How about a chart that goes back to at least JFK and we get a look at what LBJ did for the trust in government ?
I believe it had something to do with him not seeking a second term ...
Both sides move up or down with power, but you can see the red moves get bigger and angrier over the years.
How do you (ie Republican Party) say you support the Constitution, but only when we're the ones who control the interpretation and implementation? That document is built to limit the interpretation and defend the institution. The right holds on to the second amendment like the bible, but won't penalize someone who blatantly lies about the peaceful transfer of power nor will they punish the leader of an insurrection?
You have to support your government all of the time, and build it stronger and better so it's harder for the other side to break it (or even want to break it, because it works). You don't hollow it out. You want it smaller; make it more efficient. You want the private sector to do more, enable competition, and make sure players follow the rules (which requires the occasional regulation). I spent the vast majority of my life on the right, but everything can't be about what's wrong without ever offering leadership on how to fix things.
Last comment: You can't run around for a year saying "lookout for the socialists", and then complain we aren't socialist. Look at who's on the top of the list. Scandinavian countries. New Zealand had a mass shooting and outlawed assault weapons in a week. Iceland's personal income tax rate is 47% (the lowest is in the 30's). Those places also rank high in happiness: we're 18th.
So who do you want to be...a happy socialist democracy or a miserable populist leaning shell of a former World leader?
Evidently. . US labelled a "flawed" democracy over collapsing public trust Joan Hoey, editor of the report, said the US had been downgraded because the EIU's data showed a consistent erosion of trust in the American government and elected officials in 2016.
“This is not a consequence of Donald Trump. On the contrary, the election of Mr Trump as US president was in large part a consequence of the longstanding problems of democracy in the US,” Hoey said.
The EIU also noted that these problems are not isolated to the US, with political elites also facing popular challenge in both the UK and Western Europe.
Apologies for the scale...but you'll have to scroll down. Look who's dragging down the public trust... It's right after Obamacare. I hear Trump's plan is going to be great!
Populist rhetoric is a powerful tool to get the miserable and less intelligent hungry for change, even when the change will hurt them.
How about a chart that goes back to at least JFK and we get a look at what LBJ did for the trust in government ?
I believe it had something to do with him not seeking a second term ...
Evidently. . US labelled a "flawed" democracy over collapsing public trust Joan Hoey, editor of the report, said the US had been downgraded because the EIU's data showed a consistent erosion of trust in the American government and elected officials in 2016.
âThis is not a consequence of Donald Trump. On the contrary, the election of Mr Trump as US president was in large part a consequence of the longstanding problems of democracy in the US,â Hoey said.
The EIU also noted that these problems are not isolated to the US, with political elites also facing popular challenge in both the UK and Western Europe.
Apologies for the scale...but you'll have to scroll down. Look who's dragging down the public trust... It's right after Obamacare. I hear Trump's plan is going to be great!
Populist rhetoric is a powerful tool to get the miserable and less intelligent hungry for change, even when the change will hurt them.
Yep. That is largely a result of Obama. Happened during and as a result of his administration.
Thanks, Obama !
The slide happened at the very end of the Obama 8 years (did you know...most Presidents get 2 terms). So Trump runs around and says "drain the swamp", and it's Obama's fault the confidence in government slumped to historic lows? In response, we elected a racist, sexist, con man. It's the only reason your boy won in 2016.
Since 2016, Trump has dramatically reduced the score for Government function and political culture...but did get points for participation (in spite of his attempts to stop the counting of votes).
Under Trump, the US went from 21st to 25th in the world. Thanks Donnie!
Joan Hoey, editor of the report, said the US had been downgraded because the EIU's data showed a consistent erosion of trust in the American government and elected officials in 2016.
“This is not a consequence of Donald Trump. On the contrary, the election of Mr Trump as US president was in large part a consequence of the longstanding problems of democracy in the US,” Hoey said.
The EIU also noted that these problems are not isolated to the US, with political elites also facing popular challenge in both the UK and Western Europe.
Yep. That is largely a result of Obama. Happened during and as a result of his administration.
Bzzzzt!
