Luminous Landscape Forum
The Art of Photography => The Coffee Corner => Topic started by: JoeKitchen on February 05, 2017, 08:35:46 pm
-
But say they knew what they were doing when they voted for Trump. Unfortunately, the people who voted for Trump represent only 27% of of the eligible voters. Of the total of 231,556,622 eligible voters, only about 60% (138,884,643) voted. That means 92,671,979 (40%) who didn't vote and the 65,979,879 who voted for Hillary were out voted by 62,979,879 of the voting population. That means the majority of the eligible voters didn't vote for Trump. That doesn't sound like much of a mandate to me...
Point in fact, Trump just barely won. If not for about 80K voters in Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania that gave Trump the electoral votes required to win, Hillary would be President now.
Although I do consider your points American and something you have the right to have, I have problems with the above.
First, we are a republic, not a democracy, and everyone (at least politically involved) knew well before November 8th how we elect presidents. Dems whining about winning the popular vote instead of looking inwards as to why they lost the electoral college is both pathetic and distressing at the same time.
Second, the 40% of those who did not vote were not out voted ... by definition since ... they did not vote. You can't be out voted if you did not vote.
Furthermore, if you care so little about your own political leanings that you don't even go and vote, why should anyone, politician or not, care about your political leanings either?
I mean this is why politicians pay so much attention to senior citizens; they are reliable voters. Do I wish politicians would pay attention to people of my generation, yes, but I don't fault them for not, since young adults are unreliable voters. You got to play for who shows up.
-
I agree that President Trump won the election because of the antiquated Constitutional provisions governing presidential elections. I do not regard him as fit for office and find his behavior demeaning to the majority of the American public that did not vote for him.
I see this statement over and over again, and it shows the gross misunderstanding and lack of knowledge of civics and the history of pure democracies by those who say it.
First, the electoral college is not antiquated. According to Google, antiquated means old-fashion or outdated. Well, the Electrical College has been around only for the age of the USA; pure democracies, which is what you are advocating for, have been around for eons. The Electoral College is not old-fashion in comparison; it's the opposite.
Second, pure democracies don't work by the tyranny of the majority. Having a pure democracy allows the majority to only consider what is best for them, eventually causing dissidents amongst the minority. Read the Federalist Papers by James Madison for an argument against pure democracies with no checks on power that is more eloquent that what I can muster here.
There are examples of this playing out through history that has indirectly led to the downfall of governments.
Third, the Electoral College forces our presidential confidantes to pay attention to the entire country, which I see as a plus. I don't know how you can't. If presidential candidates ignore enough states, like the three in the Rust Belt, then they looses. If a party ignores a state, it becomes a swing state and demands that that party start paying attention to it again or that state switches sides. Such was the case in CA; CA was a strong republican state prior to 50 years ago. FL has only recently become a swing state. WV, which is why George Bush actually won (not due to FL) was ignored completely by Gore, since he knew for sure WV would vote blue, just like Hillary knew for sure PA, WI, and MI would for vote blue too.
"It ain't what you don't know that gets you in trouble, it's what you know for sure that just ain't so." Mark Twain
Last, as the quote above implies, it prevents complacency and arrogance. What if, according to Colin Powell, Hillary did not "ruin everything with her own hubris" and actually paid attention to the Rust Belt? A lesson I am sure our next candidates in fours years won't forget.
I consider the Electoral College, regardless if my candidate wins or looses, an ingenious way to avoid to the pit falls of pure democracies and another great example of the many checks and balances our government has.
-
Referring to me? No apology forthcoming.
I think - and hope - Erik was referring to Trump ;-)
-
I was a political science minor in college with an emphasis on American government. Without getting into the weeds the Electoral College was established because of the founder's distrust in absolute democracy. It was the same reason that the senators were not elected by popular vote for a considerable period of time after the Constitution was adopted. There has been a lot of scholarly articles written about the Electoral College over the years predicting that there would be continuing problems regarding a differential between the popular and electoral vote.
I'm well versed in the Federalist Papers.
This is utter nonsense. Candidates spend time and media money in maybe 10 or so states so I don't understand how you can say this is a national campaign. Of course the media outlets in the those states love the Electoral College as it means big advertising money coming in. Consider the top ten states by population which make up over 1/2 of the total number of citizens in the country. Out of these states, candidates were very active in Florida, Pennsylvania, Ohio and Michigan. There was some campaigning in North Carolina and next to NONE in California, Texas, Illinois, New York, Georgia and New Jersey not too mention most of the other states with lessor amounts of Electoral Votes (anyone go to the Dakota, Nebraska, Wyoming not to mention Alaska and Hawaii?). Now maybe you consider that this means that Trump and Clinton paid attention to the entire country, if so you and I have differing views of what 'entire' means. I still don't understand you you square paying attention to the 'entire country' and then not receiving a majority of the votes cast is then something meaningful. President Trump is governing with a minority of support from the people in this country (unless you subscribe to the voter fraud agreement).
That's pure nonsense as the US with its two party system and bifurcated leadership is immune to the problems that plague most parliamentary systems.
First, your first paragraph does not refute mine in the least bit. I am well aware of the reasons for the electoral college being created and appreciate the brief partial history/reasons of/for it. However, if you intended to debate my comment, I fail to see how you did, and it appears very much like a red herring argument designed to change my attention.
You said the EC was antiquated; compared to the only other option given so far, it is not. If you have something to suggest other then a pure democratic vote or the EC, please let us know what it is.
Now, although I do not disagree that there are flaws in the EC (after all, men are flawed), I do think it is a better system then a pure democracy, which has been shown throughout history as an unfair system of voting due to what James Madison so eloquently explains.
Second, to say that candidates only campaign in 10 states only applies to single time frames, but if you look at the history of campaigns in general, they do represent the majority of the states, collectively.
Humans are complacent creatures. We tend to vote consistently and those who lead, tend to assume those peoples whom have been with them in the past will continue to do so. So candidates partly rely on party lines and state affiliations on where to campaign (or really were not to). Since so many states have a strong history of voting either blue or red, it is only natural to ignore those states and assume they are a sure win, or loss. Better to spend time in the swing states, right.
Eventually though, those in those states being ignored become dissident and start looking at the other side, creating opportunity for a shift. As I am sure you know since this your subject, FL was not always a swing state and not campaigned in nearly as much.
Also, consider WV, did anyone really think Bush could have changed that state? No, which is why Gore ignored them and then Bush did just that. Hillary ignored PA, WI and MI for the same reasons, and found out that was a bad idea.
Although little serious campaigning has been done in those states and they are not part of your 10 (I assume), I am sure that will change in 2020. Will we see more then just 10 states being seriously campaigned in? Maybe, maybe not, however, if not, it will be a different 10 states then before, even if just by one, and the process will repeat itself somewhere else, in some other state, over time.
That's the beauty of the EC. Sure, it does not dictate that every candidate pay attention to every state in every national election, but it is more of a rotating act keeping hubris and complacency at bay.
Last, I never said the USA government is immune to problems present in other parliamentary governments, so I am not sure how you arrived at that. ???
We have our own problems, some of which overlap with other countries, but hey, at least were not like Great Britain. Watching parliament on C-Span is both entertaining and confusing, confusing because in that environment how does anything actually get done?
-
I imagine that you are not troubled by the five elections where the winner of the popular vote was not elected President. I am troubled by it and believe as do the citizens of the states that have approved legislation that allows those states to cast their electoral votes in favor of the candidate that wins the popular vote.
[quot]Second, to say that candidates only campaign in 10 states only applies to single time frames, but if you look at the history of campaigns in general, they do represent the majority of the states, collectively.
This is certainly not the history in recent elections. One cannot compare this election with those in the pre-Civil War era where there were far fewer people, fewer states, and it cost much less to campaign.
The EC votes don't change until after the 2020 election so we will have the same set up. The only major state that "may" be more contested next time is Texas where the Latino vote is expected to increase significantly. I don't see the politics of New York, California, or New Jersey changing at all. All three states are also every expensive in terms of media markets so if the current Dem/Rep ratio stays as is and there is no reason to expect otherwise, the Republican candidate would be a fool to spend any money there.
parliamentary governments under proportional representation regulations are as close to pure democracy as one can get.
I am really not troubled by it. We can not approve of a system when it works in favor of our choices and then disapprove of it when it does not. I believe that a popular vote will only eventually backfire and create more divide, and perhaps lead to another civil war. It may take a generation or two, but the likelihood is strong.
Also, like I said, the EC is flawed, but so is every other form of governance. There is no perfect solution to governing man, and I would surely take the flaws of a superior system than an mildly overall flawed system.
Second, we do not need to look at pre-Civil War eras; states have been ignored by their favored party and changed in the last century. CA is a great example; remember, it use to be a strong republican state. Texas use to vote strongly democratic. They both changed in the middle of the last century.
Now I purposely used CA and TX as examples above since you mentioned it would be unlikely that those states would change parties. Well, they did once already (two counter examples here, remember you only one to disprove a statement). Sure, it is not going to happen over 4 years, or even 8, but it certainly can happen.
Last may I state here, you still have not argued against my rebuttal of your statement that the EC is antiquated, only provided more red herrings, although interesting and perhaps not intentional, distracting my attention, which is the very definition of a red herring argument.
-
Texas as all the other southern states moved to the Republican column after the Civil Rights Act of 1964. You can draw whatever conclusion you want from that. California move away from the Republican party after Governor Wilson's xenophobic adoption of strict immigration controls at the state level. This was amply documented in Kevin Starr's wonderful history of California during that era "Coast of Dreams: California on the Edge - 1990 - 2003" where Repblicans today stand no chance of winning any statewide office.
One final try here. The EC is inherently undemocratic in that it violates the 'one person - one vote' paradigm. Because each state gets a minimum of 3 EC votes regardless of population, a vote in Wyoming counts more than a vote in California. California gets 1 EV for every 508K people whereas Wyoming its 1 EV per 143K. Thus a Californian has 1/5 the voting power of someone in Wyoming. Slate published a good MAP (http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/map_of_the_week/2012/11/presidential_election_a_map_showing_the_vote_power_of_all_50_states.html) showing the disparity.
I do not dispute your first paragraph. However, they did change parties, regardless of how or why it happened. To say it can not happen is contrary to history.
Second, although I do agree (again) with the points you just made about the EC, that is still not a rebuttal, just another red herring.
Your original premise that I took issue with was the EC is antiquated, not undemocratic. If you feel you wrote antiquated by mistake, admit so, correct yourself and I will accept your new points as being another discussion, not a distraction.
If not, you have neither addressed the premise in a logical manner about why the EC is antiquated (old-fashion and out-dated, nothing to do with undemocratic) when compared to the only other option listed, a pure democratic vote, which is a centuries old concept, nor have you provided another modern, more efficient and proven method of voting for national figures, which would by the definition of antiquated prove your point.
-
We will need to let this one end on this point and we shall both declare victory for our respective opinions.
+1
-
Nope not fake, the NPD diagnosis is very real (see my OP and post on Facebook (https://www.facebook.com/jeff.schewe/posts/1249950058423253?pnref=story))...but it's also not sanctioned by the Psychiatric community in general because back in the 1964 elections, Barry Goldwater was diagnosed as not being fit by 1,189 psychiatrists out of 12,000 surveyed and the Psychiatric community came up with the Goldwater Rule (http://jaapl.org/content/44/2/226)
From the section about the rule:
"The American Psychiatric Association (APA) condemned the use of psychiatric commentary for political purposes, and nine years later declared unethical psychiatrists' public commentary on public figures who have not been personally examined and had not given consent for disclosure. This dictum, established as Section 7.3 of the APA Code of Ethics,2 is informally known as the Goldwater Rule."
But there's nothing to keep me from calling Trump a victim of Narcissistic Personality Disorder...
Here's what I wrote in my Facebook post:
Narcissistic Personality Disorder (from Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM5)) is a serious personality disorder. According to the DSM-5, individuals with NPD have a pervasive pattern of grandiosity (in fantasy or behavior), need for admiration, and lack of empathy, beginning by early adulthood and present in a variety of contexts, as indicated by five (or more) of the following:
1. Has a grandiose sense of self-importance (e.g., exaggerates achievements and talents, expects to be recognized as superior without commensurate achievements)
2. Is preoccupied with fantasies of unlimited success, power, brilliance, beauty, or ideal love.
3. Believe that he or she is “special” and unique and can only be understood by, or should associate with other special or high-status people (or institutions)
4. Requires excessive admiration
5. Has a sense of entitlement
6. Is interpersonally exploitative
7. Lacks empathy: is unwilling to recognize or identify with the feelings and needs of others
8. Is often envious of others or believes that others are envious of him or her.
9. Shows arrogant, haughty behaviors or attitudes.”
Note, that phrase as indicated by five (or more). Trump ticks all 9 and then there's the degree of which the individual suffers the disorder. Trump doesn't exhibit a mild form of any of the 9 criteria, Trump exhibits an excess of each of the 9 criteria.
I'm pretty sure it is not in America's best interest to have somebody suffering from NPD to be President...
Before I answer this, Trump was not my preferred choice. To be honest, I really would like to see Paul Ryan in charge, or, at the very least, get Trump off twitter. How many problems would that solve if we just got him off of twitter.
However, didn't the republicans catch flack during the campaign for all the TV diagnosing, without an actual examination, they did on Clinton? How is this different?
I think Michael Wolff, in so many words, explained rather well on what's going on in the news right now. (http://money.cnn.com/2017/02/05/media/michael-wolff-brian-stelter-reliable-sources/)
-
Except that the Rethuglican wing of the Corporate Incumbent Party, did everything they could to stymie Obama's policies, and even his choice for the Supreme Court. Of course, when Democrats threaten the same thing, that's an anti-democratic outrage.
That's politics, it's a blood sport, always has been, always will be, regardless of time or country. If you can't handle it, go home.
To whine about the opposition shows that you are either thin skinned and/or ineffective.
Don't believe me? Both Clinton and Obama had essentially similar hands dealt to them. They both had control in the first two years and lost it to a combative opposition party. Remember, Newt and the congress shut down government for a longer period of time then did the tea party.
Clinton still got stuff done; Obama whined.
-
Not really. During the Reagan years there was a lot of collaboration between parties to get things done. I can remember being a a couple of Congressional hearings back then where Republican Senators were praising their Democratic colleagues and thanking them for working so hard to get a particular piece of legislation passed. Dan Quayle used to remark how well he worked with Ted Kennedy on health legislation. Things changed when Gingrich declared war on the Democrats and was able to lead the party to victory in 1994 when they took over the House. The House has remained rancorous ever since. The Senate still worked in bipartisan directions until McConnell and Reid rose to power in their respective parties and then the Senate became as rancorous as the House.
The nice thing about archiving things is how some of these old statements are catching up to current members. I just wanted to point out a bit of history from one who was there at the time.
Alright, you got me Alan.
