Donald Trump seems to be working very hard to guarantee a Liberal majority government in our upcoming election. Those of us who were dreading a return to Conservative rule ( and the opinion polls were looking like that would happen for well over a year) must begrudgingly tip are hat to him for that small mercy.
You are assuming we will have free fair federal elections.
I assume @Caissa is speaking of Canadian elections.
Fair. Well, that would be good. Though questionably worth having to be our neighbor.
As for Trump, yeah, he's destroying existing institutions, but it's often in the name of impeding or even reversing the liberalization of laws and mores, and returning to those of about 100 years ago. Well within the parameters of conservatism, I'd say.
(Though I'll admit that if we accept the definition of fascism as right-wing policies masquerading behind a sense of revolutionary excitement, MAGA probably qualifies. I'd still call it conservative, though.)
"In the name of" and "In actuality" are quite different in this case. Yes his message may be conservative, but his method most certainly is not. Should we judge someone as conservative by word, or by deed?
I think the distinction is not "words vs. deeds" but "goals vs. methods". The Ayatollah Khoemeni established a highly conservative theocracy(goal) by overthrowing a long-standing monarchy(method). The destructice nature of the method doesn't negate the conservative nature of what was implemented.
Trump is not returning to the US of 100 years ago - it is clear that he despises the principles on which the republic was founded and is doing his level best to destroy them in double-quick time. Indeed not "conservative" at all.
Well, would you agree, for example, that abolishing the Department Of Education and Medicaid does NOT contradict the principles on which America was founded, since neither of those things existed in 1776?
Trump is not returning to the US of 100 years ago - it is clear that he despises the principles on which the republic was founded and is doing his level best to destroy them in double-quick time. Indeed not "conservative" at all.
Well, would you agree, for example, that abolishing the Department Of Education and Medicaid does NOT contradict the principles on which America was founded, since neither of those things existed in 1776?
Well, the Declaration of Independence says that all people (yes, I know it actually says “men”) have the inalienable right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. I would also say the history of the US is one of moving—usually haltingly, usually with setbacks, and too often with resistance, violence and bloodshed—toward making that claim a reality for everyone here. And I would say that the missions of the Department of Education and of Medicaid fall squarely within making sure that the rights of all to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness are preserved.
So yes, I would say the abolishing of the DoE and Medicaid for the reasons motivating this administration, contradicts the principles upon which this country was founded, or at least claims to have been founded.
I would also say that the way it is being done clearly contradicts constitutional principles. The Constitution being the basic law of the U.S., that is another way these actions contradict basic principles on which this country claims to rest.
The fuckwits responsible presumably think they can get away with their infamies...
Or they’re throwing everything they can think of at the wall to see what will stick, figuring that it keeps the base happy and provides moving targets for the detractors. They know some of it won’t stick, but in the meantime, there’s more chaos.
Actually, not so much masturbation or wastage as unwillingness to do right, according to the Law, by the widow of his deceased brother. That unwillingness had the potential for very real and damaging consequences for her.
I’m fairly sure it DID damage her, as it added up to repeated rape. She only consented to that marriage (if she did consent) in the hope of having a child. The bastard could have refused like an honorable man instead of repeatedly using her for his own pleasure while denying her the one thing she wanted and desperately needed for her lifelong support. I’m glad God killed him. (Don’t think I’ve ever said such a thing before!)
Today's kidnapping in Boston of a Turkish student by armed, masked thugs employed by the Department of Homeland Security is beyond my ability to comment sensibly. A judge ordered that she be kept in Massachusetts, but the DHS ignored the judge and she was immediately flown to a prison in Louisiana. This is the country that self-righteously condemns state-sponsored terrorism.
Marjorie Taylor Green insulted a member of the UK press core and made spurious claims about the UK. It seems we are not so in with the Trump Whitehouse as our government thinks.
According to a review published in 'Nature', because of Trumps shenanigans with grants and funding, '75% of US research scientists are thinking of leaving the US.' Many top class scientists fled Germany in the 1930's. Hmmmm ... another echo of the Nazis ....
Another day, another "Executive Order." This one directs the Smithsonian to stop promoting "anti-American ideology."