Disappointment with democracy and populism preceded the 2008-09 crash. Regressive trends in democracy in Europe and the US can be traced back much further. Nor is contemporary disaffection with democracy simply a reaction to economic underperformance. That populist movements have come to prominence in rich and poor European countries alike suggests that they are not the product solely of the economic crisis. Economic issues are often not at the forefront of the populistsâ concerns; issues of culture, identity, tradition and values dominate the populist discourse and resonate with their supporters.
Yep. That is largely a result of Obama. Happened during and as a result of his administration.
Thanks, Obama !
The slide happened at the very end of the Obama 8 years (did you know...most Presidents get 2 terms). So Trump runs around and says "drain the swamp", and it's Obama's fault the confidence in government slumped to historic lows? In response, we elected a racist, sexist, con man. It's the only reason your boy won in 2016.
Since 2016, Trump has dramatically reduced the score for Government function and political culture...but did get points for participation (in spite of his attempts to stop the counting of votes).
Under Trump, the US went from 21st to 25th in the world. Thanks Donnie!
Yes, the British East India Tea Company did rule tea production (among other things) in India and Ceylon, but even though their name included the words "India Tea", it was not until the 1830's, that tea - cultivated by anyone to be steeped and consumed as a beverage - came from any places other than China (predominantly), Japan, or Taiwan (Formosa). The camellia Sinensis plant was also native to the Assam region but was not used for that purpose until the British intervention. I didn't mean to cite Holland as a "red herring" supplier, I meant to refer to their being the illicit suppliers of the tea which was smuggled in by John Hancock, Samuel Adams, etc.I did find some information about a lot of the smuggled tea being adulterated or inferior in other ways, which was my original question. I guess I should have started a Tea History thread.
Thanks for the dialogue.
Thank you!
To further clarify my point, it is my understanding that in the period leading up to the American Revolution, that Britain was the one and only sovereign power in control of the original 13 colonies. Sure, a black market exists just about anywhere in time and space; that was not what I was referring to though. The tea of the Boston Tea Party was British tea, and the reason why we remember it at all is because of the Draconian taxes imposed by the Crown (actually the Parliament, as King George III was quite ill and literally insane at the time). Where the tea came from is beside the point, really. The point is that the residents of the 13 colonies were bound by law to purchase goods from British sources, and to pay taxes to Britain. If the Netherlands was a major retailer in the colonies, it was not with the permission of Britain, to be sure!
None of us are a living testament to the actual events, we are all bound to the annals of history for our information. And, by history, the British empire did in fact rule the tea production in India and Ceylon. Who cultivated the crops is beside the point. The point remains that the British viewed India and Ceylon as their "divine right" at the time leading up to, and inclusive of the American revolution.
Needless to say, citing the Netherlands as a bona fide mass supplier of tea (or anything else) to the British colonists of North America is a red herring.
Yes, the British East India Tea Company did rule tea production (among other things) in India and Ceylon, but even though their name included the words "India Tea", it was not until the 1830's, that tea - cultivated by anyone to be steeped and consumed as a beverage - came from any places other than China (predominantly), Japan, or Taiwan (Formosa). The camellia Sinensis plant was also native to the Assam region but was not used for that purpose until the British intervention. I didn't mean to cite Holland as a "red herring" supplier, I meant to refer to their being the illicit suppliers of the tea which was smuggled in by John Hancock, Samuel Adams, etc.I did find some information about a lot of the smuggled tea being adulterated or inferior in other ways, which was my original question. I guess I should have started a Tea History thread.
Good film (if a bit shaky on chronology). A great intro to this important subject.
"Amazing Grace" and "Amistad" are excellent primers on the true story of slavery vis a vis the US and Great Britain circa the turn of the 19th century. Suffice it to say that the US did not live up to the text of the Declaration of Independence for a very long time.
For the record, Herr King George (from Germany) was mentally ill, and unable to execute his official duties when the US declared independence from England. A great primer on the situation then is "Amazing Grace", a film directed by Michael Apted, that very accurately chronicles the abuses of power of the 18th century British House of Lords.
Good film (if a bit shaky on chronology). A great intro to this important subject.