Politics can be blood spot, and is frequently, but frequently it is not either. The period you mentioned is an example of it not; I could give periods when it was worse then today. Lincoln's presidency comes to mind, and that was after half the congressman on the other side stop participating in congress.
We could go further back, say look at Themistocles (and yes, I had to Google check on how to spell his name) in Greece to show how difficult politics is.
It's not for the faint of heart regardless of how "easy" it is at the time.
I don't blame it on Newt Gingrich either; I blame it on social media and our current news state. They profit off of division; if it bleeds it leads. And part of it is cyclical too, just like so many other things.
However, my point was that regardless of how bad your opposition is, it is still possible to achieve successes without resorting to temporary executive orders and complaining eternally, which is what Clinton and Lincoln did. Or you could do what Themistocles did, and trick your entire country and hope that it pays off in the end, which it did.
-
exactly ! this means (1) he never has any real information ("believes") and (2) he naturally takes sides ... and UNIAN naturally picks what to report, just like the opposite side does... both sides have reasons both to escalate and not, but to use source that does not present any alternative point of view speaks for itself.
I went to high school with someone who is a professor of history. In his graduate classes, if a student hands in a paper that only sites sources from one side of a particular issue, it's a guaranteed F.
-
Because he is no longer campaigning? Shouldn't someone in his office behave act as a president for all Americans?
Voting for someone in the hopes that he will change the MO after the election is not a very bright idea. However I don't think most of his voters were expecting any different and so far they seem pretty chill with everything that's going on.
-
Do I have all of the above correct?
You missed one out - Rick Perry as Energy Secretary.
A genius who, during a a televised debate in 2011 (https://nyti.ms/2kMo23R), said he intended to eliminate the Depts of Commerce, Education and, though he couldn't remember the name, Energy ~). [NYT] (https://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/11/09/for-perry-a-cringe-worthy-gaffe/?_r=0)
The previous two secretaries, under Obama, were physicists: one with a Nobel Prize, the other a professor at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Perry holds a bachelor's degree in animal science from Texas A&M university. It'd almost be comical except that the agency manages the nuclear weapons stockpile and oversees American programs on nuclear nonproliferation.
-
and if your grandma 'd have those balls... Trump played the game to win according to the rules and won, so suck it up.
Sounds like a Trumpism if ever I heard one.
I detest this anti-democratic attitude. Did the Rethuglicans just 'suck it up' when Obama won the presidency? No, they didn't; they did everything they could to frustrate his plans, including the descent into lies & misinformation that has so underpinned Trump's whole campaign & presidency so far. US democrcay isn't a one-time event, something that happens just every four years. Democracy is a process, on-going, never settled. Yes Trump won, but a fair bit of gerrymandering (aka 'cheating') underpinned that win. He won whilst losing the popular vote. He still won, but that's no reason why the rest of the people should just 'suck it up'. They have the right to complain, bitch & moan, protest, agitate for change, lobby their representatives, bitch & moan some more, throw legal challenges at the administration, refuse to comply with instructions and unjust laws, and to say "Not in my name" when Donald Little Hands tries to impose his racist, misogynist, hate-filled policies. Other than that, I agree with you 100%.
^
This.
-
I'm sure you're a great teacher as was my wife. She did Special Ed language and speech in classes from one to four children who had psych problems as well. Tough environment. The problem is that the public school system and the unions work in ways that increase learning failure. Some teachers should be fired but can't due to unions. And the system protects kids against teachers because the politicians who want votes in the election backup the parents in situations where the kids should be disciplined and aren't. So the teachers hands are tied. Discipline breaks down and the good kids who want to learn fall behind as well. That doesn't happen in charter schools because the parents are on the teacher's side. They want their kids taught right and won't put up with any BS from their own kids like when we were kids. If my teacher told my parents I was acting up (can you believe that?), it was my parents that slapped me on the side of the head. Today, the parents complain to the school officials that the teacher is giving their kid a hard time and the kids act out worse. It's nuts! Good minority parents are desperate to get their kids in good learning environments - hence their support for charters that Devos supports. It's the unions that are opposed to her.
If the Feds provide money to the state, some of it should be for public and some for charters and some for vouchers to allow competition to improve schools overall. Teaching requirements though should not be mandated from Washington as I believe each local community knows best how they should teach their kids. For example, because of federal funding requirements, my wife wasted about ten minutes of every period filling out federal forms on her class teaching procedures. That was ten minutes every period that should have been spent with her kids. It's these wasteful requirements from Washington that just don't help at all.
Also, throw in there common core and all of the other requirements coming down from Washington. The amount of time lost to testing is absurd. Not to mention you are always told not to teach to the test, but then told if your students do poorly you could be out of a job or have funding decreased. So really, the only option is to teach to the test.
And insofar as even local and state broads deciding on what to teach, that can be a disaster as well. I use to teach high school math in NY state and we were the only state to have a Math A and Math B course, which integrated all of the fields of mathematics (you would teach in high school) into one. This does not make sense since geometric proofs have nothing to do with algebra and so on, they are all separate fields of study that build upon each other. It is much better to teach one field consistently over a long period of time so the students can build upon there knowledge instead of jumping back and forth.
Every math teacher I ever spoke to felt the same, however the state board (which at the time only had one person who actually taught, albeit 30 years removed) keep on pushing it down our throats. (This is no longer the case, but it took a long time and lots of money wasted on text books and supplies for the state to finally figure it out.)
Another great example was that we needed to use writing in some form in every single subject including math. Now one could argue that with geometry, this is essential, and it is. However, the writing here was not what they preferred, sentences and paragraphs to explain an outcome. High school students, even the good ones, have a hard time with proofs written in paragraph form, so we start them out with writing steps instead of complete sentences and paragraphs. Not to mention even the best students in high school do not have writing skills developed enough to handle abstract writing.
Now beyond geometry, no high school math teacher I spoke could figure out a way to use writing in algebra, trigonometry, calculus or even the super basic home ec. courses. We asked repeatably for examples to reference and were told, "they're out there, just research on the Internet." We could never find any and were constantly told we were not looking hard enough.
Another gem, teaching kids why 3 times 4 is 12 instead of making them memorize their times tables. Once again, sounds good, but when you are doing complicate algebra problems, it really slows you down if you constantly need to use a calculator to perform simple multiplication and division. (I really blame a lot of high school math problems on grade school teachers. Sorry, I've known too many that are okay with opening saying they are horrible at math, instead of being embarrassed by it, which should be the case, and avoid thoroughly teaching the subject.)
All this, and the politics of teaching destroyed all my interest in remaining a teacher and now I'm a photographer full time. Every now and then I think about it I am reminded that it has only become worse since I left and don't regret moving on.
When I was teacher, I was, like most, a staunch liberal and democrat. Now that I have 10 years worth of running a business, I look at all the problems caused and feel the opposite.
Now this is not to say most school districts are in shambles; they are not. However, the inner city schools are and they need a change. You can argue that all we need is more money, but when has that argument ever not been used by government cronies when talking about a failing government system? Plus, we have for years been giving more money all for not. Time for a something else.
Am I happy with the choice? No. I really would prefer someone with thorough teaching experience, but I cant support someone who is against charter schools at this moment in time.
-
Teaching to the test is poor teaching at best. Our public school system does not use that approach and students do very well. However, the common core was designed so that students had a standard for which to learn. This is the crucial fact in light of the disappointing performance of American students versus their foreign peers. If you don't like the common core, what type of standards do you propose?
The bigger issue with DeVos is her support for vouchers and that they might be used to send kids to religious schools. Of course this likely would be struck down as unconstitutional. Also Obama's Education Secretary was not opposed to charter schools.
Our school district doesn't have them because the public schools are so good that there is no outcry for them. It depends on where one lives. also in rural areas where the student populations are already low, charter schools are likely not to get any support.
On the first point, I absolutely agree. However, not teaching to the test is often not the case, especially when money and school reputations are on the line. No matter what teachers are told to do, they are always held to the results of the state and federal test scores of their students. This creates the situation where teachers start teaching to test, even if inadvertently, and it gets much worse in a subject with lots of material that need to be taught in a time frame not really long enough, like mathematics.
I use to be so jealous of history teachers; if they took a day off, they could just have the students watch a movie and catch up when they got back. The math curriculum was so jammed packed that taking one day off could really screw you up, especially with subs, most of whom had little to no skills in math, and could not control a class room.
In the second point above, I would seriously hope that that would be deemed unconstitutional. Even though I am a conservative, it is only on the economic side. I am one of the most non-religious people you could meet and I am always extremely frustrated by the religious right infiltrating the republican party, which is against almost all of our founding fathers principles.
Last, I totally agree on the last point. Charter schools are not needed in almost all school districts. In the city where I live, I believe though they serve a good purpose.
P.S., I did not notice the the question you asked in the first paragraph.
Unfortunately in the current environment, students are tested on a national and state level, so twice. This just waste too much time and puts too much stress on the teachers making sure they cover everything. I do agree we need standards, however I would prefer to see them at the state level. Leave it the case that suits can be brought against the state by citizens within federal court if they feel certain requirements are unconstitutional, but leave it at that.
Now, insofar as disappointing scores, I feel this is quite misleading. Many countries separate their students in high school in different curriculums, such as college bound or trade bound, but only really test the college bound students and publish those scores. We though are trying to teach all students to the same level (accept for special education and developmentally challenged.) Second, increase in education does not necessarily equate to an increase in success. So trying to get all students to a certain higher level is not necessarily going to improve the overall economic success.
I know body shop repairman with nothing more then a high school degree that buy and sell both me and you.
I guess I could also add a third here too. I thoroughly believe the biggest problem with out school system is the decrease in family values when it comes to education. Students who are smart tend to have parents who really push them and keep up on their education. Every smart student I taught had parents who came to every parent teacher conference. The bad students, I never heard from or meet their parents no matter what (until maybe the last week of school asking what was wrong with my class since their child was failing.) I'm not sure how you fix this.
-
So, I recently read an opinion in the The Guardian that seems to make a lot of sense...
As does the conclusion to this one, (https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/feb/08/obama-richard-branson-trump?utm_source=esp&utm_medium=Email&utm_campaign=GU+Today+main+NEW+H+categories&utm_term=212406&subid=19387794&CMP=EMCNEWEML6619I2) today ..
Whether or not the current stay on Trump’s US entry ban stands, this early confrontation with the checks and balances built into the US constitution reveals a basic ignorance and superficiality in his attempt to impose a “strong man” rule on America. The founding fathers put these checks and balances in place to prevent the rise of a tyrant. Resisting tyranny was the central premise of the republican (with a small r) tradition of political theory on which the 18th-century American revolution rests.
In our horror, we are missing the point that perhaps Obama has grasped. The Trump “movement” – as Trump likes to call it – died on inauguration day. That row about the numbers of people in Washington’s National Mall? It mattered. For without a mass movement that makes itself physically – and dangerously – felt on the streets, there can be no future for Mussolini-style bluster.
Trump has a stay-at-home electorate of reality tv fans. It is the left who are on the streets. It is his enemies who have the youth, anger and numbers.
Obama is smiling because he knows this is going to be the most ineffectual dictatorship ever – and soon we won’t be worrying about Trump. We will be deriding his incompetence.
-
Not just today! As anyone who has read the works of the great American political scientist, Richard Hofstadter, well knows, anti-intellectualism has a long and storied life in the US. In fact it was the title of one of his books.
BTW - Nordstrom stock is up another 3% this morning. Keep up the Tweets Mr President!!!
Come on Alan, I would expect you of all on this forum to know ...
Short term increases in stocks should not be used for investment advice nor counted as gains. We need to wait and see what goes on those racks next and how well they sell.
-
Yes, I know that! :) By the way, the President's counselor, Kellyanne Conway is in hot water as she told everyone watching Fox and Friends this am to go out and buy Ivanka Trump clothes and jewelry. Apparently she isn't aware that this violates the ethics laws that she is subject to as a government employee. It keeps getting funnier with each passing day.
It's interesting for sure, but I think most of what is being published in the news thus far is just banter, on the left and the right. I think congress is giving them a grace period to complying with the law, on the ethics and business side, since no one there has ever been in politics before.
It will probably turn out to be an year, then elections campaigns will start setting some republicans straight. Will Lindsey Graham be the first to take on Trump? They do hate each other; maybe we will find out his new cell phone number.
However, one silver lining is that Trump has backed off his stance on reversing relations with Cuba, or at least that is what it appears to be.
I was in Cuba three weeks ago, and if Cuba becomes more capitalist to the point were you can invest and then the congress opens it up to to allow us to do so, I know where a good amount of my money is going.
You never know, there ain't no Trump hotels there yet, so maybe that will bug him enough. 8)
-
If we go to war with Namibia, I'll enlist just for the landscape and music!
This is pretty funny!
Namibia First (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NpKdOEv6Vyo)
The whole world is trolling Trump ;D
-
Even companies as Google and Apple; innovators as they are- know nothing to do with their immense capital.
Meaning they rather have it at the bank, instead of investing it in the real economy.
In the 1950’s Roosevelt put money in the real economy making the USA flourish. All citizens were helped with this investment.
Now, the real economy suffers, especially the poor real economy.
I think those people - left behind - have voted for Trump and they are right to be angry, but i don’t think Trump will change this financial system for the benefit of those people that voted for him. His current actions seems to indicate he will make it easier for the financial market to create new bubbles.
Obama had the right timing with the crisis to make a change, but he failed to do so. I think Bernie Sanders might have been the best president now that could make this necessary change happen.
Come on now, banks don't just hoard money and keep it locked in their vaults. They lend it, or at least that is what they want to do. If not, they don't make any money.
The financial crisis was caused by too much lending and in true American fashion, we totally over reacted after the crash making it harder to get a loan. Now small businesses who want to expand cant get the capital to do so because of too many regulations, Dodd-Frank being the largest. On top of that, the shear amount of new regulations put into effect make it impossible for any bank without a large staff to follow law and the lending requirements make it harder for them to make money.
You think it is just by happenstance that we have had a net negative growth in the banking sector along with large increases in overall banking fees?
This is the real problem, the life blood of growing the economy is being held back. Not only does this indirectly prevent businesses from growing, but since banks also create money, it is keeping the economy from growing as well.
And the financial center is not some abstract separate economy. If allowed to operate correctly, our economy should be booming. Yes, one can make an argument that, aside from the IPOs, trading stocks really does no one any good but the investors, investors such as every single person who has a retirement fund in almost the entire world.
The problem is socialism does not work, and Obama really force fed it to us. Clinton would have continued it, maybe less so, but Sanders would have made it worse.
It's interesting how many people are for socialism but fail to look at the countries (who don't receive massive amounts of aid such as those in the Eastern block whom the USA protects from Russia) where it is actually implemented. I totally understand the altruistic concept of helping everyone out and creating a big safety net, but in every country socialism is applied, that country eventually collapses.