For example:
an exhibit at the Smithsonian American Art Museum called "The Shape of Power: Stories of Race and American Sculpture," which the order claimed "promotes the view that race is not a biological reality but a social construct"
Apparently the concept that it is self-evident that all men are created equal is now deemed anti-American ideology.
Hostly note that there's a discussion of those issues in Epiphanies in the Historiography thread - please direct any substantive debate there, applying the appropriate local rules
Hostly note that there's a discussion of those issues in Epiphanies in the Historiography thread - please direct any substantive debate there, applying the appropriate local rules
As for Trump, yeah, he's destroying existing institutions, but it's often in the name of impeding or even reversing the liberalization of laws and mores, and returning to those of about 100 years ago. Well within the parameters of conservatism, I'd say.
(Though I'll admit that if we accept the definition of fascism as right-wing policies masquerading behind a sense of revolutionary excitement, MAGA probably qualifies. I'd still call it conservative, though.)
"In the name of" and "In actuality" are quite different in this case. Yes his message may be conservative, but his method most certainly is not. Should we judge someone as conservative by word, or by deed?
I think the distinction is not "words vs. deeds" but "goals vs. methods". The Ayatollah Khoemeni established a highly conservative theocracy(goal) by overthrowing a long-standing monarchy(method). The destructice nature of the method doesn't negate the conservative nature of what was implemented.
But "in the name of" and "method" are unrelated, except by happenstance.
Trump is not returning to the US of 100 years ago - it is clear that he despises the principles on which the republic was founded and is doing his level best to destroy them in double-quick time. Indeed not "conservative" at all.
Well, would you agree, for example, that abolishing the Department Of Education and Medicaid does NOT contradict the principles on which America was founded, since neither of those things existed in 1776?
Are the principles on which America was founded, "Never change anything or add anything to the government"? That seems to be your implication.
Today's kidnapping in Boston of a Turkish student by armed, masked thugs employed by the Department of Homeland Security is beyond my ability to comment sensibly. A judge ordered that she be kept in Massachusetts, but the DHS ignored the judge and she was immediately flown to a prison in Louisiana. This is the country that self-righteously condemns state-sponsored terrorism.
Must you? "This is the government," if you must; but not the country, a damn sight of us consider this horrific. And we have a right to be considered part of the "country" as well.
Trump is not returning to the US of 100 years ago - it is clear that he despises the principles on which the republic was founded and is doing his level best to destroy them in double-quick time. Indeed not "conservative" at all.
Well, would you agree, for example, that abolishing the Department Of Education and Medicaid does NOT contradict the principles on which America was founded, since neither of those things existed in 1776?
Are the principles on which America was founded, "Never change anything or add anything to the government"? That seems to be your implication.
No. But certain things that could be added to the government might enhance the founding principles of America, certain other things might contradict those principles, and certain other things might be neutral in regards to them.
@Nick Tamen seemed to be arguing that because medicaid brings a benefit to the American people, that canceling it goes against the principle of "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." But it seems to me that his definition of "life, liberty etc" is somewhat overbroad, and that just because something might be a good thing, and wise to implement, that doesn't automatically make it a fulfillment of the founding principles.
For another example, the Loyalists who founded English Canada woulda mostly hated the idea of a US-style bill of rights, but a bill of rights is exactly what Canada got in 1982. Now, if someone wished to abolish the Charter of Rights, one could argue(as I certainly would) that that is a horrible idea, but I don't think I could say it's a negation of Canada's founding principles.
Back to medicare, numerous countries in Europe had public-health systems BEFORE the Great Society, even though they didn't have "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" in their constitutions(if they even had constitutions at all). America straggling behind in that department would seem rather odd, if medicare were so directly connected with America's unique founding principles.
NOW...
Trump's attacks on the speech rights of TV networks strike me as very much in conflict with the "liberty" part of the preamble, and with the later First Amendment, both of them uniquely American concepts. In that sense, I would indeed say he's junking America's founding principles.
I regard the founding principle of America to be negative liberty, ie. the government is restricted in its involvement in the citizens' lives, rather than positive rights, ie. the government is obligated to provide the citizens with a certain benefit.
