Few highlights I found interesting.

-The highest support for democracy comes from respondents who are either consistently liberal or consistently conservative. In contrast, more than half of those who hold both economically liberal and culturally conservative views support a “strong leader” who does not have to bother with Congress or elections.

-The highest levels of support for authoritarian leadership come from those who are disaffected, disengaged from politics, deeply distrustful of experts, culturally conservative, and have negative attitudes toward racial minorities. Those who consume news less frequently are more than 20 points less likely than frequent news consumers to support a “strong leader.” Similarly, nonvoters are about 10 points more likely to express support for a “strong leader.”

https://www.voterstudygroup.org/publications/2017-voter-survey/follow-the-leader

I think the leader is too string now. I think the founders' concept was that congress set policy and the president carry it out. I much prefer that to an imperial presidency such as we have now.

Unfortunately, I don't know how to get there without having a president who wants to go there, and I don't see such a person even running for the office, much less getting elected.

Imperial presidency has gotten worse with each new occupant of the White House and most of Congress likes that, thank you very much. They live off the donation aimed at blocking stuff rather than passing stuff.

(03-13-2018 09:36 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  Imperial presidency has gotten worse with each new occupant of the White House and most of Congress likes that, thank you very much. They live off the donation aimed at blocking stuff rather than passing stuff.

Trump has really backed off from Obama's peak imperial presidency.

He is willing to dump a lot off to Congress to decide.

W. actually did that too, following his role as the Texas governor with limited powers, but the Patriot Act worked in the opposite direction.

(03-13-2018 05:58 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  I think the leader is too string now. I think the founders' concept was that congress set policy and the president carry it out. I much prefer that to an imperial presidency such as we have now.

Unfortunately, I don't know how to get there without having a president who wants to go there, and I don't see such a person even running for the office, much less getting elected.

to date, DJT's veto count is the same as when he took office.....and the executive orders he's signed have mostly been to rescind those signed during 0'bummer socialist era

I understand you don't like the guy.....however, you're going to have to help me out with a better argument with this one....

DJT is what you want in scope.....then you get a guy like him and pound his sand.....

I don't understand how that's any different than imperialistic ideological thinking (which you've demonstrated time after time with varying ideological posits....e.g. Bismark)

(03-15-2018 05:52 AM)stinkfist Wrote:  

(03-13-2018 05:58 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  I think the leader is too string now. I think the founders' concept was that congress set policy and the president carry it out. I much prefer that to an imperial presidency such as we have now.
Unfortunately, I don't know how to get there without having a president who wants to go there, and I don't see such a person even running for the office, much less getting elected.

to date, DJT's veto count is the same as when he took office.....and the executive orders he's signed have mostly been to rescind those signed during 0'bummer socialist era
I understand you don't like the guy.....however, you're going to have to help me out with a better argument with this one....
DJT is what you want in scope.....then you get a guy like him and pound his sand.....
I don't understand how that's any different than imperialistic ideological thinking (which you've demonstrated time after time with varying ideological posits....e.g. Bismark)

I actually like that about the guy. He's very much a mixed bag, some I like, some I don't. I like Gorsuch and the tax cuts. I don't like the wall and trade wars. This ends up getting me criticized by both sides, like this. I kind of think that if both sides are critical, you're probably about right.

And I don't see how Bismarck is imperialistic. It came from a country with imperial ambitions (Germany) but two of the best adoptions are by countries which lost theirs a long time ago (Holland) or never had them (Switzerland). It's basically a practical solution to a problem that has a lot of bad theoretical solutions. The Heritage approach was basically a version of Bismarck, where the government payment came in the form of refundable tax credits rather than cash payments or vouchers. Opponents said, "Oh, the poor can't wait until April 15 to get their money." If the payment had been handled differently, it might well have passed in the 1990s and we would have been spared the Obamacare monstrosity. But the R's were too busy with Monicagate to figure out how to get it passed.

(03-15-2018 07:57 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(03-15-2018 05:52 AM)stinkfist Wrote:  

(03-13-2018 05:58 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  I think the leader is too string now. I think the founders' concept was that congress set policy and the president carry it out. I much prefer that to an imperial presidency such as we have now.
Unfortunately, I don't know how to get there without having a president who wants to go there, and I don't see such a person even running for the office, much less getting elected.

to date, DJT's veto count is the same as when he took office.....and the executive orders he's signed have mostly been to rescind those signed during 0'bummer socialist era
I understand you don't like the guy.....however, you're going to have to help me out with a better argument with this one....
DJT is what you want in scope.....then you get a guy like him and pound his sand.....
I don't understand how that's any different than imperialistic ideological thinking (which you've demonstrated time after time with varying ideological posits....e.g. Bismark)

I actually like that about the guy. He's very much a mixed bag, some I like, some I don't. I like Gorsuch and the tax cuts. I don't like the wall and trade wars. This ends up getting me criticized by both sides, like this. I kind of think that if both sides are critical, you're probably about right.