I was in Cuba recently and the government in 2013 was forced to make it legal for private citizens to open their own restaurants (due to an extremely weak economy). What a novel concept!
Turns out the private restaurants are booming and making money hand over fist. As a matter of fact, some with medical degrees are choosing to serve tables instead of practice medicine because they can make more money. This is one of the most bazaar things I heard while there, but if you think about it, it kind of makes sense. Medicine on the island is controled by the government and is a socialist economy, whereas the paladars are pure capitalism.
-
Actually that is not true. The National Federation of Independent Business, the trade group that represents small firms regularly surveys their membership and access to capital is never a bit issue for them.
I don't understand this statement. I own stock in several big money center banks and their growth since the recovery from the great recession has been just fine according to my brokerage account (as well as their financial filings).
Economy has done better than all other countries save 'maybe' China since 2008. Sure we would all like 4% growth per year but I don't think that will ever be in the cards unless we really try to overheat things and then inflation will come roaring back.
Meaning???? I've been investing in stocks ever since I was a teenager (a long time ago!) and find that the stock market is pretty reflective of the overall economy.
Please describe in detail all or at least some of the socialistic things that Obama force fed us. Don't tell me it was the Affordable Care Act either as that was something that the Heritage Foundation came up with (I have the original work paper from them in my files as well as a Wall Street Journal op-ed on the topic). Private sector delivery of health care cannot in any way be described as socialistic.
It depends on what you are defining as socialism. certainly the Scandinavian countries provide a lot of free social welfare for their citizens and they seem to be reasonably stable. The Netherlands might also fall into this category but they do rely on mandatory private health insurance to care for all citizens.
Cuba was and still is a dictatorship and I don't think you can confuse that with democratic socialism
On the first point, I happen to disagree.
Second point, I am not talking about the overall financial growth of the banking sector, but the overall number of new banks created. The banking sector is contracting to fewer banks overall even though the amount of business may be going up. This is the first time on the history of the country for there to be negative growth in amount of banks for an extended period of time.
Third, just because the economy has been growing does not mean it is doing good, or nearly as good as it could have been. The was a great article on CNN rating Obama's presidency, and one of the commentators made great points about how his economic success is severally lacking and if you look below the surface, past the overall job numbers, the date is pretty lack luster. The rate of growth has been hampered by regulations. I realize you are a big government guy and don't see anything wrong with regulations, however on the ground, they hinder growth.
My clients (I work mainly with architects) see it all the time. Projects are killed due to too many regulations that often are pointless. Recently, there was a regulation that was initially passed but recanted (amazing) that all new single family homes needed sprinter systems. I could see multi-family complexes, but installing sprinklers in every home would be crazy expensive. This is just one example.
Obama certainly would have took us to a more socialist state if he could have, and I think the projection was in the that direction. Look at all of the regulations.
Insofar as the investor comment, that was to show that the stock market and such is not some separate piece of the economy that only benefits a few. Many people have this idea that no one but those directly working in stocks benefit from that sector. I was just showing this is not the case and sited an example of how the stock market helps nearly everyone, such as in retirement savings.
Scandinavia and the Netherland ... I have to get back to you with my thoughts here.
Cuba may be a dictatorship, but that has nothing to do with how the economy is or is not controlled. A country can be communist or socialist and still be a dictatorship.
-
...Even more annoying: I watched Sky News' financial spot last night and they floated a graph indicating that today's pensioners are so much more wealthy than the younger people in their late twenties; it was claimed that the average pensioner earns about £24,000 a year. I just received a note from the Pensions agency telling me that from mid-April, my state pension will rise to £123.99 (note the generosity in the 0.99!) a week, which last time I wound up the calculator, made a yearly sum of £6447.48...
That £24,000 would of course include a working lifetime of contributions to occupational pensions for those in employment and a working lifetime of contributions to personal pensions for the self employed.
-
It is important to distinguish between nominal interest rates (that all seem to remember and compare) from real interest rates, i.e., nominal minus inflation. In other words, interest rates could have been in the double digits, but inflation was just as well. Both are low today.
But looks like Rob is right: in the eighties, the real rates were quite positive:
Yes, they were fantastic, I remember them well, but as Alan has suggested you can't rely on interest rates over a period of decades to provide constant levels of income. Broadly speaking pensions won, property won, savings lost.
Over to the statisticians...
-
If religion is important for you, then the best solution is to live in a country which supports your particular flavour of religion. That's pragmatic.
So what's Britain to do, then ?
Substantial Muslim population, ethnically diverse and none of this will be 'rebalanced' with Brexit ...
-
Moderator's Note: This comment and accompanying pictures were not consistent with our guidelines and have been removed.
-
How many people have you employed? How much in salaries do you pay out every year?
So you think you can only criticize other people if you've done the same or better.
I don't think so, it's just a feeble try to salvage your position, but in my mind it only undermines it further.
-
... On the other hand liberals tend to get their news from multiple sources and tend to trust multiple sources of news....
(http://rs862.pbsrc.com/albums/ab187/rocker_4u/Unnamedggdgdgd.gif~c200)
Sorry, I couldn't find a patting-yourself-on-the-back gif... this would do, I hope.
-
As someone who once was guilty of committing journalism, let me add that (at least for those of us in the United States; I don't have sufficient experience with news media in other countries to generalize) it's important to distinguish between the way the traditional print press covers Trump and the way the all-news cable TV channels do. With a few notable exceptions at the extremes of the political spectrum, almost all of the former have a review process in which editors try to remove any obvious bias from straight news reporting before a piece is published. In some cases—the New York Times is a notable example—there typically will be multiple levels of editing before a story about government or politics makes it into print. The need to feed online news sites has truncated this editorial process to some extent by tightening deadline cycles, but even there the requirement for a review by an editor mostly remains intact.
All-news cable TV is a very different kind of medium. First, the reporter often speaks directly and extemporaneously to the audience, in real-time; other than a quick chat with a director in a central studio, there is no opportunity to review what the reporter is about to say, and no doubt afterwards many of them cringe at the way their words came out. Even when a report is contained in a video that is produced prior to airtime, the editorial review, such as it is, typically consists of nothing more than a hurried edit by a field producer (basically another reporter who doesn't appear on camera), and these days, given budget constraints that limit the size of television crews, often not even that. Second, cable TV outlets in this country mostly fill their airtime with commentary by either their own staff members or guests—sometimes paid consultants, sometimes public figures who want the exposure—who are selected to represent particular points-of-view. These news media function more like the opinion pages of a newspaper than the news columns.
Trump presents a novel problem for everybody in the news business. He often says things that are probably or demonstrably untrue. It isn't always clear what his motives are. Sometimes he appears to be repeating what "somebody" told him. Sometimes he seems to be conjuring up an example to fit his narrative. Sometimes he apparently doesn't have any information on a particular subject and blurts out the first random thought that pops into his head. Occasionally, it sounds as though he is delusional. And probably sometimes he is lying. If you're a conscientious reporter, the only easy case is when he says something that might be true but for which he offers no evidence; then you can simply write or say that. When what he says is obviously false, you're faced with a difficult decision about how to characterize it. That's where it's very useful to have a second (or third, etc.) pair of eyes and—preferably—enough time prior to deadline to make a considered decision.
-
Presidents have been complaining about news' bias for years. Obama complained that Fox news made him look bad. I guess he was happy the way CNN, MSNBD, ABC, CBS, NBC and all the other (liberal) stations treated him, the opposite with Trump. Liberals and Democrats once tried to use the FCC under Obama to shut down Fox and take their license to broadcast away, saying they were biased. It appears freedom of the press only applies to Liberal media.
Sources, even fake ones?
Cheers,
Bart
-
Donald Trump spotted in Manchester UK (http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2017/02/21/22/3D7BBADD00000578-4247132-image-a-13_1487715799115.jpg)
-
Speaking about health issues, this election indeed produced adverse effects for at least half the population: shock, derangement, anger, anxiety, uncontrollable sobbing, clinical depression, etc. I think the next elections should come with a Surgeon General warning ;) ;D
And that's just the Trump supporters!
Boom boom.
-
And 15 minutes ago (Former U.S. intelligence chief rejects Trump wiretap accusation):
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-idUSKBN16C0MG
Cheers,
Bart
-
Out of curiosity, how would you rewrite that to be "accurate?"
As reported and worded by Spiegel:
Der 36 Jahre alte Mann aus dem Kosovo hatte am Vorabend neun Menschen mit einer Axt verletzt, vier von ihnen schwer. Unter den Verletzten sind auch ein 13-jähriges Mädchen aus Düsseldorf und zwei italienische Touristinnen.
The 36-year-old man from Kosovo had injured nine people with an ax in the evening, four of them seriously. Among the injured are also a 13-year-old girl from Düsseldorf and two Italian tourists.
-
They don't integrate and become real citizens. I'm not saying America doesn't have problems. But I feel we deal with it better because of our immigrant past and present. Immigrants want to become part of the American dream as America is not only a country. It's a state of mind.
Can this be the same America that until the mid 1960's legally practised racial segregation including sending black women to prison for marrying white men??
Kettle Pot Black.
-
It is a small world. So glad you were friends. I lost track of Steve. He remarried. The whole thing was a nightmare. Something no family should have to go through. Alan.
Yep, one million dead in Iraq, something no family should have to go through, something to think about.
To be honest, left and right fight in America, the consequences is that millions suffer as a result.
It seems to be a vacuum, ideology versus results, oh yeah a lot of people died but my party won.
Grrrr,
-
What makes Jihadism continue, one million deaths in Iraq.
Three thousand deaths in America, was a maelstrom, imagine what America's response has created in the Islamic world.
Food for thought,
-
I think you're right; I also think that we should get rid of state subsidies to artists. I see grants as a very doubtful strategy.
By all means fund art schools, but then let that education be the limit of the state's intervention. I see no reason at all why individuals should be funded through the public coffers once they have had their training. Subsidies simply create unnatural prices and extend the misery or, alternatively, the publicly-funded pleasures of ego-trippers riding a horse they never personally learned to break in to their requirements: a horse called Business. If you believe yourself an artist, great, just don't imagine that the rest of society might owe you for that.
I think public museums and galleries should get good funding in order to keep and also to buy great work, but not so the folks who want to get their stuff hanging inside them. Ditto dancers: because you want to leap around showing the size of your upholstered cluster is fine, just as long as you do it on your own dollar, pound, euro or whatever; I'm sure lots of rubles are still headed that way - so there's an idea.
Why would one think it moral to draw the line at artists? Why not pay weekend fishermen and hang-gliders for having their versions of fun, too? It's unreasonable to limit public funds to one section of self-entertainment but not to all others.
;-)
Rob C
I don't know about that Rob. Look at countries that do help fund and protect the arts. Also look at the work done during the dust bowl and the great depression by the FSA and also some of the great art that came out of that period with the government putting all of those artists to work. It was an amazing time for the visual arts in this country.
Heres my take on all of this.
(http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y118/airfrogusmc/airfrogusmc033/L5000297_zpsgpjrarpj.jpg)
-
There are situations where the commercial sector is well-placed to provide goods and services and some for which it is not. That's about all you can say on the subject. Painting the discussion black or white is self-evidently silly, why do we continue to do so?
There are many instances of market failure where guvmint intrusion seems to be the only way forward. Do you think the "free market" would have eliminated slavery in the 19th century or "Jim Crow" in the 20th? What do you think high import tariffs to protect certain industries are if not guvmint intrusion in a "free" market?
Do you think that the "free market" is aided by allowing large corporations to become near-monopolies? It's not who owns the company that makes it efficient (whatever efficient means), it's whether or not there is competition. We seem to have forgotten that in our headlong rush to make a small percentage of people really rich, in the hopes that they will turn around and bless the rest of us with some jobs.
Do people really think that it's not important to insure that the water and air remain non-toxic? Do you really think that industry will voluntarily see to that, despite centuries of evidence that no one individual gives a crap about the "commons" unless penalties and supervision are in place to make sure of it?
NPR is an arm of the guvmint? That's hysterical. Worldwide, the ONLY media outlets that have any validity anymore are the ones that have some measure of autonomy guaranteed by mandate. Nearly all the private media is a farce.
I find it hilarious when people quote some obscure paragraph from Adam Smith that suits their immediate debating points, as if Mr. Smith was the last word on the subject, but at the same time choose to ignore his own words and those of many others on the importance of a healthy guvmint sector.
I also find it amusing that some people seem to think that the "swamp" only exists in Washington D.C. Do you not think there are swamps in every state capital, in every head office of every corporation, in every military base, in every guvmint-funded "security" establishment? I also find it amusing that people religiously think that Trump isn't part of that swamp and that he will change it. If that isn't irrational religious belief, I don't know what is.
First, I would have more respect for this post if you did not go out of your way to misspell government. Typically, doing so is a clear insult to the right from those on the left whenever a lefty uses "guvmint" or, even worse, "Merica."
However, I digress.
The role of government is to protect its citizens. The repeal of slavery and Jim Crow laws has nothing to do with economics or capitalism; it has everything to do with protection. The civil right movement was about giving all an equal chance. Not to mention, the free market party, the Republicans, were the ones who spear headed the civil right movement while still being for free markets.
Third, if you study economics you would see that markets that are more heavily regulated tend to shrink and contract, and the cost of entry goes up. Markets that are less regulated tend to have more players in the field and are less costly to enter. (Cost of entry is a relative term, so lets not say well, you cant just open an auto company because it would be too expensive. That would be an uneducated remark, not to mention that is why we have investment banks.)
Sure, there are some exceptions, however for the most part, more regulated, less competition; less regulated, more competition.
Forth, the reason a small percentage of people are really rich has nothing to do with monopolies. It has to do with the fact that successful companies using the Internet can sell to a much larger geography. Additionally, modern technologies increase logistically efficient and shipping cost have gone down. This increases revenues and give those at the top more bargaining power for higher salaries.
Last, if a private company has a swamp, then it will fail, and only the investors will loose money. If government has a swamp, it will fail, but usually no one gets fired, and then they ask for money, usually get it, and we are all left on the hook for the mistakes.
-
*deleted
-
Well, invading Afhjanistan was quite costly. Maybe the idea is that the Norwegians find a faraway country to invade, and hence bump up their defence expenditures?
If you're going to ignore someone's quotes, especially those that are not insulting, I think it would also be best to ignore others' responses to those whom you are ignoring as well.
Doing other wise just propagates a more negative persona onto yourself.
-
That's not socialism, that's communism...and no, I don't espouse that. Socialism doesn't demand total public ownership, that's communism.
I'm perfectly happy to pay taxes for the government to provide services for myself and society in general. But again, you are demanding a binary answer while the actual reality of "socialist government" is far more complex and is a blend of multiple ideologies...
Pure capitalism couldn't work any better than pure communism.
Yes it is.