Applied to health care...
Negative liberty: the government can't stop you from going to the doctor of your choice.
Positive right: the government is obligated to help citizens of a certain age pay for their doctors.
Both worthy ideals, but only the first was something intended by the framers of the constitution.
Clerical celibacy may have been a good innovation for the medieval church to make. And those who opposed celibacy during the Reformation may have been misguided. However, one thing you CAN'T say is that opponents of celibacy were overthrowing the principles of the New Testament, because the New Testament quite clearly never preached any such thing.
I regard the founding principle of America to be negative liberty, ie. the government is restricted in its involvement in the citizens' lives, rather than positive rights, ie. the government is obligated to provide the citizens with a certain benefit.
Applied to health care...
Negative liberty: the government can't stop you from going to the doctor of your choice.
Positive right: the government is obligated to help citizens of a certain age pay for their doctors.
Both worthy ideals, but only the first was something intended by the framers of the constitution.
I think this is thinking very narrowly about how the government operates. There is a theory of governance that posits the government is a way citizens can pool their resources to pay for things they want but couldn't afford for themselves. No citizen can pay to have letters delivered all over the country, but we pool our money to create a postal service to do that for us. In the mention of a postal service in the Constitution we find the seed of the idea that ties the founders together with this theory of governance. The same is true of the military. The same is true for nation-wide public health. On a local level, the same is true of the fire department or the police department.
The question about health insurance, then, is not about whether the government has obligations or the citizens have rights. That's kind of irrelevant. The question is whether the citizens want to use the government to operate a nation-wide health insurance program. As a matter of fact it already does so, several in fact. They just don't cover all citizens yet.
@Nick Tamen seemed to be arguing that because medicaid brings a benefit to the American people, that canceling it goes against the principle of "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." But it seems to me that his definition of "life, liberty etc" is somewhat overbroad, and that just because something might be a good thing, and wise to implement, that doesn't automatically make it a fulfillment of the founding principles.
I’m arguing that healthcare is intrinsically related to the right to “life,” education is intrinsically related to “liberty,” and both are intrinsically related to “the pursuit of happiness,” or, in the words of the Virginia Declaration of Rights, “pursuing and obtaining happiness and safety.}
Today's kidnapping in Boston of a Turkish student by armed, masked thugs employed by the Department of Homeland Security is beyond my ability to comment sensibly. A judge ordered that she be kept in Massachusetts, but the DHS ignored the judge and she was immediately flown to a prison in Louisiana. This is the country that self-righteously condemns state-sponsored terrorism.
Must you? "This is the government," if you must; but not the country, a damn sight of us consider this horrific. And we have a right to be considered part of the "country" as well.
Clerical celibacy may have been a good innovation for the medieval church to make. And those who opposed celibacy during the Reformation may have been misguided. However, one thing you CAN'T say is that opponents of celibacy were overthrowing the principles of the New Testament, because the New Testament quite clearly never preached any such thing.
The institution of celibacy, as I understand it, was because at the time a person's career was dictated by one's father's profession. Celibacy broke that chain when it came to to the church. The Reformation freed men and women from having to submit to that yoke if they felt the call to a religious profession. One could say the Reformation also allowed men and, eventually women, to choose their own career paths. A baker's son no longer had to be a baker. That's what happened in my mother's family at about the time of the Reformation.
Clerical celibacy may have been a good innovation for the medieval church to make. And those who opposed celibacy during the Reformation may have been misguided. However, one thing you CAN'T say is that opponents of celibacy were overthrowing the principles of the New Testament, because the New Testament quite clearly never preached any such thing.
The institution of celibacy, as I understand it, was because at the time a person's career was dictated by one's father's profession. Celibacy broke that chain when it came to to the church.
Clerical celibacy may have been a good innovation for the medieval church to make. And those who opposed celibacy during the Reformation may have been misguided. However, one thing you CAN'T say is that opponents of celibacy were overthrowing the principles of the New Testament, because the New Testament quite clearly never preached any such thing.
The institution of celibacy, as I understand it, was because at the time a person's career was dictated by one's father's profession. Celibacy broke that chain when it came to to the church.
