Emperor Trump Has No Clothes...

[Ben]

Emperor Trump Has No Clothes

Katrina vanden Heuvel (http://www.thenation.com/authors/katrina-vanden-heuvel)
April 22, 2011

For a media that loves infotainment, the horse race and spectacle—and has trouble tackling real policy issues and digging deep—Donald Trump is the gift that keeps on giving: all spectacle, all the time.
Now he’s out there on his ugly birther trip, riding it to the top of the polls (http://prospect.org/csnc/blogs/tapped_archive?month=04&year=2011&base_name=donald_trump_and_the_birthers) amidst a GOP presidential field in disarray. And other than a few notable exceptions, the media is largely playing the role of cheering spectator for Trump’s latest self-aggrandizing parade—none more so than Fox, which has treated his birtherism-based candidacy as a cause célèbre (http://mediamatters.org/research/201104200008). Media Matters notes thirteen Trump appearances on the network since March 20.
But the more significant issue raised by the media coverage is this: if Trump is going to portray himself as a presidential contender, and the media is going to give him mega-time to do that, then let’s take a hard look at his record and his views—particularly on “fiscal responsibility,” which Congressman Paul Ryan and the GOP say is the issue of our time.
“I haven’t seen anybody do anything for a long time that’s really tough coverage on Donald,” says David Cay Johnston, the Pulitzer Prize–winning reporter formerly with the New York Times, who has written extensively about Trump’s net worth as well as his business dealings in the gambling industry in his book Temples of Chance “He’s done exceptionally well at getting the media to treat him on the grounds that he wants—which is he doesn’t mind if you poke fun at him as long as you’re writing about him and making him sound important.”
In a recent column (http://citypaper.com/news/let-us-count-the-ways-1.1131424), Johnston points out that in examining four years of tax returns he discovered that Trump paid no taxes in two of them.
“He pays little to no income tax because he does these real estate deals that allow him to take—as a professional real estate developer—unlimited paper losses like depreciation against income he gets from NBC for his show,” says Johnston.
He’s also had more business bankruptcies (http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/donald-trump-filed-bankruptcy-times/story?id=13419250) than wives, and Johnston says Trump’s bravado about his wealth and business acumen contradicts his real record. According to Johnston, Trump typically does two kinds of deals: he borrows more than 100 percent of the purchase price for real estate and takes a fee off the top; or he’s paid a fee to put his name on a building.
Johnston suggests that Trump’s fortune relied on government favors and stiffing his creditors.
“Ordinary casino workers who got into debt had their licenses yanked or in one case their wages garnished, but Donald was not held to that standard,” says Johnston.
As Johnston describes in Temples of Chance, in 1990 one of Trump’s advisers told the New Jersey Casino Control Commission that Trump was one day away from uncontrolled bankruptcy. The commission then approved a privately negotiated deal that relieved Trump of millions in debts. Why did the bankers go along?
“Government rescued Trump by taking his side against the banks,” Johnston says, “telling them that if they foreclosed they would own three seaside hotels that lacked casino licenses.”
Trump’s celebrated wealth is also likely not what Trump would have the public believe. In 1990 Johnston obtained Trump’s personal net worth statement that his bankers had prepared for him. At the time, Trump was claiming it was as high as $1.4 billion. Yet the statement revealed a negative net worth of $600 million—he owed $600 million more than the value of his assets. Johnston wrote a column with the lede, “You are probably worth more than Donald Trump.”
“Donald is one of many people in public life who whatever they say at the moment is their version of the truth, and empirical reality may not support what they say,” says Johnston. “He never produced any documented evidence indicating a net worth anywhere in the range of a billion dollars or more, he only claimed it. It doesn’t take that much of an income to appear to be fabulously wealthy. I don’t think he can sue anybody for making that observation.”
Indeed, Trump has proven litigious with those who dare question his version of the truth. He filed a $5 billion defamation lawsuit against Timothy O’Brien for estimating his net worth at between $150 million and $250 million. It was dismissed (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/16/business/media/16trump.html), but NBC investigative reporter Michael Isikoff reports (http://www.cpa-connecticut.com/blog/?p=2420) that Trump recently showed up at a Jersey City courtroom where he was “slipping notes” to his attorneys who are appealing the ruling. And former Newsweek senior editor Jonathan Alter recalls appearing in a documentary and saying that Trump was a “media hound” and that his claim of being “the greatest real estate developer in the world not only isn’t true—he’s not even the greatest real estate developer in New York.” Alter says he then promptly received a letter from a Trump attorney threatening him with a lawsuit.
Contrast Johnston’s hardnosed reporting with New York Times columnist David Brooks’s fawning (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/19/opinion/19brooks.html) over Trump in a recent op-ed, “Why Trump Soars”: “Donald Trump is the living, walking personification of the Gospel of Success…. He labors under the belief—unacceptable in polite society—that two is better than one and that four is better than two…. In private jets, lavish is better than dull. In skyscrapers, brass is better than brick, and gold is better than brass.”
In fact, Johnston even has a word to say about that jet: “See how much a 727 three-engine jet that hasn’t been made in over 25 years goes for,” says Johnston. “If he were really rich he’d have upgraded to a G-5 or a Boeing business jet.”
Like so many corporate oligarchs, Trump has done well with the help of his armada of lawyers and accountants to avoid taxes and intimidate those who contradict him. He’s a single entity that has a lot in common with the Big Banks—reckless, highly leveraged, and a look at the books reveals he’s not what he appears: Emperor Don has no clothes.
Fire him.

