Post by Arlon10 on Jul 24, 2017 15:20:45 GMT
The United States of America is going through an unusual phase, to put it succinctly. I will attempt here to untangle the exercises in absurdities you perhaps have seen in the news.
Much of the news here lately is concentrated on what connection "Russia" has to Donald Trump before, during or after his campaign, especially what influence it might have on public policy in the United States or how it might otherwise be illegal.
One basis for these concerns is the "emoluments clause" in the United States' Constitution. Specifically "No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States: And no Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them, shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince, or foreign State" (Article I, Section 9, clause 8).
In more recent history, election laws federally and in the several states are more specific about forbidding donations from anyone whomsoever in exchange for government favors.
New White House Press Secretary Sarah Sanders believes the media is inordinately concerned with Russia connections. She believes the foremost concerns of Americans are immigration, health care, and jobs (This Week with George Stephenopoulos 7/23/17). In her favor is the fact that quite many voters were fully aware of Trump's vast international business interests before the election and voted for him anyway. A point the press might have right is that many Americans are concerned whenever an activity might be illegal.
Conspicuous by its absence is the "religious right." Disturbingly large numbers of people in Washington D.C consider the concerns of the religious right absurd. They consider intelligent design absurd. They consider same sex marriage a fait accompli. They believe abortion can be an acceptable solution to various problems less serious than traditionally held acceptable. The religious right does not at this time have much real influence on the Republican Party. No one at this time has much influence on the Republican Party.
That's the phase. Neither party has any sense of what to do. An entirely new majority must emerge. Indeed the problems lately are beyond the scope of government. When marriage became an implementation of government oversight rather than a vow to never require such oversight, government took on far more than it is designed to handle. Getting involved in medical decisions will similarly lead to disaster after disaster.
Many of you are already aware that the "Republican" party favors a reduced role for government. What most of you do not know is that the idea is not well understood even by many of its proponents, even the sincere ones. And many of them are not sincere. For that reason a truly reduced yet reasonable role for government will likely be long delayed.
It will likely prove difficult to thoroughly restrain all foreign influence of American public opinion or public policy, although it is reasonable to prevent direct quid pro quo influences. The issue will likely get mired however in misguided attempts to restrain all influence. Another force driving the news is a widespread confusion just who the "Russians" are, where they stand on various issues, and where they have traditionally stood.
It is not like murder for hire. If a person hires someone else to commit a murder it can be fairly simple to show in court that the murder was done in the interests of the person who hired the killer, rather than the killer only interested in payment, and thus establish the additional culpability. If a Russian entity, state or otherwise, transfers to some intermediary, remuneration for influencing the changing of some public policy or actually changing policy, it might be something of such widespread interest in various countries and parts of this country as to elude identifying that source of funds.
Especially at this time I myself prefer other topics; books, movies, the great outdoors, art, music, especially with a religious or spiritual connection. Wish me luck with that at least.
Much of the news here lately is concentrated on what connection "Russia" has to Donald Trump before, during or after his campaign, especially what influence it might have on public policy in the United States or how it might otherwise be illegal.
One basis for these concerns is the "emoluments clause" in the United States' Constitution. Specifically "No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States: And no Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them, shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince, or foreign State" (Article I, Section 9, clause 8).
In more recent history, election laws federally and in the several states are more specific about forbidding donations from anyone whomsoever in exchange for government favors.
New White House Press Secretary Sarah Sanders believes the media is inordinately concerned with Russia connections. She believes the foremost concerns of Americans are immigration, health care, and jobs (This Week with George Stephenopoulos 7/23/17). In her favor is the fact that quite many voters were fully aware of Trump's vast international business interests before the election and voted for him anyway. A point the press might have right is that many Americans are concerned whenever an activity might be illegal.
Conspicuous by its absence is the "religious right." Disturbingly large numbers of people in Washington D.C consider the concerns of the religious right absurd. They consider intelligent design absurd. They consider same sex marriage a fait accompli. They believe abortion can be an acceptable solution to various problems less serious than traditionally held acceptable. The religious right does not at this time have much real influence on the Republican Party. No one at this time has much influence on the Republican Party.
That's the phase. Neither party has any sense of what to do. An entirely new majority must emerge. Indeed the problems lately are beyond the scope of government. When marriage became an implementation of government oversight rather than a vow to never require such oversight, government took on far more than it is designed to handle. Getting involved in medical decisions will similarly lead to disaster after disaster.
Many of you are already aware that the "Republican" party favors a reduced role for government. What most of you do not know is that the idea is not well understood even by many of its proponents, even the sincere ones. And many of them are not sincere. For that reason a truly reduced yet reasonable role for government will likely be long delayed.
It will likely prove difficult to thoroughly restrain all foreign influence of American public opinion or public policy, although it is reasonable to prevent direct quid pro quo influences. The issue will likely get mired however in misguided attempts to restrain all influence. Another force driving the news is a widespread confusion just who the "Russians" are, where they stand on various issues, and where they have traditionally stood.
It is not like murder for hire. If a person hires someone else to commit a murder it can be fairly simple to show in court that the murder was done in the interests of the person who hired the killer, rather than the killer only interested in payment, and thus establish the additional culpability. If a Russian entity, state or otherwise, transfers to some intermediary, remuneration for influencing the changing of some public policy or actually changing policy, it might be something of such widespread interest in various countries and parts of this country as to elude identifying that source of funds.
Especially at this time I myself prefer other topics; books, movies, the great outdoors, art, music, especially with a religious or spiritual connection. Wish me luck with that at least.