Do you have a source for that idea?
Oh, you might Ask a Franciscan It was to prevent church property from being controlled by a single family.
Clerical celibacy may have been a good innovation for the medieval church to make. And those who opposed celibacy during the Reformation may have been misguided. However, one thing you CAN'T say is that opponents of celibacy were overthrowing the principles of the New Testament, because the New Testament quite clearly never preached any such thing.
The institution of celibacy, as I understand it, was because at the time a person's career was dictated by one's father's profession. Celibacy broke that chain when it came to to the church.
Do you have a source for that idea?
Oh, you might Ask a Franciscan It was to prevent church property from being controlled by a single family.
I don't see anything in those links which supports the statement "The institution of celibacy, as I understand it, was because at the time a person's career was dictated by one's father's profession. "
"It was to prevent church property from being controlled by a single family" is a completely different concept, and I note even that is questioned in the links you provide on the grounds that church property remains the property of the church, not of the cleric.
Today's kidnapping in Boston of a Turkish student by armed, masked thugs employed by the Department of Homeland Security is beyond my ability to comment sensibly. A judge ordered that she be kept in Massachusetts, but the DHS ignored the judge and she was immediately flown to a prison in Louisiana. This is the country that self-righteously condemns state-sponsored terrorism.
Must you? "This is the government," if you must; but not the country, a damn sight of us consider this horrific. And we have a right to be considered part of the "country" as well.
China, Japan and South Korea reached a consensus that the three countries will jointly respond to US tariffs, a social media account affiliated with Chinese state broadcaster CCTV said on Monday.
Assuming this is true and not some kind of psyop by Chinese state media, this seems like a huge shift.
China, Japan and South Korea reached a consensus that the three countries will jointly respond to US tariffs, a social media account affiliated with Chinese state broadcaster CCTV said on Monday.
Assuming this is true and not some kind of psyop by Chinese state media, this seems like a huge shift.
Well, it's not as if those three countries had previously been economically estranged from each other, and yeah, I wouldn't put it past Chinese state media to exaggerate the long-term significance of the agreement.
But the mere fact that it can be plausibly spun as a major alliance against the USA shows just how much damage Trump is doing to America's reputation.
The question about health insurance, then, is not about whether the government has obligations or the citizens have rights. That's kind of irrelevant. The question is whether the citizens want to use the government to operate a nation-wide health insurance program. As a matter of fact it already does so, several in fact. They just don't cover all citizens yet.
The citizens can vote for a nation-wide single payer healthcare system. Medicare for all does not trouble the constitution in any way. Currently, the citizens have voted for a robber baron to demolish their government structures, and they can vote for that, too. (To my mind, at least some of the things that Trump has done are clearly unconstitutional, because he has usurped the power of Congress, but nothing* he has done could not be legally done by a President and Congress acting in concert.)
*extraordinary rendition style deportations might be the exception.
The question about health insurance, then, is not about whether the government has obligations or the citizens have rights. That's kind of irrelevant. The question is whether the citizens want to use the government to operate a nation-wide health insurance program. As a matter of fact it already does so, several in fact. They just don't cover all citizens yet.
The citizens can vote for a nation-wide single payer healthcare system.
Not directly. The citizens can vote for a president, senators and representatives that support a nationwide single-payer healthcare system. Of course, it’s necessary that enough citizens in enough places do so, so as to both get enough electoral votes to elect the president and establish control of both houses of Congress.
(To my mind, at least some of the things that Trump has done are clearly unconstitutional, because he has usurped the power of Congress, but nothing* he has done could not be legally done by a President and Congress acting in concert.)
*extraordinary rendition style deportations might be the exception.
Attempting to abolish birthright citizenship would be another exception. Without going back to look at the list of EOs, I suspect there are other exceptions as well.
I don't know how much North Korea exports to the United States that will be hit by tariffs but I would guess not enough to affect its diplomatic policy.
South Korea, China and Japan held their first economic dialogue in five years on Sunday, seeking to facilitate regional trade as the three Asian export powers brace from U.S. President Donald Trump's tariffs.