[Stavros]

Is Trump an American? I mean, has anyone seen his birth certificate?

[onmyknees]

Is Trump an American? I mean, has anyone seen his birth certificate?

yes he's produced it....next up?

[onmyknees]

Emperor Trump Has No Clothes

Katrina vanden Heuvel (http://www.thenation.com/authors/katrina-vanden-heuvel)
April 22, 2011

For a media that loves infotainment, the horse race and spectacle—and has trouble tackling real policy issues and digging deep—Donald Trump is the gift that keeps on giving: all spectacle, all the time.
Now he’s out there on his ugly birther trip, riding it to the top of the polls (http://prospect.org/csnc/blogs/tapped_archive?month=04&year=2011&base_name=donald_trump_and_the_birthers) amidst a GOP presidential field in disarray. And other than a few notable exceptions, the media is largely playing the role of cheering spectator for Trump’s latest self-aggrandizing parade—none more so than Fox, which has treated his birtherism-based candidacy as a cause célèbre (http://mediamatters.org/research/201104200008). Media Matters notes thirteen Trump appearances on the network since March 20.
But the more significant issue raised by the media coverage is this: if Trump is going to portray himself as a presidential contender, and the media is going to give him mega-time to do that, then let’s take a hard look at his record and his views—particularly on “fiscal responsibility,” which Congressman Paul Ryan and the GOP say is the issue of our time.
“I haven’t seen anybody do anything for a long time that’s really tough coverage on Donald,” says David Cay Johnston, the Pulitzer Prize–winning reporter formerly with the New York Times, who has written extensively about Trump’s net worth as well as his business dealings in the gambling industry in his book Temples of Chance “He’s done exceptionally well at getting the media to treat him on the grounds that he wants—which is he doesn’t mind if you poke fun at him as long as you’re writing about him and making him sound important.”
In a recent column (http://citypaper.com/news/let-us-count-the-ways-1.1131424), Johnston points out that in examining four years of tax returns he discovered that Trump paid no taxes in two of them.
“He pays little to no income tax because he does these real estate deals that allow him to take—as a professional real estate developer—unlimited paper losses like depreciation against income he gets from NBC for his show,” says Johnston.
He’s also had more business bankruptcies (http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/donald-trump-filed-bankruptcy-times/story?id=13419250) than wives, and Johnston says Trump’s bravado about his wealth and business acumen contradicts his real record. According to Johnston, Trump typically does two kinds of deals: he borrows more than 100 percent of the purchase price for real estate and takes a fee off the top; or he’s paid a fee to put his name on a building.
Johnston suggests that Trump’s fortune relied on government favors and stiffing his creditors.
“Ordinary casino workers who got into debt had their licenses yanked or in one case their wages garnished, but Donald was not held to that standard,” says Johnston.
As Johnston describes in Temples of Chance, in 1990 one of Trump’s advisers told the New Jersey Casino Control Commission that Trump was one day away from uncontrolled bankruptcy. The commission then approved a privately negotiated deal that relieved Trump of millions in debts. Why did the bankers go along?
“Government rescued Trump by taking his side against the banks,” Johnston says, “telling them that if they foreclosed they would own three seaside hotels that lacked casino licenses.”
Trump’s celebrated wealth is also likely not what Trump would have the public believe. In 1990 Johnston obtained Trump’s personal net worth statement that his bankers had prepared for him. At the time, Trump was claiming it was as high as $1.4 billion. Yet the statement revealed a negative net worth of $600 million—he owed $600 million more than the value of his assets. Johnston wrote a column with the lede, “You are probably worth more than Donald Trump.”
“Donald is one of many people in public life who whatever they say at the moment is their version of the truth, and empirical reality may not support what they say,” says Johnston. “He never produced any documented evidence indicating a net worth anywhere in the range of a billion dollars or more, he only claimed it. It doesn’t take that much of an income to appear to be fabulously wealthy. I don’t think he can sue anybody for making that observation.”
Indeed, Trump has proven litigious with those who dare question his version of the truth. He filed a $5 billion defamation lawsuit against Timothy O’Brien for estimating his net worth at between $150 million and $250 million. It was dismissed (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/16/business/media/16trump.html), but NBC investigative reporter Michael Isikoff reports (http://www.cpa-connecticut.com/blog/?p=2420) that Trump recently showed up at a Jersey City courtroom where he was “slipping notes” to his attorneys who are appealing the ruling. And former Newsweek senior editor Jonathan Alter recalls appearing in a documentary and saying that Trump was a “media hound” and that his claim of being “the greatest real estate developer in the world not only isn’t true—he’s not even the greatest real estate developer in New York.” Alter says he then promptly received a letter from a Trump attorney threatening him with a lawsuit.
Contrast Johnston’s hardnosed reporting with New York Times columnist David Brooks’s fawning (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/19/opinion/19brooks.html) over Trump in a recent op-ed, “Why Trump Soars”: “Donald Trump is the living, walking personification of the Gospel of Success…. He labors under the belief—unacceptable in polite society—that two is better than one and that four is better than two…. In private jets, lavish is better than dull. In skyscrapers, brass is better than brick, and gold is better than brass.”
In fact, Johnston even has a word to say about that jet: “See how much a 727 three-engine jet that hasn’t been made in over 25 years goes for,” says Johnston. “If he were really rich he’d have upgraded to a G-5 or a Boeing business jet.”
Like so many corporate oligarchs, Trump has done well with the help of his armada of lawyers and accountants to avoid taxes and intimidate those who contradict him. He’s a single entity that has a lot in common with the Big Banks—reckless, highly leveraged, and a look at the books reveals he’s not what he appears: Emperor Don has no clothes.
Fire him.

