No political parties leads down the exact same path.

There is a world of difference between free association and a group of private NON ELECTED citizens in party leadership telling senators, congressmen, and presidents what laws to write and vote for or against under threat of with holding funding for campaigns or forcing other representatives from voting in favor of legislation you sponsor in retaliation for you not doing as you are told.

That is not free association, that is subversion, blackmail, extortion, and treason.

If you have free association you will have political parties. People will band together to form voting blocks with sufficient power to enact their desires, or as you put it "telling senators, congressmen, and presidents what laws to write and vote for or against". You can't have one without the other.