this forum should be over. Trump got disqualified.

I think we should abolish the economic side of gov't, and just have economists run it using Keynesian economics.

except we've been post-Keynesian for a good few decades at this stage... economic theories also get replaced by better ones

Bush had (almost) his entire party behind him and solid control over most the government. Donald Trump is hated by his fellow Republicans and would have little influence outside the executive branch.

I don't know much about the next American presidential election (and neither should you - it's way away), but there's nothing some benefactors' support, long knives, and conviction can do. Are you really even bringing up branches? I am dictator, and my branches are my arms - they don't have sovereign thoughts.

I understand that of course. But there's also something to be said for a society that changes its ideals, values, form of government, and economic system too nonchalantly. All empires have collapsed from change that was either radical and of quick order or by infinitesimal compromise with the opposition to the normal political order. America is an empire and it will collapse because we've been too eager to substitute our values for european ones or for ones that seemed popular. Change is good in many respects (of course civil rights and the post-civil war amendments come to mind), but whole systematic changes in the way of governance are detrimental, which is why a supermajority of Americans feel their country is headed down the wrong path. We are so polarized because there is not even a semblance of a unity of values or culture or politics (and that's a very new phenomenon).

This whole thing is junk, but in particular:

America is an empire and it will collapse because we've been too eager to substitute our values for european ones or for ones that seemed popular.

America was fully founded on European British faff thinker values. America is geographically not European, but culturally is.

whole systematic changes in the way of governance are detrimental, which is why a supermajority of Americans feel their country is headed down the wrong path.

Who says systematic change is detrimental? Change without a system of it, on the other hand, I believe is detrimental - it's just unfinished work which can lead to deadly incompatibilities and differences in theme, and often lead to contradicting laws. You say government - do you want a government that takes all your money (communism) and spends none of it (capitalism)? Also, what is a supermajority? Do you mean absolute majority? It is the wrong word to use in a binary choice, an arrogant thing to say like this, and a very hard thing to measure.

We are so polarized because there is not even a semblance of a unity of values or culture or politics (and that's a very new phenomenon).

Ha. Ha. A joke: The one country that is more nationalist than America is Vatica. While this is an exaggeration, 19/20 Americans I see on Warlight (probably more in real life) are nationalist.

I think we should abolish the economic side of gov't, and just have economists run it using Keynesian economics.

Well, just let them run it how it works best, forget your "Keynesian". But anyhow, I'm afraid this just does not happen enough, partly through autocracy, partly through dumbness. One ground I support monarchy for is that they are trained to rule from a young age - economics, politics, world studies, so on. Too big a number of politicians haven't the clue.

Ha. Ha. A joke: The one country that is more nationalist than America is Vatica. While this is an exaggeration, 19/20 Americans I see on Warlight (probably more in real life) are nationalist.

Americans definitely tend to be patriotic but we've also become very politically polarized over the past two decades, especially in Congress. I think that's what Jai was referring to- but I don't think that this can be solved by systematically disregarding the values of the (substantial) American "left" and returning to some notion of "traditional" values.

I understand that of course. But there's also something to be said for a society that changes its ideals, values, form of government, and economic system too nonchalantly. All empires have collapsed from change that was either radical and of quick order or by infinitesimal compromise with the opposition to the normal political order.

And I thought empires collapsed because they didn't adapt to changing times, clinging to their outdated rhetorics instead, and refused to recognize that the world has changed. Sun King, USSR, Rome and whatnot.

@Varakreivi - one could argue that the notion of a Russian Empire (which the USSR is a derivative of) collapsed because they radically changed their form of government and economic structure to communism, which under their leadership had little chance of being viable or beneficial to the public.

Are you really even bringing up branches? I am dictator, and my branches are my arms - they don't have sovereign thoughts.

I'm not sure you have a full grasp of American politics. The branches in our government are very much separate entities and things can easily get gridlocked if they refuse to work with each other. I think almost every U.S President has been accused of being a dictator at some point, but only a few came measurably close.

My point is, The President MUST have the support of the legislative branch if he is to have any hope of making significant changes to domestic policy. Donald Trump, who is despised by both major parties, would have Congress blocking him left and right. Not to mention the Supreme Court would likely overrule most of Trump's ideas as well.

The one country that is more nationalist than America is Vatica. While this is an exaggeration, 19/20 Americans I see on Warlight (probably more in real life) are nationalist.

You seem to apply the term "nationalist" very loosely. I'd be interested in learning what your criteria for a nationalist is.

Americans definitely tend to be patriotic but we've also become very politically polarized over the past two decades, especially in Congress. I think that's what Jai was referring to- but I don't think that this can be solved by systematically disregarding the values of the (substantial) American "left" and returning to some notion of "traditional" values.