Hey...if he's paid no taxes ( and if he runs...I'm sure we'll find out, but untiil then Ms. Vanden Heuvel is not someone who I'd place a lot of
veracity in ...she's a far left zealot) then I guess that puts him on a par with GE...and that didn't seem to hold Jeff Immelt back now did it? In fact it got him a seat at Obama's table. Ben...be sure to wake me up when she writes an expose on Mr. Immelt.

[TJ347]

Trump is entertaining, but I wouldn't vote for him. That said, it's unfortunate that in my entire adult life, the person who probably could do the most to help the country has never been the candidate for a major party, and thus never had a chance to actually change anything. And this, I'm fairly sure, will always be the case. People get the government they deserve; it's clearly true.

[rameses2]

yes he's produced it....next up? Yes, yes he did...and it only took TWO tries to get it right:geek:.

[robertlouis]

He'd fit right in with the current crop of world leaders, especially with Berlusconi and his hair weave lol.

I mean, that hairstyle - it's like Jenga with a lot of hairspray.

[onmyknees]

Trump is entertaining, but I wouldn't vote for him. That said, it's unfortunate that in my entire adult life, the person who probably could do the most to help the country has never been the candidate for a major party, and thus never had a chance to actually change anything. And this, I'm fairly sure, will always be the case. People get the government they deserve; it's clearly true.

He is entertaining....and for the libs on here let me clarify. Trump is not now, nor was he ever a conservative or libertarian, so he's not fooling me....He's a smart businessman with some moderate positions, but as the saying goes...the enemy of my enemy is my friend...politically speaking. And he shares one quality with Palin that if nothing else demands notice....he doesn't give a flying fuck what the likes of Chris Matthews, Brian Williams or Georgie S. or other lemmings in the media think of him. He sees them for the lightweight shills they are, and he enrages progressives. I like that a lot. .

[trish]

Trump never showed us the proper form of his birth certificate (which is by definition the only form that I will accept).

[robertlouis]

Trump never showed us the proper form of his birth certificate (which is by definition the only form that I will accept).

Well, he's very much a self-made man, which relieves both the Almighty and his parents of a terrible responsibility. :wiggle::geek:

[Stavros]

Now that the White House has released a copy of the original certificate, perhaps we can get back to the real issues.

PS I was amused to read that Trump has 'had a go' at Robert DeNiro, I mean, which of the two has contributed most to American life?

[Silcc69]

Trump is entertaining, but I wouldn't vote for him. That said, it's unfortunate that in my entire adult life, the person who probably could do the most to help the country has never been the candidate for a major party, and thus never had a chance to actually change anything. And this, I'm fairly sure, will always be the case. People get the government they deserve; it's clearly true.

I agree there but when you have this big ass corporations with major pull in both parties there really isn't much than can be done.

[robertlouis]

Now that the White House has released a copy of the original certificate, perhaps we can get back to the real issues.

