Trying to think "big picture" here -- and yes, it's hard -- but I'm seriously concerned that the legal system is having such a hard time dealing with a rich defendant who won't play by the rules. Many of the "rules," it seems, are actually conventions, which only work when all parties respect them. The Trump party (which apparently inclu…
Trying to think "big picture" here -- and yes, it's hard -- but I'm seriously concerned that the legal system is having such a hard time dealing with a rich defendant who won't play by the rules. Many of the "rules," it seems, are actually conventions, which only work when all parties respect them. The Trump party (which apparently includes the New York Post) flouts them at every opportunity and often, as with the so-called "gag orders," gets away with it.
Trump may well be unique *for now*, but his example is sure to inspire others. And it's not hard to imagine any attempt to crack down on these high-level scofflaws having unforeseen negative effects on legitimate speech and behavior.
Really? Reading the Federalist Papers, esp. Hamilton's, I don't get the impression that they were especially idealistic, even about men of their own class. And those checks and balances weren't instituted because they expected any of the three branches to be exemplary.
Individual self-discipline + adherence to group norms. We do tend to take our cues from the group. Unfortunately, when the whole group is off the rails, you get Trumpism and all sorts of cults. Also, in milder forms, groupthink. "The best and the brightest," for instance.
Trying to think "big picture" here -- and yes, it's hard -- but I'm seriously concerned that the legal system is having such a hard time dealing with a rich defendant who won't play by the rules. Many of the "rules," it seems, are actually conventions, which only work when all parties respect them. The Trump party (which apparently includes the New York Post) flouts them at every opportunity and often, as with the so-called "gag orders," gets away with it.
Trump may well be unique *for now*, but his example is sure to inspire others. And it's not hard to imagine any attempt to crack down on these high-level scofflaws having unforeseen negative effects on legitimate speech and behavior.
Trump has exposed the fatal flaw in our system of government. We expect only decent people will pursue public power. The Founders were too idealistic.
Really? Reading the Federalist Papers, esp. Hamilton's, I don't get the impression that they were especially idealistic, even about men of their own class. And those checks and balances weren't instituted because they expected any of the three branches to be exemplary.
Yes, but so much of the system is determined by individual self-discipline, something we are in short supply of nowadays.
Individual self-discipline + adherence to group norms. We do tend to take our cues from the group. Unfortunately, when the whole group is off the rails, you get Trumpism and all sorts of cults. Also, in milder forms, groupthink. "The best and the brightest," for instance.