The countries' three trade ministers agreed to "closely cooperate for a comprehensive and high-level" talks on a South Korea-Japan-China free trade agreement deal to promote "regional and global trade", according to a statement released after the meeting.
I don't know how much North Korea exports to the United States that will be hit by tariffs but I would guess not enough to affect its diplomatic policy.
Census.gov says the total exports from the US to North Korea last year was $1.5 million, and imports into the US were $100,000. So basically couch cushion change. For South Korea, our exports last year were $65,541.8 million and imports $131,549.2 million.
Russia and China working with South Korea? Yes that's very surprising considering China and North Korea have long been allied, and the two Koreas are bitter foes.
Russia and China working with South Korea? Yes that's very surprising considering China and North Korea have long been allied, and the two Koreas are bitter foes.
Well, yeah, but there's already substantial trade between China and the ROK, North Korea notwithstanding. So it's more like they'd be tweaking an existing relationship, not reaching out from total isolation.
As for being bitter foes, yeah, there's still a state of war between the two Koreas, but not all public opinion is that bitter about it(some are just kinda resigned, and the left tends toward a detentish approach), and even conservatives don't usually advocate significant disruption of trade with China over the issue.
When I was last living in South Korea, about three years ago, the Confucius Institutes were in operation, and there was one about five minutes from my apartment. Not sure if their status has changed since then.
It seems to be the normal response to tariffs. If the US imposes tariffs on goods from other countries then that will reduce imports from those countries (and, increase costs for US consumers). Imposing retaliatory tariffs on US goods is a common response, but imposes costs on your own people. Even without retaliatory tariffs, consumers are likely to vote with their wallet and boycott US goods. To compensate for reduced trade with the US, nations will naturally seek to increase trade with other nations, to create new markets for your own goods and respond to reduced sales of US goods. South Korea and Japan have had close trade relationships for decades, and China is a big exporter to everyone and a growing market for almost everything. The new trade deals are examples of pragmatism over-riding old animosities and loyalties to old friends behaving unreasonably (both Japan and South Korea have long friendships with the US, going back to the 1950s).
Unless folks in the know are making a killing by selling short in advance of the market decline?
A lot of us assume that is happening whether or not that is Trump's goal or not.
"In the know" is questionable. A lot of money is shifting around based on the idea that tariffs are coming soon, but Trump has changed his mind on this and delayed often enough that "liberation day" (his term for the day tariffs go into effect) is in danger of becoming a meme like "infrastructure week". I'm not sure there is a definite plan, which is what's causing a lot of market fluctuation. I guess we'll find out tomorrow if Americans are "liberated" from their retirement savings.
We all know what the 22nd amendment says. That said, could an individual who has been President for two terms run as VP, be elected and upon the resignation of the winning president become president themselves?
We all know what the 22nd amendment says. That said, could an individual who has been President for two terms run as VP, be elected and upon the resignation of the winning president become president themselves?
The last sentence of the Twelfth Amendment states "But no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States." So the plain reading of that bars anyone who cannot be elected* president from being elected as vice president. That being said, I'm sure there's some mendaciously ahistorical argument that could get at least five votes from the Supreme Court as it's currently constituted. Trump's people are certainly being very public about taking this approach. It's also, probably not coincidentally, a Putin-approved tactic. To get around a similar prohibition on consecutive terms in the Russian constitution, from 2008 to 2012 Putin loyalist Dmitry Medvedev was nominally president of Russia while Putin served as his prime minister.
*It is notable that "eligible" and "elect" come from the same root word.
One possible work-around I've seen discussed in Trumpist circles is having Trump not on the ballot at all in 2028 but, presuming a Republican victory, having the new vice president resign. Trump would then be appointed vice president under section 2 of the Twenty-Fifth Amendment. Assuming Republican control of both Houses of Congress, upon Trump's confirmation as vice president the president would resign, making Trump president à la Gerald Ford. This has a lot of moving parts and requires some contingencies that can't be guaranteed in advance (like Republican control of both the House and Senate). The only advantage this plan has over simply running Trump as vice president in 2028 is that the words "eligible" and "elect" (or their cognates) appear nowhere in the vice presidential vacancy clause of the Twenty-Fifth Amendment. This is the kind of witless semantic argument that's so beloved by many bad faith actors in the legal profession. The only thing more dangerous (and more likely to be wrong) than a lawyer with a dictionary is a lawyer with a history book.