PS I was amused to read that Trump has 'had a go' at Robert DeNiro, I mean, which of the two has contributed most to American life?

On BBC news tonight Trump was still trying to deny it in the face of the evidence. Obama's quiet dignity in the face of all this stupidity and barely coded racism is an object lesson to these right wing mischief makers.

[Ben]

YouTube - Obama Caves to Birthers (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YZ6Mb8o7KE0)

[TJ347]

I agree there but when you have this big ass corporations with major pull in both parties there really isn't much than can be done.

I don't blame corporations one bit for advancing their agendas. I blame the voting public, because we don't do the due diligence before pulling the lever for whatever candidate we choose. Instead, we vote Republican or Democrat so as not to "waste" our vote, when in actuality we're simply joining millions of others in wasting our votes because we don't consider third party candidates viable even when we agree with their message. This is one area where the Brits, among others, do far better than we do. We continue to hold the lead in dentistry, however. :party:

[onmyknees]

On BBC news tonight Trump was still trying to deny it in the face of the evidence. Obama's quiet dignity in the face of all this stupidity and barely coded racism is an object lesson to these right wing mischief makers.


Quiet dignity? You're fucking kidding....right? He played this game for political reasons....that's why he defended the release in court. Then when the polls seemed to suggest Trump was getting some traction...rightly or wrongly, he played his card and lectured us about silliness...then flew to Chicago and talked to Oprah about this "silliness" then onto 2 fund raisers in NYC and joked to his sycophants about the silliness. It's called pandering to his base. That's not being quiet, and certainly not dignified. But perhaps you have a different dictionary than me. What was that degree of yours in again?? LOL

Look...it's fine by me if you like the guy, but he's a politician first last and always...they're never quiet and rarely dignified.

[Ben]

I don't blame corporations one bit for advancing their agendas. I blame the voting public, because we don't do the due diligence before pulling the lever for whatever candidate we choose. Instead, we vote Republican or Democrat so as not to "waste" our vote, when in actuality we're simply joining millions of others in wasting our votes because we don't consider third party candidates viable even when we agree with their message. This is one area where the Brits, among others, do far better than we do. We continue to hold the lead in dentistry, however. :party:

Former Minnesota Governor Jesse Ventura said don't vote for either the Republicans or the Dems. Both are merely opposite wings of the same party. And both serve power. They serve the most dominant institutional power structure in our society: corporations.
And it's completely understandable why corporations would want to -- and do -- control public policy: to serve their interests. Completely understandable. Not, obviously, desirable. But understandable. It isn't desirable because people and corporations have different interests. People want taxes on corporations to go up. Well, that is simply not in the interest of corporations. And, again, to repeat: corporations, as a power system, are going to do everything they can to make sure that government policy serve their very narrow interests.
As for corporations, well, they're carrying out their institutional responsibility, their actual legal requirement: maximize profit(s).... That's the only function of a corporation. It isn't concerned about communities, clean air, clean water etc. etc. etc.
So, I don't fault corporations for pursuing their own interests. BUT in a supposed democracy, well, those interests of people and corporations come into conflict.

[Stavros]

Really Ben, there is more to the USA than corporations, which employ thousands of taxpayers and whose profits are the core of the pensions that most elderly people with a pension live on. The large scale capitalist enterprises that you see today emerged in the last quarter of the 20th century -Rockefeller, Vanderbilt, Carnegie, Morgan -you know the names. And yes, they grew and grew and grew -and then it was your own govt that used anti-trust legislation to reduce their influence -hence the break-up of Rockefeller's Standard Oil empire (known at the time as 'the Octopus') in 1911.

These days, corporations, if they are smart, find ways of reducing -legally-their tax bill, which is why the fed is looking at ways of closing legal loopholes. And yes, even the demon oil companies have environmental policies which usually work, have reduced carbon emissions in their installations more successfully than many others, and yes, Greenpeace members are also shareholders in Exxon, Shell, BP, Total et al. If things go wrong, look at the regulatory regime for answers, and not just in energy.
Democracy in the USA is there to bring corporations to account, why not use the powers you have instead of just concocting a conspiracy theory?

[TJ347]

So, I don't fault corporations for pursuing their own interests. BUT in a supposed democracy, well, those interests of people and corporations come into conflict.

The United States is not a democracy, it's a republic. That's the first thing people in this country need to learn. The second is that these big, mean corporations that control our lives are comprised of many "little" people; they aren't monoliths over which there is little or no control. Do you know anyone who holds stock in IBM, Verizon, Google, Bank of America or so forth? These are the people whom the corporations serve. "We have seen the enemy, and he is us."