Polarization is probably one of our biggest problems. We have to learn to compromise and find a moderate middle ground that everyone can accept. One side utterly disregarding the views of the other will only make things worse and worse as time goes on.

One side utterly disregarding the views of the other will only make things worse and worse as time goes on.

Are you specifically stating that the polarization is occurring on one side of the spectrum only? It's been well-documented that it occurs on both sides (although a bit stronger on one side as far as political shifts go). To imply that it's all one side's fault despite all evidence to the contrary is in and of itself a symptom of polarization and does nothing to solve the issue.

My point is, The President MUST have the support of the legislative branch if he is to have any hope of making significant changes to domestic policy. Donald Trump, who is despised by both major parties, would have Congress blocking him left and right. Not to mention the Supreme Court would likely overrule most of Trump's ideas as well.

Well, especially since WWI, US executive powers have increased significantly and now the executive's power > the legislature's power >> the power of the judiciary branch simply because the executive has a far, far greater array of enforcement mechanisms. While Congress can (and hopefully will- although recent legislation might suggest otherwise) block Trump's plans to make Muslims wear special patches and achieve a final solution to America's immigration problems, a President Trump would still have far-reaching executive authority- like the ability to effectively declare war (which hasn't been in the hands of Congress since the Korean War) and even to effectively legislate through executive actions.

The Presidency of the United States has gotten too strong at this stage to be completely balanced out- and even if that somehow happens, the last thing we can use in this country is 4 more years of political deadlock. I guess the one gain would be Congress regaining some of its lost powers simply because of a newfound ability to unite against a common (sadly internal) enemy and a significant portion of the American public now disliking the president even more than many Americans today dislike Obama.

But the other big issue is that the president is the face of the American people- he/she represents us in foreign affairs (which has a significant impact- there was a massive change in foreign approval rates for America as a whole when Bush 43 was replaced with Obama) and (to most Americans- just look at the disparity in turnout between off-year and on-year elections) is the face of the government- which means his rhetoric matters. When that rhetoric is largely hate speech, that only incites further violence. As a brown guy, I won't have much time to appreciate the irony behind getting mistaken for a Muslim even though I'm descended from refugees who fled Islamic governance before I hit the tracks and get run over by a train simply because some radicalized American thought that they should take it upon themselves to protect the nation against a perceived ethno-religious threat they can't even properly identify. (Related story from 2012: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/30/nyregion/woman-is-held-in-death-of-man-pushed-onto-subway-tracks-in-queens.html).

To be honest, this type of rhetoric really scares the fuck out of me. I was just eating a sandwich at a random person greeted me and asked me where I'm from. Thinking nothing of it (maybe holiday cheer? idk), I said hi back and told him I'm from Texas (y'know, where I grew up and all). Then he's like, "No where are you really from?" like that's supposed to mean something- "India?" Then for a half hour, he brings up ISIS literally every other sentence and asks me whether I like America five times.

I'm just a regular person working toward my degree; the closest thing I have to a religion is my love of Star Trek. And yet here I am, getting interrogated by this random dude about whether I love America (well, duh, I do- I have the economic means to choose where I live) because he thinks I'm some sort of ISIS sleeper agent. All I wanted to do was to clog up my arteries and work toward my goal of drowning in buffalo sauce and ranch.

Seriously, fuck the sort of rhetoric that comes out of Trump's mouth (and from his supporters as well). I don't even care about politics in this country- I'd prefer to be just left alone, but nope- gee, thanks, Mr. Trump for volunteering me for Team People-Who-Aren't-Part-of-Fucking-ISIS.

Edited 12/10/2015 19:42:06

Are you specifically stating that the polarization is occurring on one side of the spectrum only?

No I'm not. Where did I say that I was only pointing fingers at one side? If I was looking to assign blame I would of named one group or the other.

Polarization, by definition, requires two opposite forces. Radicals on both the left and right are the source of this problem, and each would heavily damage the country if allowed to have their way. They both use similar tactics: Censor and demonize the opposition, inspire fear in the population, and disregard any compromise. The only real difference between them is that right-wing radicals tend to be more blatantly obvious for whatever reason. Radical leftists don't receive as much attention but they definitely exist as well.

US executive powers have increased significantly and now the executive's power > the legislature's power >> the power of the judiciary branch

I have to disagree somewhat with the judiciary branch being at the bottom. Every Supreme Court decision is immediately treated as law without any ifs,ands,or buts. Although I will concede that SCOTUS is limited in the sense that their words only matter if everyone else chooses to obey.

is my love of Star Trek.