Socialism in it purest sense is:
Socialism shares similarities to communism but to a lesser extreme. As in communism, equality is the main focus. Instead of the workers owning the facilities and tools for production, workers are paid and allowed to spend their wages as they choose, while the governing body owns and operates the means of production for the benefit of the working class. Each worker is provided with necessities so he is able to produce without worry for his basic needs. Still, advancement and production are limited because there is no incentive to achieve more. Without motivation to succeed, such as the ability to own an income-producing business, workers' human instincts prohibit drive and desire that is produced through such incentives.
When words lose their meaning, people lose their power.
In a socialistic society, you would not be allowed to continue to own your studio. It would become owned by the state.
Any governance that you promote where you are still allowed to own your studio is more capitalistic then socialistic.
On top of that, the only real difference is that with communism the workers own everything with a government overseeing the property. In socialism, the government owns all and oversees the use of the property for the benefit of the workers. So really the difference is just semantics.
-
Preposterous and indefensible. I live in a "socialist" country and nobody's putting a gun to my head, metaphorically or realistically. We're smarter than that.
How about libraries? Do you really think that in the current capitalism-at-all-costs climate that anyone could countenance public libraries? Piracy! Copy protection! You're stealing my work! Ask Schewe what he thinks about public libraries letting people use his work for free.
Libraries? Your using libraries as an example in this current environment?
Don't get me wrong, 10 or more years ago, libraries offered a great service. With the Internet, I am not so sure any more. I mean, in all seriousness, what purpose do they continue to serve. (And I mean public libraries, not University Libraries, which are a totally different entity.)
-
You know, it's really interesting.
I'm sitting here working on images while listening to the 7 part PBS Series on the Civil War, and it was mentioned the Chicago Tribune greatly insulted President Lincoln on his Gettysburg Address the day after it was given, which is now universally considered the most powerful and meaningful speech in our history.
It's an interesting perspective on how easily and often the media gets it wrong, even with the greatest of things.
-
#NewSwamp
Trump Couple, Now White House Employees, Can’t Escape Conflict Laws (https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/01/us/politics/ivanka-trump-jared-kushner-conflicts-business-empire.html?&hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&clickSource=story-heading&module=first-column-region®ion=top-news&WT.nav=top-news)
Then there's Bannon...Bannon Made Millions in Shaping Right-Wing Thought (https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/31/business/dealbook/how-some-top-trump-aides-made-their-fortunes.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&clickSource=story-heading&module=first-column-region®ion=top-news&WT.nav=top-news)
So we only want to elect poor folks who haven't accomplished anything or know much to make major decisions about the running of our economy and government. Sure won't be any conflict there. Maybe we have to take a chance and hire rich, bright, creative and effective people who know how to execute and then hold their feet to the fire to make sure there are no conflicts.
All this gnashing of teeth from liberals and the elite about Trump when the rich Clintons were selling their souls for speaking engagement fees to give rich people, companies, wall street, and sovereigns access to their power.
#SwampRats
#MAGA
Yeah, right...if you believe that, I got a bridge I'll sell you...
-
Joe, please point out to me how Congress encouraged the housing bubble that began in 2000. Do not use the Community Reinvestment Act which has been thoroughly debunked. Tell me how Congress interacted with WaMu, IndyMac, Wachovia, and Countrywide (the four largest subprime lenders). There is nothing there.
Once again, I am not saying they actively engaged in creating the bubble. However, it was practice for the congress encourage homeownership and most in congress looked at all these homes being bought to be a plus, regardless if some of those people could not possibly afford them.
I don't remember one politician talking negatively about the growth in homeownership at the time.
-
Lots of people/voters are quite gullible (and only get informed through Social Media) and will be influenced in their (not) voting behavior.
Cheers,
Bart
This can be said of both sides Bart. You can keep your doctor and your insurance, Bengazhi was caused by an Internet video, ISIS is nothing more then a JV team, etc. etc. etc. ... oh wait, those were all deliberate lies.
There are several people who vote Democrat for no other reason then they are told to.
At the end of the day, after all of this settles, the story will be that HRC was a bad candidate that ran a bad campaign. Trump will be a bad candidate that ran a "better" campaign.
-
Yes, a lot of people point to this but the central question is often missed. What the heck were they even doing on Anthony Wiener's laptop to begin with. Was Clinton's top assistant, Huma Abedin that naive that she used her husband's laptop to manager her email account? This has to go down as one of the most foolish things anyone has done who held such a high position. If there is someone central to blame it is Ms. Abedin. Comey was in a difficult position on this one because of the New York bureau who absolutely loathed Clinton and were constantly leaking things to the Trump campaign through Giuliani.
The irony of this story is amazing, I just can't wrap my head around it sometimes.
A man name Wiener, a known sexual deviant being investigated by the FBI for texting pics of his ... "wiener" to a teenage girl during the campaign, just happens to be married to the woman, Huma, who is Clinton's top assistant and should have known better then to use her husband's computer for work, especially for her work, is the reason Comey had to reopen the investigation two weeks before the election.
I think the whole situation is a great example of the Clintons' overall carelessness and indifference in handling their affairs.
-
Jeff, I feel like this, for you, has become nothing more then your go to spot for personal therapy activities. Your posts seem to be very much about self assurance then interaction.
-
(raises hand)
Q1 Big Corporations
Q2 The Citizens
Very similar to the ACA.
-
Heck Obama said it well last week... ACA has a higher approval rating than Trump does (boy that must piss him off) do you honestly think the GOP will learn how to govern?
But 80% of those using the ACA don't pay full price, or anything at all. So for us who studied statistics, wo would need to take these opinions with a grain of salt since, well, usually you don't complain about something you get for free or next to nothing. It's an inherent bias.
I would love to see a report on how people feel from only those paying full price without any subsidies.
But I do agree, that must surely piss him off regardless of my comments above.
-
Actually that was the Pope who was warning about populist leaders being like Hitler. And you were the the one that called Trump a populist leader who was like a plauge (which I agree with) on both of their houses...
So was Hitler a populist leader in Germany? Did Trump run as a popular leader? So, is the Pope right to warn the US and Europe of the dangers of populist leaders? Hey it was Time magazine the put Trump and Hitler on the cover- which trump likes to brag about (being on the cover-not beong compared to Hitler) although it seems Hitler's book Mein Kampf used sit on his nite stand according to one if his exwives...
Jeff, really, it is kind of ridiculous when someone is compared to Hitler, whether it be the many times Trump has been, or when HRC was, or even when Obama was compared to him, and those whom not only agree with this but also propagate it are being ridiculous as well.
I really don't care what side of the isle you are on, if you make that comparison you are being a tool for your side.
Not only that, but you are diminishing the infamy of Hitler in the Process. Ever see Idiocracy with "Hitler Chaplin?" It's comments like this that bring our collective closer to that fiction.
Until Trump, or Obama or HRC, commits genocide, there is no comparison.
-
Partial judges in my country would need to find a different occupation very fast because that is not tolerated. Judges are there to apply the Law, irrespective of their personal persuasions, they are impartial. Because interpretations of the law are possible, courts in the Netherlands are presided by multiple (at least 3) judges for complicated or important cases or appeals.
The situation in the USA seems to be highly politicized from my perspective (or as portrayed by you), and thus not very 'just' (except for good judges).
Cheers,
Bart
It's nearly impossible to have a judge removed from office over here. Judges, once appointed or elected, are lifetime appointments.
-
You need to clarify that this only pertains to Federal judges. State and local judges are not lifetime appointments (at least all the states that I am familiar with). Even so there are Federal judges who have been removed from office for malfeasance.
True.
-
It's only a recurring question to people who don't like him, who look for every excuse to "knock" him. The rest of us are hopeful he'll get some good things done for America, and the world.
Maybe for " your world " but not for the " real world " ... a blinkered world seems to be somewhere you is somewhere you inhabit ???
-
These are quotes from Mr. Obama's farewell speech.
NEVER got any good change? What does it take for you? Perhaps pragmatism and realistic aren't in your vocabulary.
Rich
Come on now, really?
Obama was graded on CNN by economists and they gave him a C-. Sure, he did do things that he felt would help with the economy, but any president would have, so he can not be judged by merely doing something. You have to look at the outcomes, which are: stagnate wages (shown time and time again in the first Friday's reports and contradicting what he said in that 2nd paragraph), one of lowest labor participation rates in history, which is not reflected in employment numbers, an average family income that has virtually not changed. That longest period of job creation averaged less then the growth of the population, so the only way the unemployment number came down was from people dropping out of the workforce. Not to mention most of those jobs created are part time in the low paying service industry.
Reboot of the auto industry?
Well Ford never took any money and they are doing well, and who is to say that if the other two did not declare bankruptcy they would not have faired better. Contracts would have been renegotiated, debts would have been lowered, and, on the slight chance they did go all the way to insolvency, another company would have bought them. Possibly better managed them too. Also, the other auto makers in the USA (VW, BMW, Honda, etc.) never took any money and are doing well.
"Today, the economy is growing again; wages, incomes, home values, and retirement accounts are rising again; poverty is falling again."
Like I mentioned above, wages and family income are still stagnate. Home values may have come up for their low, but that is more then likely a market force. Retirement accounts are up, but that is due to the stock market that is loving the FED right now. Unfortunately, when the next recession hits, the FED won't be able to do anything since the rates are still at 0, which is going to happen since we are in a stock market bubble.
Insofar as Iran shutting down the nuclear program, that was a direct result of GW Bush's actions of implanting an extremely well designed virus that attacked the computers that controlled the rotors in the refinement process, titled Stuxnet. Of course, Iran did not know this, and thought their scientists incompetent at the time, and if you can't produce the goods, why continue to deal with the bad publicity. Now Iran knows they were had (of course won't admit to it, why would you, and the USA won't admit to it either for obvious reasons), so I am sure eventually they will either restart the program in secret or buy from N. Korea.
(Why else would N. Korea being doing these tests? There just advertisements and since they sell every other weapon they produce, they will probably try to sell weapons grade nuclear material. Iran wants it, if not for anything else but to shove it in Israel's face.)
Listen, I get it, Trump is crass and rough around the edges (like really damn rough), and Obama was well spoken. Although all of those great speeches still let him oversee more then a 1000 Dems loose their seats.
-
Some of us think otherwise. Dodd/Frank was massive in addressing a number of issues related to the financial meltdown. The Consumer Protection Bureau is already saving a lot of money for ordinary citizens. Obamacare offered good insurance to independent workers (my two daughters) for a reasonable price. We also got two good new women Supreme Court justices.
Personally I feel Dodd-Frank was a bad bill that is inadvertently effecting small banks, due to the shear amount of regulations introduced. This is reflected in the fact that we have had a period of negative creation of banking institutions for the first time in history after the bill was introduced.
The CPB may be a good thing. I think it is far too young to make a judgment.
Good insurance existed on the open market well before the ACA was implemented. I know, I bought it.
-
If proof was ever needed: this mornng in The Guardian -
How Trump Thinks: His Tweets and the Birth of a New Political Language by Peter Oborne and Tom Roberts - review in The Guardian
How Trump thinks? Some would say he’s incapable of it. Ignorant and incurious, given to impromptu rants, jerked to and fro by a cabal of conspiracy theorists, shock jocks and doom-mongers, he is the very epitome of thoughtlessness. Beneath that curvaceous quiff, behind that permatanned pout, his mind is a broiling elemental chaos.
[..]
Oborne and Roberts single out one particular tweet that displays the man, in their words, at his “most repulsive”. When Nelson Mandela died, Trump alleged that he’d enjoyed “a wonderful relationship” with this great martyr of conscience, a modern secular saint. Never mind that they’d hardly met: they were both celebrities, which raised them above the lumpen status of those Trump sniffily calls “civilians” – a category that includes the dimwit have-nots who elected him president.
-
I wonder how soon Comey's book will be coming out?
I'm sure there were publishers at his door before he even got home.
-
We don't need the Federal government imposing it's will across all 50 states. The Constitution gave that power to the people and the States, not the federal government. Let each state decide what they want to do in schools with their food program as they should with the curricula. We got to get out of this idea that Washington DC is the know it all. Let people at the local and state levels decide how they want to live, learn, eat and die.
Wasn't there a big backlash to Michelle Obama's school food program? I kind of remember a hashtag being made by students to protest against it.
Amazing how that was not written about in the article; that no one actually liked what she did.
-
So, how has that been working' for ya bud?
Pretty piss poor, which is why the states should not be allowed to fail to meet minimum standards.
The states have already proven their incompetence hence the severe health problem of pediatric obesity which then evolves into adult obesity which evolves into Type 2 diabetes.
So, ask yourself, who benefits?
High sodium, high sugar, processed foods, who benefits?
Follow the money...this is Trump's new swamp.
Jeff, you're really reaching for straws here, and this sounds borderline conspiracy theory, as if Trump is purposely doing this to enrich the healthcare industry.
Not everything is the government's fault; people do need to take responsibility for themselves, such as eating healthy. There is a big difference between forcing someone to eat healthy vs. teaching them to do so.
Makes me think of the new soda tax here in Philly. Are people drinking less soda, no. They are just shopping outside of the city now, for all their needs, hurting the city's economy. Stores are already laying off staff due to loss of sales. Not to mention there is a growing dislike for City Hall; maybe it will make way for a republican mayor. :D
Maybe we should try and get parents (by far, the most influential people in a child's life) to teach there kids to eat healthy. Maybe parents should be responsible for there child's life. Anything else is a moot point, trust me, I use to be a teacher.
Anyway I eat healthy. I exercise on a regular basis. (Not to mention my work requires me to be on my feet all day walking around with heavy technical cameras and 100s lb of lighting gear.) How about you? Do you exercise, do you eat healthy? Because if you don't, your post is nothing more then hot air.
Lead by example!
-
Kids want to eat junk food and don't like being told to eat something healthy instead? I'm not sure that's newsworthy :-)
Yes, but nether is her criticism of the current situation, but they did report on that.
The problem I have with this whole eat healthy thing is we don't give any responsibility to the parents. We expect the government to solve the problem just like with getting children to do better in school. But guess what, study after study have shown without parental involvement, more then likely it won't work.
Sure, a handful of kids will get it, but the most won't and no politician addresses this. I get it though, it's kind of hard to tell a room full of parents that they are really bad parents without backlash; look at outcry when Obama talked about being a good father. But it needs to be done.
-
Well, my wife and I are primarily plant based with seafood. We avoid processed foods, high sodium and sugars. I no longer smoke or drink alcohol and I've even switched from Diet Coke to Perrier because of the chemicals and food coloring. We have workout equipment and a personal trainer. I have had serious health issues recently so I'm working on radically improving my health...thanks for asking :~)
So, maybe my post is something more than hot air?
That's great, so yes, maybe your post is more then hot air.
Nothing more annoying then when a personal trainer who is overweight tries to sell me at the pool or gym.
-
Yes, I'm from Chicago but my daughter is 34 yrs old so I have no dog in that hunt. I really don't care other than the fact that the teachers end up getting the shaft.