Now, I'll be honest... I hold shares in a company that has apparently engaged in rather questionable business practices, is heavily criticized by the liberal media, and may not operate in what the majority of the American population would consider "their" interests. If enough people holding stock in this company complained about these issues its executives would most certainly change its policies to appease us, but most won't say anything because they earn a good dividend. My point is that the interests of corporations and people only come into conflict when some of the people aren't shareholders. If you want to bring corporations in line with your wishes, your best option is to buy shares. Otherwise, the two shares old Aunt Millie has is going to make a single word from her far more important to Frontier Oil than a twelve hour speech from an environmental activist the company doesn't have to care about. But anyway... What's Trump stock doing these days?

[Ben]

Really Ben, there is more to the USA than corporations, which employ thousands of taxpayers and whose profits are the core of the pensions that most elderly people with a pension live on. The large scale capitalist enterprises that you see today emerged in the last quarter of the 20th century -Rockefeller, Vanderbilt, Carnegie, Morgan -you know the names. And yes, they grew and grew and grew -and then it was your own govt that used anti-trust legislation to reduce their influence -hence the break-up of Rockefeller's Standard Oil empire (known at the time as 'the Octopus') in 1911.

These days, corporations, if they are smart, find ways of reducing -legally-their tax bill, which is why the fed is looking at ways of closing legal loopholes. And yes, even the demon oil companies have environmental policies which usually work, have reduced carbon emissions in their installations more successfully than many others, and yes, Greenpeace members are also shareholders in Exxon, Shell, BP, Total et al. If things go wrong, look at the regulatory regime for answers, and not just in energy.
Democracy in the USA is there to bring corporations to account, why not use the powers you have instead of just concocting a conspiracy theory?

When the board of, say, GM get together, well, that's a conspiracy. Meaning: scheme or plot. They are, in secret, laying out what they will be doing or attempting to do. That's understandable. The institution is designed that way.
It could change. It could be completely democratic. It could be completely controlled by the shareholders [and a lot of shareholders aren't happy with the exorbitant salaries that CEOs are pulling down] and the people that work in them. But, by design, it isn't. Again, understandable. Corporations are autocratic institutions. Top-down. Decisions are made from above. And handed down. Very orderly, very monocratic.
My point being: we can't have a meaningful democracy if corporations are going to use government [and in a meaningful democracy people and the government are identical] to serve their own interests.
Like the banking sector. We should, well, concede that they've a valid defense. Their task is to maximize profit and market share. In fact that's their legal obligation. If they don't do it, they'll be replaced by someone who will.
These are institutional facts. As are the inherent market inefficiencies that require them to ignore systemic risk: the likelihood that transactions they enter into will harm the economy. They know full well that these policies are likely to tank the economy.
But these externalities, as they are called, are not their business; and cannot be. (Again, the CEO has to ignore the cost to others. He or she has to externalize the costs and internalize the profits. Again, a legal requirement. The CEO cannot concern himself or herself with the, to quote Adam Smith, "grievous effect on others."
Adam Smith said that the "principal architects" of policy in England (18th. century England) were the merchants and manufacturers, today corporations, and will use state power to serve their own interests however, again, grievous the effect on others, including the people of England. (Take, say, the offshoring of jobs to China. I mean, corporations have to do it. To increase investor return. But it will and has hurt millions and millions of Americans. And will continue to do so. But that isn't a corporations concern. They have to offshore jobs. Cheaper labor means higher profits. It's very understandable.)
Anyway, people in corporations ARE NOT bad people. But for institutional reasons they have to pursue these policies.

[TJ347]

Three things... One which has already been said, but which you seem to have missed.

1. We do not have a democracy in the United States; we have a republic.

2. A company controlled democratically by its shareholders as you suggest would be bankrupt early. For example, just because I'm an investor doesn't mean I have the slightest clue whether Verizon should focus on this emerging telecommunications technology or the other, and this is going to hold true for of the overwhelming majority of investors. This is why corporate executives exist, and so long as the company is under good stewardship and dividends are as expected, shareholders don't care what a CEO is making.

3. Concern for the well-being of a nation, financial or otherwise, is not the concern of any multi-national company. The concern is profit, and that will never change so long as we have a capitalist system.

[robertlouis]

We do not have a democracy in the United States; we have a republic.



Well, well.

No further questions, your honour.

[TJ347]

Well, well.

No further questions, your honour.

Well, here in the US a lot of people don't seem to understand the difference, and there most certainly is one. I consider myself fortunate that this isn't a democracy, as the thought of people responsible for Justin Bieber and Lady Gaga having a career also making major policy decisions for this country scares me almost to death.

[trish]

So in your just world Bieber and Gaga wouldn't have careers? So much for the concept of free enterprise and capitalism. And you guys call liberals elitist!