Always nice to find another Star Trek fan, which is your favorite series? (Totally irrelevant to the topic but I couldn't resist asking)

one could argue that the notion of a Russian Empire (which the USSR is a derivative of) collapsed because they radically changed their form of government and economic structure to communism, which under their leadership had little chance of being viable or beneficial to the public.

So basically you are saying that the Russian Empire would be alive and kicking to this day if they only had sticked to the serfdom?

One could also argue that all the radical communist changes happened only after the collapse of the Russian Empire (the revolution), which in turn happened because they didn't adapt to the 20th century, keeping into their traditional absolutist monarchy instead. The revolution didn't happen in UK or US for example, because they adapted their system and introduced reforms.

Edited 12/11/2015 11:29:24

I think Jai's argument is that change does not always equal good or success. The Soviet Union introduced very radical changes compared to other countries with their version of Communism. They represented the new, while NATO and the West represented people who were essentially defending Capitalism which is a VERY old system of doing things.

In this example the countries representing the old "Won" (Only in the sense that if your opponent passes out in the middle of a boxing match it's still technically a win).

The Soviet Union represented a radical system of new ideas that was implemented in a bad way, and thus they eventually collapsed in on themselves. A more moderated, less radical approach might of prevented all that.

I think Stalin was the guy who ruined it all really. I mean yes the Russian Revolution was violent and perhaps if they followed more the teachings of the 19th century great Russian writer and thinker Leo Tolstoi about Non Violence (people like Gandhi and Martin Luther King were inspired by his works), thinks would have gone differently. Russia had a real potential.

The Russian Revolution was violent and extreme because the situation itself during that period was extreme and violent (world war + a still middle aged system based on serfdom, absolute monarchy and religion colluding with the State).
Nevertheless, despite violence (war between White Russians and the Red Army as an example), things could have gone better, particularly without Stalin in charge, just thinking of WW2, if the USSR did not stupidly made a pact with Nazi Germany, Germany would have been defeated instantly in a two front war (like WW1), and communism's reputation would have gone certainly way better, with political victories even in Western Europe (particularly thinking about France and Italy).

An interesting and foresighted quote of Alexis de Tocqueville in 1835 about Russia and America:

"There are now two great nations in the world which, starting from different points, seem to be advancing toward the same goal: the Russians and the Anglo-Americans. Both have grown in obscurity, and while the world’s attention was occupied elsewhere, they have suddenly taken their place among the leading nations, making the world take note of their birth and of their greatness almost at the same instant. All other peoples seem to have nearly reached their natural limits and to need nothing but to preserve them; but these two are growing…. The American fights against natural obstacles; the Russian is at grips with men. The former combats the wilderness and barbarism; the latter, civilization with all its arms. America’s conquests are made with the plowshare, Russia’s with the sword. To attain their aims, the former relies on personal interest and gives free scope to the unguided strength and common sense of individuals. The latter in a sense concentrates the whole power of society in one man. One has freedom as the principal means of action; the other has servitude. Their point of departure is different and their paths diverse; nevertheless, each seems called by some secret desire of Providence one day to hold in its hands the destinies of half the world."

Edited 12/11/2015 14:59:33

Edited 12/11/2015 15:33:15

@Eklipse - You're absolutely right, in the sense that change is not always good. That is not at all what I tried to say. I was merely arguing that while this claim by Jai

All empires have collapsed from change that was either radical and of quick order or by infinitesimal compromise with the opposition to the normal political order

might be true, it does not implicate that "empires" must always stick to their historical values or system to survive, in contrary to how Jai represented it. Instead, it means that the world is changing all the time whether we want it or not, and the empires that prevail are those who understand the need to adapt. The Kingdom of Denmark keeps going strong and happy, even when their jurisdiction and values are quite far from the Viking era.

As for the Soviet Union, it didn't just appear from nowhere and it certainly wasn't just a "introduction of radical changes". It was the direct result of the failures in the Tsarist system - failures to adapt to the growing social movement. Countries who acknowledged that the world was changing introduced democracy, constitution and social benefits, and they continue their existence today.

The collapse of USSR, in turn, didn't happen just because the basic idea was too radical - it happened because the system was too obsessed with it's own ideals to understand that the world in 1990 wasn't the same as it was in 1917.

To sum it up: if we look at history we see empires destroyed by radical change. We can make two contradictory analysis:

1) Change is what destroys empires, so we must avoid changing too much in order to survive (as Jai argumented), or
2) Change is inevitable, so we must try to do it in a controlled manner in order to survive.

In my opinion, the history arguments clearly on the latter.

Edited 12/11/2015 16:06:19