And I don't see how Bismarck is imperialistic. It came from a country with imperial ambitions (Germany) but two of the best adoptions are by countries which lost theirs a long time ago (Holland) or never had them (Switzerland). It's basically a practical solution to a problem that has a lot of bad theoretical solutions. The Heritage approach was basically a version of Bismarck, where the government payment came in the form of refundable tax credits rather than cash payments or vouchers. Opponents said, "Oh, the poor can't wait until April 15 to get their money." If the payment had been handled differently, it might well have passed in the 1990s and we would have been spared the Obamacare monstrosity. But the R's were too busy with Monicagate to figure out how to get it passed.

w/o going into detail, isn't Bismark another version of socialized healthcare.....

what was wrong with the version that existed before ZEROcare other than that those that needed to die of are now abusing the system on someone else's dime.....

how does Bismark change that principle relative to a capitalist society....

you need to understand something about me.....I don't give a shite about collateral damage.....what I care about is not absorbing more of the worthless in overall numbers.....

yeah....I'm that motherfokker.....

and I don't give two shites if one likes it or not......and I know deep down in most folks heart that 'have', don't either.....

as I've stated too many times in too many ways, it'll all play out one way or the other one day.....

it has nothing to do with being sympathetic....it has everything to do with protecting the USD.....

lose that battle, and everything else means zilch, nada, murder/death/kill......

you don't want me playing in that world....

(03-15-2018 10:21 AM)stinkfist Wrote:  

(03-15-2018 07:57 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(03-15-2018 05:52 AM)stinkfist Wrote:  

(03-13-2018 05:58 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  I think the leader is too string now. I think the founders' concept was that congress set policy and the president carry it out. I much prefer that to an imperial presidency such as we have now.
Unfortunately, I don't know how to get there without having a president who wants to go there, and I don't see such a person even running for the office, much less getting elected.

to date, DJT's veto count is the same as when he took office.....and the executive orders he's signed have mostly been to rescind those signed during 0'bummer socialist era
I understand you don't like the guy.....however, you're going to have to help me out with a better argument with this one....
DJT is what you want in scope.....then you get a guy like him and pound his sand.....
I don't understand how that's any different than imperialistic ideological thinking (which you've demonstrated time after time with varying ideological posits....e.g. Bismark)

I actually like that about the guy. He's very much a mixed bag, some I like, some I don't. I like Gorsuch and the tax cuts. I don't like the wall and trade wars. This ends up getting me criticized by both sides, like this. I kind of think that if both sides are critical, you're probably about right.

And I don't see how Bismarck is imperialistic. It came from a country with imperial ambitions (Germany) but two of the best adoptions are by countries which lost theirs a long time ago (Holland) or never had them (Switzerland). It's basically a practical solution to a problem that has a lot of bad theoretical solutions. The Heritage approach was basically a version of Bismarck, where the government payment came in the form of refundable tax credits rather than cash payments or vouchers. Opponents said, "Oh, the poor can't wait until April 15 to get their money." If the payment had been handled differently, it might well have passed in the 1990s and we would have been spared the Obamacare monstrosity. But the R's were too busy with Monicagate to figure out how to get it passed.

w/o going into detail, isn't Bismark another version of socialized healthcare.....

what was wrong with the version that existed before ZEROcare other than that those that needed to die of are now abusing the system on someone else's dime.....

how does Bismark change that principle relative to a capitalist society....

you need to understand something about me.....I don't give a shite about collateral damage.....what I care about is not absorbing more of the worthless in overall numbers.....

yeah....I'm that motherfokker.....

and I don't give two shites if one likes it or not......and I know deep down in most folks heart that 'have', don't either.....

as I've stated too many times in too many ways, it'll all play out one way or the other one day.....

it has nothing to do with being sympathetic....it has everything to do with protecting the USD.....

lose that battle, and everything else means zilch, nada, murder/death/kill......

you don't want me playing in that world....

I think you point your discontent in the wrong direction. US per capita spending on Medicaid, Medicare, VA would fund coverage of 100% of the citizens and lawful permanent residents if our costs were consistent with the rest of the industrialized world.

Health products don't follow normal market rules.
For example, I can buy a 4K television for less today than five years ago even without adjusting for inflation. The industrial process saw the cost of automobiles fall.

Tamiflu on the other hand costs twice as much as it did five years. The production process by now should be optimized and greater production resulting in greater efficiency should lower the cost yet the opposite has happened.