But the inability of the city of Chicago and the state of Illinois to effectively run the schools kinda runs afoul of the argument of "keep the feds out" and let the states and local communities handle education even if they end up screwing everything up.
No it does not.
Sometimes people need to learn the hard way, and if your state royally screwed up, then they need to learn how to fix it. Sure, other states would be happy to provide "guidance," but the solution should come from your wallets, not mine. After all, we got our own problems to deal with in PA.
In reality, the unions have grown too strong. Politicians just gave the unions whatever they wanted for votes. Combine this with the fact that we are no longer the only manufacturing base in the world (Europe, China, Japan have rebuilt since WW2, India and S. America is now open), and we just can not afford these petitions as they are.
This is the new reality. All other professions dropped their price points and wages; I feel no sympathy for the union workers trying to hold onto the pre-2007 price/wage schemes.
As a matter of fact, I scoff at them. In Center City Philly, the price of union labor is higher today then it was before the recession. Businesses are hiring non-union is areas no one would have dared to 10 years. The giant Rats and Fat Cats are being inflated all over the place. But no one cares, especially when their craftsmanship is hit or miss on projects. I have photographed so many union projects in Philly and the end result is pathetic, especially for what they charge.
(In NYC though, the Unions are worth their price. The union craftsmanship there is top notch. In Philly, there is no guarantee that you will get the quality you are paying for, which makes the situation even more comical.)
Well anyway drove 5 hours yesterday to shoot a building today and the weather forecast looked great. Woke up to it raining; there was no rain in the forecast. Sometimes I envy the studio photographers.
-
Like everything else, the union movement has accomplished both good and bad things. What I don't get is why people are not as bothered by corporate monopolies.
I would like to say not all union projects are sub-par; most turn out very good. But when your work is not consistently exceptional and you insist on charging high prices, you kind of damage your cause. Combine this with all the headaches, like the giant Rat, which does more harm then good from a marketing stand point, and people start to hate you.
Also, many of the protest with the Rat are not in front of large chain stores or big business; I could understand that, although not agree with it. Most are in front of small businesses, like a local coffee and sandwich shop down the street, or a privately owned daycare around the corner.
-
You are absolutely right, Ray, the most effective way to educate the general population on the proper nutrition, would be to add such a subject in all schools.
And while we are at it, such classes should be offered as a refreshment course also for all doctors. Most practising physicians never learnt anything about the nutrition as a tool to prevent and heal diseases.
2,500 years ago, Hippocrates believed “Let food be thy medicine and medicine be thy food.” Nowadays, the doctors routinely prescribe antibiotics and betablockers.
I +1 on this too, and bring back Home Econ too.
I think part of the problem, and something Mike Rowe touches on a lot, is that we collectively have come to this agreement that all kids should be college bound kids, which creates problems.
We did away with more basic life skills classes in High School and replaced them with college bound classes. Replace Home Econ with trigonometry/geometry. Not every one can, or ever will need to know how to, do those, but every one needs to know how to balance a check book, how much a mortgage cost, etc.
-
In NYC an journeyman electrician in Local 3 union makes over $100 an hour with benefits. Who needs college? Of course, big builders like Trump use union labor. He didn't build Trump Tower with non-union "scab" labor. But small companies and startups just can't afford to pay union wages so homes, small businesses, etc get done with non-union workers, many who are immigrants. I don't know the percentage of how many of those are illegals, but it's a lot. That's just not in NYC but across the nation. Illegals keep costs for construction down but take away jobs from Americans. This has driven a lot of support for Trump from the construction industry.
Allen, I get that you are a former project manager for an union shop, but construction prices are already high with the signatory contractors. Projects are not getting built just because union labor is too much and the owners don't want a mess on their hands by using non-union. Of course, this mess is not so much in NYC; I can't remember ever seeing a giant Rat outside a construction site anywhere in NYC. In Philly though, it's common place.
When you hire an union shop for 3 times the price, you should get exceptional craftsmanship. In NYC, I see this being the case; in Philly it is hit or miss.
As an architectural photographer, I like following lines. I shot an interior office recently in Philly, union built, and I wanted to follow the high hat lights in the ceiling, which there was about 25 of them going down the hallway. Not any three of them lined up, and they were office as much as 6 inches. That is just not acceptable at a $100/hr.
-
My musician friend told me that he is not allowed to plug his guitar into a wall outlet himself, in union-controlled venues. Instead, they require him to hire an electrician at a rate of $200 per hour (the number per my memory) - way more than he charges for his music performance.
This use to be the case at the Convention Center in Philly. It got so bad, recurring shows started cancelling and going to Atlantic City instead.
The worse I heard was another architectural photographer I know as shooting City Hall. He needed to move a table about a foot and unplugged the microphone cables to do so, did not think anything of it. The union found out and served him with a suit for taking away a job of a union worker.
-
That has become a paid site. There is no way I am going to finance fake news.
Seriously - just stop. ::)
-
According to mediabiasfactcheck.com (https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/heat-street/)
HEAT STREET
(https://mediabiasfactcheck.files.wordpress.com/2016/09/right06.png?w=620&h=69)
RIGHT BIAS
These media sources are moderately to strongly biased toward conservative causes through story selection and/or political affiliation. They may utilize strong loaded words (wording that attempts to influence an audience by using appeal to emotion or stereotypes), publish misleading reports and omit reporting of information that may damage conservative causes. Some sources in this category may be untrustworthy. See all Right Bias sources.
Factual Reporting: MIXED
Notes: Heat Street is a conservative opinion and commentary website. Launched in February 2016, the website is headed by British writer and former politician Louise Mensch. It is owned by News Corp under Dow Jones & Company. This source has a right wing bias through wording and story selection. Heat Street was also one of the sources Donald Trump quoted for his debunked claim (http://www.factcheck.org/2017/03/examining-trumps-wiretap-claim/) that his phone was wiretapped by Obama.
Source: http://heatst.com/
In actuality, the original source is a better source to look at...
News Coverage of Donald Trump’s First 100 Days (https://shorensteincenter.org/news-coverage-donald-trumps-first-100-days/?utm_source=POLITICO.EU&utm_campaign=ab6d830a9d-EMAIL_CAMPAIGN_2017_05_19&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_10959edeb5-ab6d830a9d-189799085)
And some conclusions...
So, just because it's negative doesn't mean it's wrong...and if Trump would just shut his mouth (and quite tweeting) the number of negative stories would go down.
BTW, Heat Street is to the right of Fox and just to the left of Breitbart. Pretty charts though Slobodan :~)
Does this mean Harvard is wrong?
Oh my!
-
Every involved authority tries to influence elections, whether internally or externally. The bottom line is that each individual casts a vote, if they want to. (In Australia it's compulsory. You get fined for not voting.) If Americans are too stupid to analyse the media reports and the innuendos from whatever source, and make up their own mind, then don't blame the Russians. Blame yourselves and work out what you did wrong.
Ray, just quit while you're ahead. Schewe just can't let go of the Russia thing while at the same time making it seem like we are better. (Of course the other irony is Obama and all the Dems were all about making positive connections with Russia just a short while ago.) All of Latin America and Iran are great examples of foreign countries we meddled with.
I don't blame the Russians. If I eventually have to blame someone, which I don't think is necessary right now, I'd blame the HRC campaign, who were royal screw ups when it came to campaigning, although really good at convincing the whole of the DNC to suppress anyone running against them. This is why she lost, her entire campaign, from the very beginning (read the articles on how disorganized her first speech was), had no idea what they were doing. She had no idea what she was doing.
-
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DAMcq85XoAISr25.jpg:large)
https://twitter.com/RepTedLieu (https://twitter.com/RepTedLieu)
I find this quite ironic.
First, it has not been confirmed exactly what Trump said, or if he said it by accident or intentionally. Stating the location of a threat is different then revealing the sources. (Anyway, I do not think he would intentionally give up classified info; more then likely whatever he said was an off the cuff remark. Of course the outcome does not change, but the intent does, which can be all the difference. Just ask Hillary.)
Second, Israel is an ally, but judging by John Kerry's speech prior to Obama leaving office, you would not think so. It seems Israel gets the ability to use us as a large stick against the rest of the middle so it can do whatever it wants, like running a government of oppression of the Palestinian people (they can't vote, they can't move freely, some are not allowed to leave) and continuing to break up their land, making it geographically impossible for a two state solution to happen now.
What do we get out of this relationship?
Sure, Russia is not an ally, but they are not a enemy either, especially judging by Obama's 2012 campaign. "The 1980s want their foreign policy back." Why do we all of a sudden think it is not a good thing to improve relations with Russia? Is it a political farce?
The G-7 comment reeks of arrogance.
Last, the Pope is not an elected official and holds no real power, and, as an atheist, I hope it stays that way. Furthermore, Pope Francis, aside from climate change, is more conservative then liberal.
-
Talk to Mad Magzine...that's who Time ripped off :-)
Well that pisses me off. Not because I may be against the ideology the message, but because people should be using original work.
-
Joe,
Welcome to the west side of LA.
(http://www.russellrutherford.com/welcome_to_LA_2_web.jpg)
IMO
BC
-
So while we argue about so-called collusion with the Russians, the Chinese executed or jailed upwards of twenty of our CIA agents between 2010-2012.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/20/world/asia/china-cia-spies-espionage.html
They were not really agents, but sources, a big difference. We would have done the same; remember the Rosenbergs?
If they had executed US citizens that were CIA agents, I am sure we would not know about it nor would we ever admit to it.
-
60 million Trump voting Americans are Ignorant, Literally. Have you considered that Hillary and her campaign were terrible? Because of her stupidity, she lost when she should have won 55%-45% of the popular vote and more than that in the Electoral College. And please don't tell us about Russia. She was the one who unethically conspired with the DNC chair to marginalize Sanders and who set up the unauthorized if not illegal email server. And all those smart people who voted for this corrupt individual anyway. You had a chance to nominate Sanders but choose her instead. So who's ignorant?
I was amazed when I read the (behinds the scene) story on the first speech she gave announcing her run in 2015. She had no message, no slogan, no theme even, and did not care to even think of any. She expected everyone she hired to come up with those items.
Her loss is nothing more then an example of a horribly mismanaged campaign (that even Axelrod said during the campaign) that the responsibility of fell squarely on the shoulders of Hillary. I also would blame the DNC for allowing Hillary to corrupt them, which was apparently obvious when one day after being force to resign due to obstruction of Bernie, Wasserman Sultz was hired by the HRC campaign.
-
Can someone who is more familiar with american politics than I am explain why it's ok for Trump to demonize muslims while at the same time signing a multi-billion dollar arms deal with the country from where all the 9/11 terrorists came?
Nothing much, just a small three letter word, OIL.
-
Hole getting deeper..."not guilty your honor, I wasn't trying to be racist, I was just trying to be sexist".
(Is that working for anybody else?)
Although I do recognize the racist charge you made, you're really pushing it for sexism on that 2nd statement.
-
But really, if you think about it, while Putin won some aspects, he lost others. Flynn got fired so he lost an agent in place in the WH. The Russian investigation is chewing up to much air time there's no way Trump would dare bring up easing sanctions. So, in the grand scheme I don't think Putin got all he wanted...but he sure did impact our election and cast doubt on the democratic system. So, he made out ok...
Not anywhere near as much as the Dems picking probably the most flawed candidate to ever hold their ticket in recent history along with HRC tremendous incompetents to run a campaign, which is becoming clearer and clearer as each day goes on. What amazes me the most is that she repeated the same mistakes she made in 2008; did not learn a damn thing the reporting seems to show.
This Putin thing is getting pretty old, but I know, looking inward is the hardest thing to do. Thankfully someone is finally doing so.
Joe Biden Never Thought Hillary Clinton ... (http://www.cnn.com/2017/05/19/politics/joe-biden-hillary-clinton/)
-
Steeling one from Jeff; here's article I just read on CNN.
Hillary Clinton's 'email' problem was bigger than anyone realized (http://www.cnn.com/2017/05/23/politics/clinton-email-2016/index.html)
-
You mean "stealing"? :~)
I have no doubt that the whole issue of the private email server, Hillary's poor handling of the issue and Comey's flailing about in public was clearly a major, perhaps the most important issue, surrounding her campaign as indicated by this CNN article.
No question...no doubt about it.
But a weird thing just popped into my head, while the email issue came out as the single most important issue against Hillary, there is no single negative issue against Trump because, well, there were so MANY negative issues against Trump that no single issue ever burbled up to the top.
I meant, go back and look at all the things Trump said and did that were seriously egregious yet they bounced off Trump like he was made of Teflon. None of the stuff that would have killed a typical politician seemed to make a dent.
Personally, I don't think there was one single defining reason why Hillary lost and Trump won other than the fact that just over 92 million people didn't vote in 2016. Why? Lots and lots of reasons but the fact that so many didn't vote meant that the winner was guarantied to be voted in by a minority, which I think is a sad commentary on our democracy these days.
Yes, stealing. I duly appreciate your kindness in not only bringing to my attention an obvious gaff in my use of English grammar and diction, but providing the appropriate correction to my erroneous mistake.
Insofar as your comment on Trump having so many negative issues, I absolutely agree, although you did read the part about some of the most dominate words associated with Trump were benign.
Hillary made the email scandal what it was. If she had owned up in the beginning, it would have been over by the conventions. Her loss was not because 92M did not vote; that was merely a symptom. The cause, HRC tremendously poorly ran campaign, of which how the email scandal was handled was a part of.
You also throw in Trump's fire brand that no one really figured out how to run against. I doubt Sanders would have stood a chance either.
Personally, I think only one politician would have stood a chance, and most likely would have beaten him, that being Biden.
-
Trump will continue to get attacked because the biased media hates him. Ok I get it. Meanwhile he is doing things the country needs in my opinion. He put Gorsuch on the court. He has made allies and adversaries begin to respect us again after 8 years of Obama weakness. That will help us internationally with trade, security, and other relations with foreign countries. They may not like him, but that's ok. He's still commander-in-chief of the armed forces and President/CEO. Today, he again called for NATO to pay up to their faces. And he sailed a destroyer within 12 miles right past the militarized islands China built in the South China Sea. Finally a president with balls.
I was amazed by this today, not what he said, it was a long time coming, but to find out that we cover 72% of the total funding for NATO. That is ridiculous!
Now I am for fairness, and I know the USA has the largest economy in the world plus the agreement states that all countries are to pay 2% of their GDP, but I doubt the GDP of the USA is 161% larger then all of the other countries of NATO combined.
Thats right, we pay 2.61 times more into NATO then all of the other countries combined.
(I have a lot of time on my hands right now. Been raining for the last 7 days in NYC; going to rain tomorrow, Saturday, Monday and Tuesday too. I had to reschedule 5 projects due to the weather. It's been a wet start to the season so far. >:( )
-
That's not true.
The US contributes 22.1446 of direct NATO costs as at January this year (the latest report I could find).