[TJ347]

Liberals have just worlds, remember? We envision something more along the lines of the Death Star.

[robertlouis]

Liberals have just worlds, remember? We envision something more along the lines of the Death Star.


You pinko commie lol!

[TJ347]

You pinko commie lol!

Enough. Let's all come together...

[Stavros]

When the board of, say, GM get together, well, that's a conspiracy. Meaning: scheme or plot.

Ben, I am not an uncritical admirer of corporations, and I do think that the decisions they make should be the focus of public scrutiny -and mostly, they are, or through the politics of regulation and accountability, can be. As TJ said, decision-making is made in secret because that is how corporations work -would Apple have a competitive edge over its rivals in new gizmos if their competitors knew from the off what it was? And it is competition that creates the need for secrecy -you as a consumer have the choice to buy or not to buy, and if you think one company has a monopoly then politics is there to break it up. The modern corporation did not exist when Adam Smith was writing, and government was much smaller than it is today, with fewer levers of intervention in the economy. Small shareholders admittedly dont make much difference at Annual General Meetings because the votes are held by the huge institutional investors, mostly pension funds, but Boards do take notice when shareholders get upset, because Reputation is also part of shareholder value. In banking, there is always an element of risk, no sane banker wants to see his or her own insitution collapse, but risk is that element in capitalism which doesn't exist in a socialist, planned economy where no room for failure is left out -but you actually need failure sometimes to remind people we are only human. I would rather read your specific complaints about a specific corporation or business, than some blanket conspiracy theory based on nothing. For example, did certain corporations benefit from the coup on Chile in 1973 and were they 'involved'? If the Arctic is going to be the next major oil and gas province, should American companies get their 'fair share', leave it to the Russians and the Chinese, or should there be a ban on all operations in the Arctic? I think these are more interesting and important questions.

[Ben]

In order for markets &/or capitalism to work, well, you need informed/educated/enlightened consumers (knowledgeable economic actors, if ya like) making rational choices.
But corporations try to undercut/thwart/undermine markets. They want uninformed consumers making irrational choices. I mean, just turn on your television set. Watch a commercial. I mean, are they telling ya anything about the product? Again, that's an inherent market inefficiency.

[hippifried]

Well, here in the US a lot of people don't seem to understand the difference, and there most certainly is one. I consider myself fortunate that this isn't a democracy, as the thought of people responsible for Justin Bieber and Lady Gaga having a career also making major policy decisions for this country scares me almost to death.
Everybody knows the difference & nobody's advocating Athenian democracy. It's a bullshit claim. What makes this a democracy is that everything uses the democratic process, from choosing our representative government to what shows up in the grocery store. There's a lot more to it than cookie cutter ancient simplistic definitions that try to put everything in some kind of political or ideological context. Democracy isn't necessary for the existence of a republic, but the process is necessary for a free society.

[Stavros]

They want uninformed consumers making irrational choices. I mean, just turn on your television set.

Yes, Ben there are some dim people out there who get all their info from tv; but I think these days consumers are not only better informed than ever before, they have access to more information and opinion than before -Microsoft doesnt get very far with its products before geeks the world over are posting complaints and criticisms of this or that software package; Apple generates reams of critical notices within 24 hours of new products appearing on the market; Wal-Mart is not a myserious corporation -you are really referring, I think to laziness by consumers as a plus-factor for some businesses. In fact in the UK the worst offenders are not corporations but small scale 'dodgy builders' plumbers and the like -some elderly people, having been told there is a 'serious problem' in their plumbing have paid £800 for a £200 job.

But there must be other factors at work: a book called 'The McDonaldisation of Society' by George Ritzer published in 1993 asks why McD has been so successful when the 'eating experience' is so far removed from a 'restaurant' -eating with your hands with no cutlery, on hard seats designed to get you in and out as soon as possible, the same food globally, etc -McD is a global phenomenon, but nobody says you have to eat there.

[TJ347]

Everybody knows the difference & nobody's advocating Athenian democracy. It's a bullshit claim. What makes this a democracy is that everything uses the democratic process, from choosing our representative government to what shows up in the grocery store. There's a lot more to it than cookie cutter ancient simplistic definitions that try to put everything in some kind of political or ideological context. Democracy isn't necessary for the existence of a republic, but the process is necessary for a free society.

The poster to whom I was responding to did in fact advocate Athenian democracy with regard to corporate governance. He also clearly operates under the belief that this country is a democracy, as he labeled it such at least twice in his previous posts. Thus, and with all due respect, when you say "everybody" knows the difference between a democracy and a republic, you're quite obviously incorrect, to say nothing of the fact you undermine your own argument by acknowledging that we have a "representative government" (which is to say a republic).