Comments
Fair. Well, that would be good. Though questionably worth having to be our neighbor.
I think the distinction is not "words vs. deeds" but "goals vs. methods". The Ayatollah Khoemeni established a highly conservative theocracy(goal) by overthrowing a long-standing monarchy(method). The destructice nature of the method doesn't negate the conservative nature of what was implemented.
Well, would you agree, for example, that abolishing the Department Of Education and Medicaid does NOT contradict the principles on which America was founded, since neither of those things existed in 1776?
So yes, I would say the abolishing of the DoE and Medicaid for the reasons motivating this administration, contradicts the principles upon which this country was founded, or at least claims to have been founded.
I would also say that the way it is being done clearly contradicts constitutional principles. The Constitution being the basic law of the U.S., that is another way these actions contradict basic principles on which this country claims to rest.
I’m fairly sure it DID damage her, as it added up to repeated rape. She only consented to that marriage (if she did consent) in the hope of having a child. The bastard could have refused like an honorable man instead of repeatedly using her for his own pleasure while denying her the one thing she wanted and desperately needed for her lifelong support. I’m glad God killed him. (Don’t think I’ve ever said such a thing before!)
I keep telling people that there is merit in letting Bernie be with his own kind.
For example: Apparently the concept that it is self-evident that all men are created equal is now deemed anti-American ideology.
-- chrisstiles, Hell Host
Thank you. Somehow I missed that thread.
But "in the name of" and "method" are unrelated, except by happenstance.
Are the principles on which America was founded, "Never change anything or add anything to the government"? That seems to be your implication.
Must you? "This is the government," if you must; but not the country, a damn sight of us consider this horrific. And we have a right to be considered part of the "country" as well.
No. But certain things that could be added to the government might enhance the founding principles of America, certain other things might contradict those principles, and certain other things might be neutral in regards to them.
@Nick Tamen seemed to be arguing that because medicaid brings a benefit to the American people, that canceling it goes against the principle of "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." But it seems to me that his definition of "life, liberty etc" is somewhat overbroad, and that just because something might be a good thing, and wise to implement, that doesn't automatically make it a fulfillment of the founding principles.
For another example, the Loyalists who founded English Canada woulda mostly hated the idea of a US-style bill of rights, but a bill of rights is exactly what Canada got in 1982. Now, if someone wished to abolish the Charter of Rights, one could argue(as I certainly would) that that is a horrible idea, but I don't think I could say it's a negation of Canada's founding principles.
Back to medicare, numerous countries in Europe had public-health systems BEFORE the Great Society, even though they didn't have "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" in their constitutions(if they even had constitutions at all). America straggling behind in that department would seem rather odd, if medicare were so directly connected with America's unique founding principles.
NOW...
Trump's attacks on the speech rights of TV networks strike me as very much in conflict with the "liberty" part of the preamble, and with the later First Amendment, both of them uniquely American concepts. In that sense, I would indeed say he's junking America's founding principles.
I regard the founding principle of America to be negative liberty, ie. the government is restricted in its involvement in the citizens' lives, rather than positive rights, ie. the government is obligated to provide the citizens with a certain benefit.
Applied to health care...
Negative liberty: the government can't stop you from going to the doctor of your choice.
Positive right: the government is obligated to help citizens of a certain age pay for their doctors.
Both worthy ideals, but only the first was something intended by the framers of the constitution.
Clerical celibacy may have been a good innovation for the medieval church to make. And those who opposed celibacy during the Reformation may have been misguided. However, one thing you CAN'T say is that opponents of celibacy were overthrowing the principles of the New Testament, because the New Testament quite clearly never preached any such thing.
I think this is thinking very narrowly about how the government operates. There is a theory of governance that posits the government is a way citizens can pool their resources to pay for things they want but couldn't afford for themselves. No citizen can pay to have letters delivered all over the country, but we pool our money to create a postal service to do that for us. In the mention of a postal service in the Constitution we find the seed of the idea that ties the founders together with this theory of governance. The same is true of the military. The same is true for nation-wide public health. On a local level, the same is true of the fire department or the police department.