You are looking at total military expenditure - the US does not allocate all of its military expenditure to NATO, obviously.
This is a common bit of "fake news" peddled about this subject.
CNN is fake news I guess.
NATO Spending (http://money.cnn.com/2017/05/25/news/nato-trump-defense-spending/index.html)
Anyway, I may have misspoken, however my merit was not wrong, far from it.
Total military spending under NATO nations (by treaty) should be at least 2% of GDP; NATO spending and others. We spend 2.61 times more then all other NATO countries combined and several NATO countries are not spending the 2% they agreed upon.
Countries are not living up to the agreement, which is the point I am making.
I am tired of seeing European countries criticize us on healthcare while at the same time not paying their fair share in NATO, which they agreed upon.
In my perfect world, the USA would go back to the 1930s isolationism. Let other nations, separated from us, by two massive oceans, figure it out. We are just spending too much on this.
-
It's misleading news. On NATO, the US contributes 22.1446% of the total direct expenditure. Total defence expenditure by the US is more than NATO, but not the portion the US spends on NATO.
The 2% is a guideline (and 20% of that is to be spent on equipment), not a treaty requirement. Still, I agree that all members should be hitting that target (with a tolerance of 0.1% for actuals versus planned). But if you (and others) keep trying to make the point by repeating misleading data, all you do it weaken your argument. It's being done to make the gap more dramatic, but it's quite simply wrong.
As to isolationism - well, those oceans are pretty small these days.
Okay, true, but still, I think it is unfair and something should be don't to correct. We (USA) spend far too much defending other countries. I think our involvement in international affairs never full normalized after WW2, and that has been compounded by our dependence on fossil fuels.
Insofar as oceans, invasions require carriers, and carriers take time to cross oceans. By the the time it takes a carrier to cross the ocean ... I'll be dead; missiles will have bombed the whole of the NE corridor. (Quarter of the population lives between DC & Boston.) But hopefully those who actually need to worry about it will have dealt with it long before they have landed.
-
So, how are you reading the story?
According to IHS Jane’s Annual Defence Budgets Report the USA spent $633bn...the next 10 countries don't spend what the USA spends.
China $191.8bn
United Kingdom $53.8bn
India $50.7bn
Saudi Arabia $48.7bn
Russian Federation $48.5bn
France $44.4bn
Japan $41.7bn
Germany $35.8bn
South Korea $33.5bn
Australia $26.8bn
$575.8bn
Why?
Are we really the world's policemen? Do we want to be?
Is our military industrial capability so incompetent that we have to spend 3X what China spends?
We spend what we spend on defense because "we" want to...imagine what the world could do if we spend the $1.57 trillion the world spends on defense on something that actually helps people...
Yeah, I know, there are lot's of "Evil Losers" and wing nut countries like North Korea and Iran...
Are you reading the story?
Because, in case you missed it, it is about NATO, along with our conversation, and more than half the countries you listed are not members of NATO. Thanks for the Red Herring, but I'm not in the mood for fish right now.
Furthermore, not sure if your intent in selectively quoting me was to imply I am for our military complex, but just to make it clear, I am not! If you read further, you would have seen so. I have stated many times, I would like to see our military contract back to pre-WW2 levels.
-
Some on this forum are being hypocrites.
You can't be against our military complex and expansion, wishing to see it decrease in size, while at the same time being upset with Trump telling Europe that they need to handle their own affairs and provide more military support overall (as per stated in the NATO agreement).
You can't have it both ways. Either you want to see the military complex decrease (like me), which means others countries will no longer be able to rely on the USA. Or you're upset with Trump telling Europe off, which means you are for our current military complex and keeping it, at least, at its current size.
P.S., I do feel however, Trump's comments on trade with Germany were uncalled for. I wish we could somehow have a trade surplus. Also, the Paris climate agreement I think is still a worth it to keep it going.
Primarily, I am glad we have someone who at the moment seems willing to decrease our military actions worldwide and has no problem telling people. Of course, the Syria strike has me concerned, but to look at the flip side, HRC was a devout hawk. So on this front, I think we have a chance to stop being the world's police.
-
So who?
Don't you think this far too strong language ...and at the same time you are not addressing the persons in question.
Should we all feel insulted?
I should have said, some are being hypocritical, instead of calling people hypocrites.
I see it on both sides as of now, and not just on this forum, but in the news, on both sides, repeatably. It's becoming annoying.
Some (light) libertarians were all too happy that Trump was for decreasing our military and praised him for that, but then, when he bombed Syria, suddenly it became okay, not to mention his increase in military spending in his budget is suddenly okay too.
Some liberals want to see our military decrease in size, but were for electing a known hawk, that would have done the opposite, and are now upset that Trump has told our NATO friends that they need to start living up to the agreement because we are no longer going to supply unlimited support, a net effect of having the smaller military they want.
Neither of these make sense, and are both hypocritical.
Either you are for decreasing our military, or you are not.
After 15 years of our involvement in the Middle East, I am tired of seeing different arguments on both sides that all lead to the same result, further involvement.
Both sides have brought us just as much war as the other in the last couple of decades.
-
Jeff, you come off as always being angry, and maybe I did speak a little too unsparing earlier today. I apologize for that and putting words in other's mouths.
I agree that both HRC were horrible choices, although they both are the same amount of scopes in my book and I don't think "jimmies" are called for.
You don't put "sprinkles" on ice cream; you put them on cookies and cakes. ;)
Anyway, I could call less about the semantics of how the visit was handled. All I care about is spending less on defense (and overall conservative actions on fiscal issues); otherwise, I could really care less what decisions are made in Washington. We spend far far too much on defense and after 16 years of being in conflicts, plus the couple years during Bill Clinton's presidency, enough is enough. The USA has been in foreign conflicts for slightly more then half my life.
So if putting an end to it means telling NATO to start living up the 2% agreement and our reliability would be less so, even in a somewhat crass manner, then so be it.
Anyway, Trump was for less military action abroad and, originally, for less spending on the military. He changed his tune in the middle of campaign, which I felt was for getting votes but still was for a non-interventionist policy, aside from destroying ISIS. I never trusted Hillary to use less force abroad.
I trusted Obama, but he was feckless in that regard. He kept the status quo, tried to please everyone and ended up pleasing no one, which is always the case when you operate in that manner.
With the bombing of Syria and Trump's first budget proposal that included an increase in military spending, I just really have to shake my head. Exactly how deep and strong is the war machine imbedded in our political system that no matter who gets in office, we can't just shut it down.
-
This is actually more serious than it may seem to a casual observer. Although she first mentioned it in a speech running up to the upcoming elections in Germany, she is not the kind of person to just make empty threats.
Since it's sophomore humor month.
This photo proves I agree with you.
(http://russellrutherford.com/Merkel_farts.jpg)
IMO
-
So here you have it - the double standard.
A white supremacist commits and is charged with both a double murder and hate crimes in Portland, Oregon. The WH to date makes no comment. Today a comedian makes a joke in bad taste, apologizes in no uncertain terms, and yet all the Trumpettes turn evangelical with feigned rage and disgust.
Meanwhile back at the ranch yesterday's press briefing was such a success (no double standards there) that today's briefing is rumoured to be held with no cameras permitted.
Transparency for all to see.
-
**deleted - the murders were finally acknowledged by the WH.
He is accused of killing Rick Best, a retired Army platoon sergeant who served for 23 years, and 23-year-old Taliesin Myrddin Namkai-Meche, after they stepped in to defend a 16-year-old and her Muslim friend a MAX train last Friday.
-
Conde Nast Traveller:
A Guide to Covfefe, One of the World's Best Islands (http://www.cntraveler.com/story/a-guide-to-covfefe-one-of-the-worlds-best-islands?mbid=social_instagram_story)
-
It takes two to tango. It's looking more and more as if the rest of the world is going to politely but firmly shut Trump out until he's gone. Really, if this continues Trump will be lucky if he can persuade Nicaragua to negotiate a deal on tamales. People don't like the guy and they don't want to do business with him. As soon as Trump's out of office they'll start talking again. Simple as that. The real challenge is to prevent a war breaking out in the meantime. There are no winners from any of this. Many of the points you raise most definitely need addressing but no one is going to do deals with Trump around. What's the point? If he ends up in the dock or resigning, anything agreed with him would be torn up anyway.
The USA has the largest economy in the world. Really, the USA has the big stack; they are the Chipper MaGea at the poker table. Merkel may not like the one holding the cards right now, but that makes no difference.
Really, I don't like it when I play against some loud mouth player that always boast, but it does not stop me from working him and taking his chips. Not that I am for that kind of behavior, but I am not going to let them stop me from taking his money.
This is the same nonsense when people said Greek should tell Germany to shove it a few years ago with Germany's bailout demands. It made no sense then; in that card card, Germany had all of the chips.
Same thing here.
Speaking from what I know, photography, Schneider has two, maybe three, factories in the USA making the some of the best lenses to supply for, by far, the largest cinematography market in the world. Same thing with Carl Zeiss. Do you really think Merkel is just going to sit back and let them pay out the ass in the tariffs to operate in this country, especially considering Canon and Fuji are all but too ready to take over that market?
-
I don't see how not being part of the Paris Agreement prevents American companies from continuing to develop alternative energies. Free markets continue to operate. Musk isn't going to stop producing the electric Tesla car and rechargeable batteries. If there is a market for particular goods, the free market will create it. The American taxpayer doesn't have to subsidize it.
Worse yet, is that if American stayed in the Paris agreement, it would pay the amounts even though there's no penalty for not. But Europe and others won't pay what they said they would anymore than how they didn't pay the 2% for defense in the NATO situation.. America will wind up carrying the load as usual. Trump made the right decision for America.
Their whole argument makes no sense.
I spent the whole day photographing the progress of LGA, hanging out with engineers. It really makes no difference if the USA pulls out, global companies still need to manufacturer their products at the Paris Accord standards if they want to sell globally. All USA companies will still need to follow the standards. The only thing it effects is allowing our energy companies to not follow the standards.
Second, renewables are never going to actually supply us with enough energy, period. People are living a pipe dream if they actually think wind turbines, solar panels, or geothermal will ever provide us with the amount of energy we need. Sure, they will be a nice supplement, but anything above 20% is a fantasy.
Fossil fuels just have too much power, the result of millions of years of natural forces, and I whole heartily believe renewables will never come close to supplying us with what we need. The only thing that could come close would be nuclear.
I just find it so funny that so many are against it. On the radio I heard about a group protesting Trump in NYC that is against fossil fuels and ... nuclear!
Every engineer I spoke to today agreed, not to mention solar panels only absorb at most 20% of the energy that hit it. Nuclear is the only real option, and, unfortunately, we will need to spend 10 years or so trying and failing at trying to make renewables work before we realize we need nuclear.
And this whole argument about how the solar provides so many jobs, more then all fossil fuels combined, only proves how inefficient renewables are. Fossil fuels provides significantly more units of energy at a extremely lower cost (just look at the payroll costs), so the argument really falls flat.
People want cheap energy; they don't want to pay for the salary of 10 times more people all of a sudden.
I really just find it so frustrating no one talks about nuclear. It's the only really option.
-
1 in 68 is quite high. The scientists and doctors still don't know the causes.
-
Around 4:45 NYC time, it's that Champions League final : Juventus v Real Madrid at the Millenium Stadium in Cardiff, Wales ( you know that funny country with a language no-one else speaks, just across the water from Ireland). I know it's not American Football nor, in the words of the great Bill Shankly, is it 'a matter of life and death - it's far more important than that'.
Try it, you might just enjoy it.
-
Maybe it's good there's an EU and NATO. Less chance they'll start shooting at each other again and drag us in to another European war. Maybe that's what Mattis told him so he'd warmed up to NATO. It's cheaper keeping the peace than fighting a war.
Alan , very quickly ('cos there's only 30 minutes 'till kick off) - this bruhah about NATO - Article 5 of the NATO Treaty states that 'an attack on one is an attack on all'.
The only time that its been invoked is when America sought, and received, NATO support for the Gulf wars. Both Bushes , both wars. So who supported who ?
America and Europe are interlinked, we're allies and when the shit hits the fan, no matter how much we dislike it, we'll be by each others side. That's what America did for the Brits in the Falklands war, that's what'll happen again - if necessary.
Let's make it 'not necessary' and hope your President chills on the inflammatory & divisive rhetoric.
I'm off to watch the final ...
-
... and now I'm beginning to believe that he's 'seriously lost it ... '
(https://c1.staticflickr.com/5/4245/35116629405_2accc86da2_o.jpg)
-
Do you really need to resort to stupid and obscene talk when you can't win an argument? I'm not impressed or intimidated by it, but it really shows your weakness.
That is common USA saying, and not something to be offended about. Its means if you are really sincere, you'll pay up for something (like defense), but if you don't put up the money, you're really not doing anything.
-
Oh, if only that were true for the Bullsh$ter-in-Chief Donald J Trump.
Oh, about those "Obstructionists"...
Trump Calls Democrats 'Obstructionists,' But He's Only Nominated 11 Ambassadors (http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2017/06/05/531602029/trump-calls-democrats-obstructionists-but-hes-only-nominated-11-ambassadors)
Do they not roll over from the previous administration if new ones are not appointed? I honestly do not know.
-
Arguing about percentages leads to misunderstandings, Phil, but only five of 28 NATO countries are ponying up the 2% of GDP they agreed to spend on defense. As Casey said, "You could look it up."
-
Don't be fooled, Trump may well get the same treatment. Millwall awaits
Roy Larner has already been hailed a hero, with a petition launched for him to be awarded the George Cross medal for his actions in the Black and Blue steakhouse on Saturday night.
In fighting back, the 47-year-old Millwall fan gave dozens of others who were in the Borough Market restaurant the chance to escape.
Now out of the intensive care ward of St Thomas’ Hospital, where he was treated for knife wounds all over his body including his neck, the father-of-one has told The Sun how he reacted when the killers burst into the restaurant shouting “Islam, Islam” and “This is for Allah”.
“Like an idiot, I shouted back at them. I thought, ‘I need to take the p*** out of these b******s’.”
“I took a few steps towards them and said, ‘F*** you, I’m Millwall’. So they started attacking me.” Mr Larner added: “I stood in front of them trying to fight them off. Everyone else ran to the back. I was on my own against all three of them, that’s why I got hurt so much. It was just me, trying to grab them with my bare hands and hold on. I was swinging. I got stabbed and sliced eight times. They got me in my head, chest and both hands. There was blood everywhere.
“They were saying, ‘Islam, Islam!’. I said again, ‘F*** you, I’m Millwall!’
FYI, dear Americans, Millwall supporters are notorious for being capable of the worst football violence seen ...
-
Regarding this whole Russia and Comey thing, I think my mother, who was (and still is) anti-Trump and pro-Hillary, said it best, "who really cares? Now I have to put up with this 24/7."