Now perhaps you think I'm being pedantic, but as it is defined "democracy" is not what we have in the United States. Ancient, simplistic or whatever else you may consider it, the actual definition of the word is clear, personal definitions not withstanding. We have people here who use communism and fascism interchangeably; that is their prerogative, but it doesn't change the literal definitions of those words, even if the personal belief of these individuals is that they are the same thing. So pardon me if I use the literal definition, but if we are going to start using our own definitions of various words, conversation will quickly become impossible altogether.

[trish]

Actual definitions, personal definitions..wtf are you on about??? Sounds like you have a few "personal definitions" yourself. Words take their meaning from their use, not from dictionaries. Dictionaries do not define language, they codify the language in daily use, written and spoken. Everybody knows the U.S. is a republic and everybody knows it is also a democratic nation. Corporations are neither. They are oligarchies ruled by those with in possession of the controlling shares.

[TJ347]

Another one empowered with the ability to speak as to what "everybody" knows...

A republic is not a democracy going by literal definition of either word. If you wish to ignore the dictionary definition, which is to say the literal definition, then you are defining democracy as you see fit, which would be a personal definition. Feel free to do that all day long, but don't tell me that I have to accept your personal definition. Depending on its usage, the word "bad" can mean good, but that we accept that as common knowledge doesn't change the literal definition of the word.

Isn't this all so very exciting? We're now splitting hairs as to what the meaning of "is" is... Way to show your intellectual superiority.

[trish]

Your the one who decided to get hoity-toity and split hairs. Did you ever see fit to draw this line between a republic and a democracy when W was spreading democracy throughout the Middle East? When someone uses "bad" to mean "good" and everyone understands him because he's using the common vernacular for that venue, it would be pedantic and wrong to insist that he align his usage with your dictionary. That's what you're doing with "democracy".

[robertlouis]

The poster to whom I was responding to did in fact advocate Athenian democracy with regard to corporate governance. He also clearly operates under the belief that this country is a democracy, as he labeled it such at least twice in his previous posts. Thus, and with all due respect, when you say "everybody" knows the difference between a democracy and a republic, you're quite obviously incorrect, to say nothing of the fact you undermine your own argument by acknowledging that we have a "representative government" (which is to say a republic).

Now perhaps you think I'm being pedantic, but as it is defined "democracy" is not what we have in the United States. Ancient, simplistic or whatever else you may consider it, the actual definition of the word is clear, personal definitions not withstanding. We have people here who use communism and fascism interchangeably; that is their prerogative, but it doesn't change the literal definitions of those words, even if the personal belief of these individuals is that they are the same thing. So pardon me if I use the literal definition, but if we are going to start using our own definitions of various words, conversation will quickly become impossible altogether.

Just another brief moment of pedantry. I live in a country with a constitutional monarchy, in which government functions according to democratic principles and is entirely representative. But it isn't a republic.

[hippifried]

A free market is democracy in action. A free society is democracy in action. With all due respect to Trish, even corporations are democracies. They bend to the collective wills of both the consumer & the shareholder. It ain't necessarily about which pot you drop your stone into. It's not necessarily about governance at all. We vote with our feet, our wallets, our remote control, etc... Democracy is a process that permeates everything we do.

You're trying to define the term by formal ritual. That's the dictionary definition of pedantic. You're not leaving me much room for any kind of "perhaps" here.

[TJ347]

Your the one who decided to get hoity-toity and split hairs. Did you ever see fit to draw this line between a republic and a democracy when W was spreading democracy throughout the Middle East? When someone uses "bad" to mean "good" and everyone understands him because he's using the common vernacular for that venue, it would be pedantic and wrong to insist that he align his usage with your dictionary. That's what you're doing with "democracy".

If I was defining "democracy" using my personal interpretation as to its meaning, then you wouldn't find the same definition when you researched its meaning. Of course, if you did research the meaning of the word, you would quickly find that it does not match the interpretation you have decided is the only one you will accept. That is not my issue, nor is whether I held the same opinion during Bush's presidency even remotely relevant to this discussion. However, yes, during the Bush years, as during the Clinton years, I have had the same understanding of the meaning of the word "democracy".

[Stavros]

I think that one problem here is that the definitions, when taken beyond their literal meaning, change over time. Athenian democracy is said to have worked, but did not include the total adult population of Athens, because slaves, for example, were not considered people and therefore were excluded from the process. Aristotle, whose rational and pragmatic way of thinking has -and probably still does- inspire many people, had no problem not just disenfranchising people, but de-humanizing them too.