The question about health insurance, then, is not about whether the government has obligations or the citizens have rights. That's kind of irrelevant. The question is whether the citizens want to use the government to operate a nation-wide health insurance program. As a matter of fact it already does so, several in fact. They just don't cover all citizens yet.
Of course you are right. I should know that.
The institution of celibacy, as I understand it, was because at the time a person's career was dictated by one's father's profession. Celibacy broke that chain when it came to to the church. The Reformation freed men and women from having to submit to that yoke if they felt the call to a religious profession. One could say the Reformation also allowed men and, eventually women, to choose their own career paths. A baker's son no longer had to be a baker. That's what happened in my mother's family at about the time of the Reformation.
Do you have a source for that idea?
Oh, you might Ask a Franciscan It was to prevent church property from being controlled by a single family.
Here is an extended discussion of that issue.
I don't see anything in those links which supports the statement "The institution of celibacy, as I understand it, was because at the time a person's career was dictated by one's father's profession. "
"It was to prevent church property from being controlled by a single family" is a completely different concept, and I note even that is questioned in the links you provide on the grounds that church property remains the property of the church, not of the cleric.
Thank you so much. I mean that. It helps.
Assuming this is true and not some kind of psyop by Chinese state media, this seems like a huge shift.
Well, it's not as if those three countries had previously been economically estranged from each other, and yeah, I wouldn't put it past Chinese state media to exaggerate the long-term significance of the agreement.
But the mere fact that it can be plausibly spun as a major alliance against the USA shows just how much damage Trump is doing to America's reputation.
The citizens can vote for a nation-wide single payer healthcare system. Medicare for all does not trouble the constitution in any way. Currently, the citizens have voted for a robber baron to demolish their government structures, and they can vote for that, too. (To my mind, at least some of the things that Trump has done are clearly unconstitutional, because he has usurped the power of Congress, but nothing* he has done could not be legally done by a President and Congress acting in concert.)
*extraordinary rendition style deportations might be the exception.
Attempting to abolish birthright citizenship would be another exception. Without going back to look at the list of EOs, I suspect there are other exceptions as well.
Is that surprising?
Census.gov says the total exports from the US to North Korea last year was $1.5 million, and imports into the US were $100,000. So basically couch cushion change. For South Korea, our exports last year were $65,541.8 million and imports $131,549.2 million.
Russia and China working with South Korea? Yes that's very surprising considering China and North Korea have long been allied, and the two Koreas are bitter foes.
Well, yeah, but there's already substantial trade between China and the ROK, North Korea notwithstanding. So it's more like they'd be tweaking an existing relationship, not reaching out from total isolation.
As for being bitter foes, yeah, there's still a state of war between the two Koreas, but not all public opinion is that bitter about it(some are just kinda resigned, and the left tends toward a detentish approach), and even conservatives don't usually advocate significant disruption of trade with China over the issue.
Unless folks in the know are making a killing by selling short in advance of the market decline?
A lot of us assume that is happening whether or not that is Trump's goal or not.
"In the know" is questionable. A lot of money is shifting around based on the idea that tariffs are coming soon, but Trump has changed his mind on this and delayed often enough that "liberation day" (his term for the day tariffs go into effect) is in danger of becoming a meme like "infrastructure week". I'm not sure there is a definite plan, which is what's causing a lot of market fluctuation. I guess we'll find out tomorrow if Americans are "liberated" from their retirement savings.
The last sentence of the Twelfth Amendment states "But no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States." So the plain reading of that bars anyone who cannot be elected* president from being elected as vice president. That being said, I'm sure there's some mendaciously ahistorical argument that could get at least five votes from the Supreme Court as it's currently constituted. Trump's people are certainly being very public about taking this approach. It's also, probably not coincidentally, a Putin-approved tactic. To get around a similar prohibition on consecutive terms in the Russian constitution, from 2008 to 2012 Putin loyalist Dmitry Medvedev was nominally president of Russia while Putin served as his prime minister.
*It is notable that "eligible" and "elect" come from the same root word.