I think what the diehards here don't get is that most of America does not care, and this whole circus yet again shows how out of touch the self-appointed "elites" and those in the beltway are with the rest of the country.
Out of all of the articles on CNN there was only really one I was concerned enough about to read yesterday, and the only one that would actually have an effect on the country, the one about the repeal of Dodd-Frank, which should be repealed. All the rest was nothing but banter.
-
Maybe the rest of America doesn't care about that either?
Cheers,
Bart
Sadly, I think that is the case.
-
...
Come on, Slobo, I think you are deliberately misleading this forum with that post. Show me an example of a dead man's skeleton saying those words.
-
Meet Achmed...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GBvfiCdk-jc
He may not have said those words, but then "what does it mean when he speaks words?".
Cheers,
Bart
I stand corrected! ;D
-
Again I really don't know...but I sure wouldn't be surprised to find out that there's no proof he himself colluded with the Russians. But I'm convinced Russia sure did try and succeeded in interfering with our election and that Trump would not have won if they didn't. I wonder why Trump clings to his claim it's fake news and thinks it's a conspiracy by the democrats to explain why they lost.
I also believe that there is something very weird about his love of Putin...it defies logic. Everybody else in the weatern world knows they are our enemy.
Jeff, stop kidding yourself. Hillary ran an absolutely horrible campaign! Every single possible interview and article written on the subject, even those with interviews from staffers, points to the same exact thing.
She sucks at running for office.
Yes, her husband coattails' won her the NY state representation, but nothing more.
That is the reason she lost.
She had absolutely no idea how to run a campaign.
My favorite quote of recent is Hillary saying that the only reason Obama won was because he was an "ATTRACTIVE, GOOD-LOOKING MAN.” That was her exact quote on the subject. He did not win because, you know, he knew how to run a campaign, and how to get a conservative like me to vote for him in 2008. (For the record, in 2012 I would have voted Romney if my alternator did not die on the way to the voting booth.)
That says it all; that clearly reinforces Colin Powell now infamous quote, "she 'screws up' everything she touches thanks to overwhelming personal hubris." She lost it; nothing else.
Now insofar as Putin being our enemy, you Dems surely did not think so back in 2008 and certainly not back in 2012. You know, the 1980s really wanted its foreign policy back in 2012.
Interesting how things have changed.
-
Yep, no question and in spite of that, but I seriously think she still would have squeaked out a win if the DNC wasn't hacked and the drip drip drip of Podesta's emails didn't steal the media's attention. Oh, and that last Comey cockup...
Heck, everybody including the Russians and Trump himself thought she was going to win.
:~)
Keep on telling yourself that Jeff.
You guys really are delusional. She lost because of Russia, or was because the USA as a whole is misogynistic, oh wait, it is because we are all racist.
It is surely not because HRC forgot where WI and MI were, or anywhere in PA outside Philly, or that she would not own up to the email scandal, making a non-issue an issue, and, when she did finally own up she somehow lost 30K+ emails, but not to worry, they were of no concern anyway, or not because she could not fill a single venue whereas Trump sold out almost every one, or that she would not release her speeches, making her sound like an elitist, or that she almost never had press conferences, and when she did, only answered scripted questions, or that she had her paid informants pass her debate questions beforehand ... the list just goes on and on.
You know, I am really glad she is now giving interviews with unscripted questions, we are finally discovering what type of person she really is. Trump is an ass, but at least we knew that during the campaign; we knew nothing of Hillary.
It turns out Hillary is a narcissist so filled with hubris she can never accept responsibility for anything that went wrong. And the interesting thing, your party just keeps her around. No one, save Biden, has told her to shut up and go home.
By the way, did you read the few articles after the election that clearly showed conservatives would either hang up on pollsters or lie about whom they were voting for just to skew the polls.
Yep, keep on pushing that Russia thing, because you know, after 8 or 9 months of investigating, nothing has been found yet. How long did it take for evidence to be found on Nixon?
Just keep on pushing it, because it will only help my side in 2018.
You Dems are looking more and more like sore losers as each day goes by, and nobody, especially the voting public, likes sore losers.
-
Well, the DNC was broken into June 17, 1972.
March 17, 1973: Watergate burglar McCord writes a letter to Judge John Sirica, claiming that some of his testimony was perjured under pressure and that the burglary was not a CIA operation, but had involved other government officials, thereby leading the investigation to the White House.
May 19, 1973: Independent special prosecutor Archibald Cox appointed to oversee investigation into possible presidential impropriety.
July 23, 1973: Nixon refuses to turn over presidential tapes to Senate Watergate Committee or the special prosecutor.
October 20, 1973: "Saturday Night Massacre" - Nixon orders Elliot Richardson and Ruckleshouse to fire special prosecutor Cox. They both refuse to comply and resign. Robert Bork considers resigning but carries out the order.
November 17, 1973: Nixon delivers "I am not a crook" speech at a televised press conference at Disney World (Florida).
April 16, 1974: Special Prosecutor Jaworski issues a subpoena for 64 White House tapes.
June 15, 1974: Woodward and Bernstein's book All the President's Men is published by Simon & Schuster (ISBN 0-671-21781-X).
July 24, 1974: United States v. Nixon decided: Nixon is ordered to give up tapes to investigators.
May 9, 1974: Impeachment hearings begin before the House Judiciary Committee.
July 27 to July 30, 1974: House Judiciary Committee passes Articles of Impeachment.
August 9, 1974 Nixon resigned the presidency.
In case you don't remember the time line, Timeline of the Watergate scandal (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_the_Watergate_scandal).
So, it didn't happen over nite.
Thanks Jeff, thanks for the history. I'm being sincere; I really did not know the timeline of the Nixon impeachment.
Now can you address the other points I made.
-
What other points? Are you suggesting that Comey's last minute revelations had zero effect on the electorate?
That some number of individuals didn't view HRC's competencies differently because of her sex?
That the asymmetric release of private documents via Wikileaks didn't sway a single vote?
Help me out, please, because while most reasonable people agree she ran a horrid campaign, I'm quite certain that you can't be making an argument on the relative merits of the two candidates actual qualifications for the office. :)
Absolutely Comey's last minute revelation had no effect; her email scandal was already baked into the cake by that point. (I will contest Comey's press conference in the summer did have an effect though.) She horribly mishandled the whole thing. She broke the law, willingly or not, regardless if past precedent existed, so she was in the wrong. If she had accepted responsibility in the beginning, the thing would have blown over before the primaries ended, especially considering Colin Powell did a similar act. The country would have moved on.
She made a non-issue an issue, and that is the main thing that cost her the election. It was her fault.
Not to mention all of the other things she did, like not visit WI or MI not even once during the campaign. Or the air of elitism she throw around with the notion that we don't need the vote of the common person to win. Or her unwillingness to give press conferences and answer unscripted questions (will the real Hillary please stand up, please stand up). Or ... the list goes on and on.
Now since you brought it up, are there some men who are misogynistic and look down on women, yes. Just like there are some women who are misandristic and look down on men. However, the amount of those are hardly large enough to sway an election in today's world, not to mention, considering the candidates were of opposite gender, the misogynists and misandrists more then likely canceled each other's effect anyway.
Insofar as wikileaks, I remember there being much more damning press stories released about Trump. So the notion that the Wikileaks were responsible is preposterous as well.
Oh look, Trump is talking about randomly grabbing women's crotches, but wait ... Hillary's campaign manager, look at what he is saying in those emails, oh boy, it's so much worse.
Sure ::), Podesta's emails had a much bigger effect on public opinion then Trump's press stories. Keep telling yourself that.
Last, do I think it came down to merits? Don't make me laugh; I can't think of two worse candidates. And by that I mean, each out does every bad candidate that has ran for president in my lifetime. The whole time leading up to the primaries, I was hoping the Rep would out Trump and nominate Paul Ryan.
-
13:43
Donald Trump has told Theresa May in a phone call he does not want to go ahead with a state visit to Britain until the British public supports him coming.
Note to Donald: It's gonna be a long wait ...
-
Are you disputing the Russians took an active role in meddling in the election? So, the story I mentioned was that the Russians were also attempting ago actively hack voter roles and the actual voting machines and that Obama had to threaten the Russians if they kept up the attempts to hack the voting machines...But, I guess that's ok with you huh?
You think the Russians are such good guys?
(actually I know some Russians and they are good guys but they don't work for Putin as far as I know)
You happy about what the Russians did to our election? Or do you just not believe it? That Hillary lost the election to Trump only because she was a bad candidate?
Yeah, Putin's a happy, happy guy theses days, he has the GOP actually defending the Russians saying they didn't throw the election, Hillary did...
No! She lost because she was a bad candidate and ran a very very horrible campaign. (Are you reading those interviews and articles, or do you only concern yourself with Russia nowadays?)
Those are the reasons she lost.
By the way, the 1980s really wants it foreign policy back.
-
You decide:
"Despite being remembered today as "The Great Emancipator," Lincoln maintained a moderate stance on the emancipation of slaves, never vowing in his campaigns to abolish slavery, as it was vital to the southern economy. He even stated in his presidential inaugural address that he would not use his executive power to interfere with the institution in any state where it existed. Still, Lincoln vehemently opposed the expansion of slavery into new western territories and served as one of the most influential advocates of "free soil." For this reason, the president posed a significant threat to the economic and political interests of the slaveholding South. Thus, in response to his 1860 election victory, seven southern states seceded from the Union. Lincoln was determined to prevent disunion by any means necessary, but his attempts at negotiation failed miserably; within the first months of his tenure, the divided nation was engaged in a full-blown Civil War."
http://www.shmoop.com/causes-of-civil-war/abraham-lincoln.html
Alan, you need to study history more.
After Lincoln's election, however prior to his inauguration, more then half of the South succeeded. There is nothing he could have done to prevent this since he was not in power yet.
Also, the war was not a fault of Lincoln, but more likely a fault of John Brown's failed revolt, which happened prior to Lincoln's presidency. John Brown taught the South one thing, that the North was serious, and, being such, the South massively increased their militia, which was an absolute joke beforehand. So, when it came time for succession, the South was very well prepared.
The gears started moving before Lincoln even came into the picture; civil war was inevitable.
Throw on top of this, most Americans at the time thought of themselves as citizens of their state first, and country second. Remember, it was "The United States Are" before the war, and then it became "The United States Is" after. This caused Robert E. Lee, who was against succession and slavery very much so, and arguably the absolute best commanding officer in the army at the time, to fight for the South because he felt his allegiance was to his state, VA, which ended up succeeding.
Although the military machine of the North was far superior, the South's military leadership trumped all the north had. Lee, Stonewall Jackson and Nathan Bedford Forest outed every singe general of the north, with significantly smaller forces, up until 1864 when Lincoln finally appointed Grant lieutenant general.
Even so, Lee was still a better general then Grant, but Grant and Sherman were good enough where the superior numbers of the North finally kicked in.
If not for John Brown and Robert E. Lee resigning from the Union Army, the war would have lasted no more then 6 months.
-
Lee made numerous military mistakes during the course of the war. Had McClellan been a better general the war could have ended in 1863 when he launched the peninsula campaign. The Confederate generals in the western campaigns were all horrible and made numerous strategic blunders and once Grant had captured all the key spots it was pretty much over.
Best book to read is "A Savage War" by Williamson Murray and Wayne Wei-Siang Hsieh. Covers all the battles, tactics and personalities in depth.
You could argue that it went back to the Constitutional Convention. They assumed slavery would die out, and it was, so they did not address it. Then Eli Whitney screwed the pooch on that one.
My point on John Brown was that without his failed revolt, the South would have never been able to form an army fast enough. But his revolt caused the militias of the south to really ramp up. John Brown was probably the single most biggest catalyst for the war.
I certainly agree with the South's generals in the West were petty bad, plus they were up against Grant, since that is where he was positioned. But overall, it surely did not seem to matter who they went up against; they lost repeatably.
I was thinking more about the main part of the country, at the time; thanks for pointing out the west was not too great for the South.
However, I do not think Lee made that many mistakes. Pickett's Charge was certainly a big mistake, and did not help him with Gettysburg, but I can't think of any other game changers.
With that being said, McClellan was an absolute coward. He was really great at training an army, which certainly helped Grant later on, but he made excuse after excuse not to go into battle.
Had he just a little grit, the war would have certainly ended before Lee was made general.
I may have to look up that book.
-
All I want to know is who are the over 80K folks viewing this discussion on LuLa?
It can't be all photographers. Is it students? How can a topic on Trump among all the 100's of others online with this one buried on a photographer's site's off topic forum get this much attention?
It's averaging 23 views per post - which means virtually no attention, other than to those posting here :D
-
The South left during Lincoln's interregnum because they knew what his policies would be. Regardless, Lincoln could have left the South go or at least wait and see if he could work something out with them to get them back into the foal. Instead he sent a naval force to Ft Sumter and the South attacked claiming they were defending themselves. Whatever you want to believe. The point is what was his rush?
In any case, we're getting away from my original point about mandates. Lincoln only won with 40% of the popular vote. That's the least by any president in America history. His minority Republican party only won because the majority Democrats were split between the northern Democrats and Southern Democrats. Yet, he felt his 40% was mandate enough to try to force the southern states to do what they didn't want to do and a civil war started. No one talks about his mandate today. He is proclaimed an America icon. Now I'm not comparing Trump to Lincoln. So let me make that point right away. Yet, here some are trying to say Trump's 46% popular and 57% majority electoral vote (higher than Kennedy's, Clinton's and Carter's and others) is not enough for the president to do his rather mild campaign promises. Well, he is certainly entitled to do it constitutionally, plus anything he does improperly is defended by our constitution. I just wanted to put to rest the president's right to fulfill his views and not feel obligated to fulfill his opposition's platform. She lost.
Alan, I agree with you on the mandate with Trump and that the Dems are just making up stuff to try and weaken his presidency, but history is history.
Fort Sumter was an offensive attacked by the South that Lincoln did not provoke. Lincoln only sent provisions; he sent no troops, arms or animation and announced this publicly and to the governor of SC prior to any ships being sent. The South saw their opportunity and took it. (Not to mention, the leading commander of Fort Sumter taught at West Point, and one of his best armory students was the person who lead the attack against him. His student knew all that the teacher had to offer, and I am sure wanted to prove it.)
Also, let us not also forget that nearly everyone thought of the South's succession as only temporary and that no bloodshed would be had. A sitting senator said that you could clean up all of the blood spilt with a single pocket handkerchief at the onset of the war. Those like Sherman, who knew it would be a very bloody battle, were ostracized to the point of insanity.
This being said, how could Lincoln have not sent provisions? How could have Lincoln prevented the war without allowing the South to succeed?
The war was inevitable. Nothing done in the 1860s, even the 1850s, could have prevented it.
Also, no blood was shed at Fort Sumter. It was not until Bull Run (personally I prefer Manassas even though I'm not southern, the name has more flare), about six month later, that blood was actually spilled. So doing nothing would have been kind of weird and cowardly.