But as TJ implies, if you begin to analyse the theory and practice, all sorts of spirits come out of the mixture. On Thursday we vote in the UK on a referendum that asks if we want to keep our 'first past the post' system or change to a form of proportional representation called 'AV' (Alternative Vote). Both systems can be said to be democratic, whereas supporters of PR claim it produces a 'fairer' result than 'first past the post' where, if you have three four or even five parties trying to win, the first past the post may have won less than 50% of the overall vote. One therefore goes from a debate about the reality of democracy, to the quality of it: and on that I can't see how one system can ever be claimed to be superior to another. In the US Presidential elections are ultimately decided by an Electoral College -I wonder what would happen if there were three candidates who each got 33% of the vote. The point would be, how to you satisfy the 'will of the people' expressed at the ballot box, if the result is inconclusive?

[TJ347]

In the US Presidential elections are ultimately decided by an Electoral College

More proof that we are not, in fact, a democracy.

You make a number of great points, Stavros. I'm reminded of the saying "People get the government they deserve". So many people are convinced that they know what's going on, but here we can't even agree as to the type of governmental system we have, proving that belief a lie.

[trish]

We are a democratic republic. If you don't like it, leave it. :)

[TJ347]

Ah, so now we're a republic, are we? Very good. Of course, we could've resolved this quite some time ago, but better late than never.

[trish]

A democratic republic.

[robertlouis]

A democratic republic.

Democratic Republic? That's what they call the Congo, Trish, so I wouldn't push it too far....

[trish]

That makes them a republic too, according to TJ. So what? We talk about spreading democracy, not spreading republics. In modern parlance he term "democracy" has wide application.

[TJ347]

And moving on... I suspect the Donald Trump Presidential Exploratory Committee will shortly announce that a Trump candidacy is not viable at this time. We will however see Trump reappear in four years only for his exploratory committee to ultimately make the same decision.

[robertlouis]

That makes them a republic too, according to TJ. So what? We talk about spreading democracy, not spreading republics. In modern parlance he term "democracy" has wide application.

Yep, and as demonstrated on this thread, the type of "democracy" we spread is infinitely flexible according to circumstance.

Exhibit 1 - Iraq.

And don't get me started on US policy in Latin America, where for long enough "democracy" and "dictatorship" tended to mean much the same thing.

[robertlouis]

And moving on... I suspect the Donald Trump Presidential Exploratory Committee will shortly announce that a Trump candidacy is not viable at this time. We will however see Trump reappear in four years only for his exploratory committee to ultimately make the same decision.

Shit. Obama would have been a shoo-in.

[TJ347]

Obama will have no serious trouble with re-election. Republicans desperately need an "everyman" candidate, which was what made Bush Jr. so attractive to the voting public (at least early on). When a guy can shoot hoops or play a saxophone, folks tend to like that. Republicans need guys who are more relateable, and Trump certainly isn't that.

[Stavros]

North Korea claims to be a democracy, as does the People's Republic of China; East Germany was offically the 'German People's Democratic Republic' and so on: the problem with democracy is that it has enough flexibility for all sorts of honest lawyers and bent rascals to claim it for themselves, if only to wrap themselves in an assumed respectability -the proof is in the pudding: can you change your government by voting? Yes; does it change the 'structure' of politics? Rarely. Israelis vote for their government, using a list system where the entire country is one constituency -you vote for a list of party candidates and the ones at the top get the top jobs if their party wins the most votes -the Palestinians in the occupied territories are excluded: is Israel a democracy? In Israel, yes, in the Occupied Territories, no. And so on. Res Publica means 'rule by the people', not exalted citizens who are differentiated from slaves and barbarians; not by men and women who have crowns on their heads and centuries of inherited 'rights', whose blood is 'blue', and to whom I should bend my knee.

The quality of government, I think, is where the main focus of the argument should be, and the details of policy; doesn't set many hearts racing or look good on tv, but its where the war is won or lost.

[Faldur]

A democratic republic.

We are a Federal Constitutional Republic, comprising fifty states and a federal district.

[Prospero]

I'd not discount Bachmann yet.....

[robertlouis]

I'd not discount Bachmann yet.....


Yep, with Turner as his running mate the campaign will go into Overdrive.

:dancing::dancing::dancing:

[robertlouis]

A muso pal of mine in the UK published this on his blog this morning.

Made me laugh out loud.

"I must say I was rather surprised when Donald Trump came around my house this morning to examine my cycling proficiency certificate. He also inspected my TV licence, my Pokémon trading card collection, my toaster guarantee, my spectacles prescription and my Blockbusters card. He stormed out screaming, "This proves nothing!". What an unusual man."

[Prospero]

I liked Obama's remark about Trump now being able to concentrate on important things like proving the moon landings never too place.

[TJ347]

I'd not discount Bachmann yet.....

She's only marginally less brain dead than Palin, and nowhere near as easy on the eyes. No traction on a Bachmann presidential campaign then... fortunately.