I have to wonder where does your 40% vote come from? Lincoln was not even on the ballots of most of the Southern states. If he was, if those in the South who against succession were for able to vote for Lincoln, what would his number have been?
Anyway, I've got work to do, images to raw process, a cigar to enjoy, rum to be had and True Grit to watch.
No, not the original; this is a rare case where I think the remake out does the original, and by a great deal at that. Maybe because I love cinematic lighting and Roger Deakins is one of the best DPs there has ever been.
-
Well up until now, as a fiscal conservative, I have been somewhat pleased with some financial policies, but indifferent towards most anything else.
However, Trump's rollback on Cuba is indefensible, and nothing more then a ploy to garner political points amongst a very small percentage of the population.
I have been to Cuba, and I very much want to go back. More then likely I can now qualify as a journalist since I am a full time photographer. Most though will not have that luxury.
In an effort to stop moneys from going to the military, which I would support, the ban on individual people-to-people travel will do nothing more then increase the military's influence over the economy. The private sector in Cuba has grown fairly rapidly to 40%, largely due to American tourism. A big plus for free market ideals, capitalism, improvements in living conditions, and a step closer to free elections, much like Nixon's opening of China did.
This policy will do nothing more then cause the free market to contract, the military's power to increase and lower the quality of life. And, of course, their leaders will use this as propaganda.
-
Joe, he's keeping his campaign promise regarding Cuba. That small group helped him win Florida and the election. Also, there's nothing stopping Castro from doing a few good things like returning murderer Chesimard back to the US. How about if he actually gave some freedom to the Cuban people before we give back to some of the giveaways Obama did. Obama just gave them away without anything in return for the Cuban people or us. Of course, Raul might not now trade these things. But, he certainly won't do them if we let these giveaways stand.
Sorry Alan, I don't buy it.
We are for freedom and free markets and this move does nothing buts hurts the Cuban people and free markets. When I was there in January, I saw the beginnings of a thriving free market, very much brought on by American tourism. This free market certainly undermines the government since it so successful, and the best way to chip away at the regime.
Now it will contract due to this move.
I could support restrictions on Americans dealing with military run businesses, but cutting off Cuba to Americans will only hurt the Cuban people and increase the Regime's control.
Also, this is not a split issue like most things. 75% of the country want better relations with Cuba and the ability to visit. Not to mention we have 54+ years of experience with the embargo, and guess what, it has done nothing.
Absolutely nothing!
This is a decision based on no logic, but on the emotions of a small group of people in FL.
Not to mention we deal with countries that have much worse human rights records. We, rightly so, don't tell them how to govern. We should have no business lecturing Cuba either.
-
Just to reiterate, Trump was doing what he promised his Cuban supporters. It doesn't matter what others think, It may or may not be a good or bad idea. But if he didn't reverse Obama's action, people would just say "See, he even lies to his own supporters. You just can't trust Trump."
But also, we tell a lot of other countries how they should govern. Your argument we don't doesn't comport with what we actually do all the time. Russia, Iran, North Korea as well as Cuba. These all have embargoes. To blame America not trading with Cuba for their dictatorship isn't true. Cuba has been trading with Canada, Europe etc. Visitors from those countries have been going there for decades with no effect on Castro's control of the Cubans and hardly any economic advantage to the people. I see the pictures of the 60 year old cars and decrepit old buildings. They may make interesting photos for us photographers, but it just shows how Castro and Communism has held back a country and its people. Most of the profits from tourism and trade goes to the Castro family, the military and his close associates who rule the roost. The people get crap and will continue to get crap while Castro's and friends just get richer and secure their future control over the country. The only difference between North Korea and Cuba is that Cuba is warm and has nice beaches.
You could not be more wrong considering the current estate of affairs.
First, how is that wall coming along? I was for Trump getting in, mainly due to his fiscal policy, and I could not be happier that his wall idea is failing. I think the general electorate is a much bigger portion of the population then those whom would like us to return to a 54+ year policy of nothing but failure.
Second, perhaps we do tell other countries how to govern, but we don't forbade citizens from going to any of them other then Cuba, even those with worse human rights violations. Why is Cuba so special? Also, why do we have the right to instruct others how to conduct themselves within their own country?
Third, lets get serious on tourism; they have not be open for decades. Tourism really only started to be accepted as a way to produce income after the USSR stopped being their cash cow, and it took a while for it to catch on. So yes, everyone else has been visiting them for a while, but not in droves like you are implying.
Also, no one spends more then Americans tourists, nor is any country closer (3 1/2 hour flight from Newark), so allowing Americans to tour the country is a huge plus for the hospitality industry, both private and public. Americans will be more likely to visit and bring more money when they do then any other tourists.
Now I would be all for not allowing Americans to stay in military run hotels, since that would mean the moneys would go directly to the Cubans. You could also forbade Americans from shopping in military run shops and restaurants, although that would be impossible to enforce.
But forbidding all Americans from going will only take away from the Cuban people and the free market that is finally starting to flourish after 50 years.
Third, when Raul Castro took over the country in 2012, he implemented many capitalistic reforms (which is interesting since it was he that was the communist, Fidel just wanted to get rid of Batista). Of course, it took a little while for Cubans to start doing their own thing, but these reforms combined with Americans visiting have brought a great deal of wealth to the island, much of which is going to the average Cuban, not just the Castros.
Your vision of what is going on in Cuba is nowhere near the reality of the situation.
We should be embracing the Cuban people and preparing for Raul's retiring next February. Making good with the new leader early will be the best chance we have of helping the Cuban people by influencing policy.
This move is only going to make his successor more skeptical of us and help continue the same ideals of the past.
Insofar as those in Miami, get over it! At a certain time, one should cut their losses.
-
And that's the problem. It worked with postwar Germany and Japan, but it failed miserably in Iraq, Afghanistan, and a few other countries.
You can't tell Russia how to run their country. American system just wouldn't work there.
I saw a really good interview a couple years ago, can't remember with who, that spoke about how the end of WW2 was a complete fluke. Wars never end with countries making good with each and living in pease there after. It just does not happen.
Unfortunately, we in the USA live with this idea that wars can end that way always. This is of a great detriment to us; look at the middle east. We keep on spending money and resources thinking we can make pease and democracy work.
It won't, and we have no right to try and make it work.
-
Joe, I just read this article and it appears that Castro made out a lot better than we did. His reversal of Obama's measures are half hearted, more for show. Many of them are being left in placed or modified.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/16/us/politics/cuba-trump-engagement-restrictions.html?_r=0
Really?
The article has nothing that supports your statement other then one quote from one Cuban. A mere paragraph. No evidence is shown at all.
However, there is plenty within it that supports my side.
Article after article is showing more free market activity in Cuba mainly due to American tourism and investment. People are starting to make money in Cuba from the free market.
In 54 years, this is the best thing that has happened to undermine communism on the island.
This last clutch of a policy that has failed over and over again is going to due more harm then good.
From your article, Senator Jeff Flake, Republican of Arizona, "By denying Americans the freedom to travel to Cuba, we will be denying them (Cuban people) customers, and they will be worse off."
-
The following was extracted from the NY Times article:
"Still, Mr. Trump’s action allowed him to claim credit for taking a tough stand while leaving in place many of the changes made by Mr. Obama, which polls have shown are broadly supported, including by most Republicans.
Under the directive, embassies in Washington and Havana will stay open and cruises and direct flights between the United States and Cuba will be protected under an exception from the prohibition on transactions with military-controlled entities.
Nor does the measure affect the ability of Cuban-Americans to travel freely to the island and send money to relatives there, or a broad array of rules the Obama administration put in place aimed at making it easier for American companies to do business in Cuba."
Also, the one Cuban you motioned is the leader of the major opposition group, not some minor figure:
"But some Cuban dissidents who had backed Mr. Obama’s thaw in the hopes it would lead to greater openness on the island said the opposite had occurred. Among them was José Daniel Ferrer García, head of the Cuban Patriotic Union, the largest opposition group in Cuba, who was among the dissidents Mr. Obama met last year in Cuba.
“We believe that this is the moment for a maximum reversal of some policies that only benefit the Castro regime and does very little or nothing for the oppressed people,” Mr. Ferrer wrote in an open letter to Mr. Trump last week. “It is time to impose strong sanctions on the regime of Raúl Castro.”
In the end, Cuban Americans still have a lot of power here and their voice is more important since it effects them and their compatriots and relatives still living in Cuba. the most. While the polls may indicate support for loosening, those people aren't Cuban or have as deep a concern for Cuba as Cuban Americans.
Your first paragraph quoted does not support your original statement that Castro was making out a lot more then us. It merely reflects the political points gained by Trump amongst his base and what policies are remaining in place here, in the USA, nothing more. It has absolutely no concern with policy being implemented on the island.
Your second paragraph is the one I was referring to and does not present any evidence what so ever to back up the claim. It is nothing more then an emotional plea for support of his side.
Additionally, what would you expect from any opponent in any system of governance? For them to suddenly agree with whom they are against?
Last, they very fact that Cuban-Americans are so close to this issue on an emotional level is the exact reason why they should not be making policy on the subject. Their emotions are greatly clouding their logic. If I was wrong here, they would be recognizing the great good the influx of dollars is having on the private economy there and implement policy that would choke it off.
The fact remains, the free market is seeing a renaissance in Cuba for the first time in 54 years. Choking off American tourist dollars is going to do nothing but decrease the free market share of Cuban GDP, increase communism and give the regime a reason for doing so, just like they have been with the past 54 years of this failed policy.
If the Cubans, and Americans, really wanted a free Cuba, perhaps they should have voted for Nixon the first time around instead of JFK, who completely botched the Bay of Pigs and any other future relations.
It's time to move past JFK's failed policy.
-
What changed in Cuban governance since Obama changed the policy? Nothing. They're no more freer.
Yes, they are! They may not be free politically, but economically, they are becoming much more free, which is always the first thing to happen!
Even in this country, every minority group, except for the Irish and another group, sought economic independence first and then gained political influence second. The Irish, although did gain political influence initially, spent generations trying to gain economic stability through politics. It was not until they stopped looking at politics as a way to become economically independent and started to look at other means, that they finally gained economic independence. The other group (whom I will not identify for a few reasons) is, unfortunately, mirroring most of the mistakes of the Irish.
Same thing is happening in Cuba. Economic freedom is starting, and as soon as the private market becomes strong enough, it will have the end result of breaking the regime.
They are free to start their own businesses and make money outside of the state's economy. Like I said, as someone who has been there, your vision of what Cuba is, is wrong.
-
What changed in Cuban governance since Obama changed the policy? Nothing. They're no more freer.
I think this site contradicts your premise, and it also provide evidence of such.
https://www.engagecuba.org/cubas-private-sector/
-
Many changes made by Castro predates Obama's policy changes. The Cuban economy is a disaster. They know they have to change economic policies. If they want to improve it even more, let them provide additional freedoms before we give them more carrots. Also, let them return Chesimard to us who killed a number of state troopers from New Jersey where live. Although I'm not Cuban, I have as axe to grind also. Castro is protecting her, a murderer.
Don't be foolish Alan.
Are you seriously suggesting that Raul, the devout communist, the one who convinced Fidel to implement communism and socialize the whole economy, just came up with his reforms on his own? That he suddenly had a change in heart?
Also you seriously suggesting that talks between him and Obama did not occur long before the 2014 thawing and that maybe Obama was an influence on Raul's reforms? And that maybe, due to negotiations, Obama could not claim part of them.
The Cuban state economy is a disaster, but there is a free market revolution starting. It's really sad to see so many fanboys ready to piss that away just because Trump says so. I may have been for Trump over HRC due to fiscal concerns and over regulations, but I will not idly approve of all his policies, especially when they lack all reason and evidence of working.
I am glad to see republicans voice their opposition to this foolish policy that has a 54 year track record of failure.
Insofar as Chesimard, you really need to learn to cut your losses at a certain point. Move on, get over it, and you're a New Yorker that now lives in NJ.
And by the way, you have provided nothing but ideas that, on top of this, have 54 years of proof against them working. My side of the argument has proof of our ideas working and improving the Cuban economy.
-
Yes I'm a New Yorker that moved to NJ 4 years ago. But as a New Yorker living miles from the killing and with Chesimard very much in the news at the time, it put all people in the NY Metro area with a lot of hate for her. She held up banks in the Bronx where I grew up. She and her Black Liberation Party terrorist cohorts held up banks in Queens where I lived for over 40 years. She also attacked NYPD police with a hand grenade two miles from my home in Queens, NYC. You're very nonchalant about it which isn't right.
I have no idea what you mean when you say cut my loses. What does that even mean? I'm not losing anything when the President is tough on the Communist Cuban regime that protected Chesimard. So you're saying screw the families of the cops, who cares that this women killed them that she escaped from jail 35 years ago? She has a $1 million reward on her head from the FBI. She was sentenced to life in prison and escaped to Cuba where Fidel gave her political asylum. If Raul wants us to help economically, let them return her.
https://www.fbi.gov/wanted/wanted_terrorists/joanne-deborah-chesimard
In so many words, yes, that is exactly what I am saying to your Red Herring of an argument on not opening diplomatic relations with Cuba.
It happened in 1977, another era, and I could care less about some trivial event, albeit a tragedy, that happened 40 years ago.
What I care about is allowing free markets to do their job, which they are doing in Cuba.
The one thing that has finally happened in 54 years that is undermining the regime you want to nix because of someone whom you don't know was murdered two generations ago.
It's time to cut our losses here. Meaning we've lost this to Cuba, repeatably. It is time to realize this and move on.
-
Joe, she's still alive. She's been living high off the hog down there for 35 years with Castro using her as a foil, rubbing our noses in it for all that time. All you seem to be concerned with is getting Americans on cruise ship to Havana so they can enjoy vacationing in the Caribbean. I wonder why you're so strong on this? Is there some business or monetary thing going on that you would benefit from closer ties? Why are you so concerned with free markets?
Because it is stupid policy. Because allowing old wounds to prevent better relations makes no sense. Because allowing Americans to visit may spark even more freedoms. Because having good relations with a country so close is a good thing.
-
So let Raul show he's serious about change. Let him return Chesimard and allow some personal freedoms at the same time Trump can change and allow more openings. You just don't give things away and hope the other side responds. There has to be good faith on both sides. When you sell your services., do you just give in to the other sides demands? Or do you negotiate, in good faith, a little give and take, and make a deal BOTH sides can live with.
Well here is the thing, we did get something in return.
Raul's policy changes in 2012 were most surely influenced by outside sources, especially considering he is a lifelong communist, and, since it can be rightly assumed talks between Obama and Raul began long before 2014, that source might have been Obama.
Not to mention, you are in the small minority (<25%) of people who actually want and think we can get something out of this.
Let bygones be bygones. We should move on and continue normalizing our relationship.
By the way, do you think Americans should not be allowed to visit say Saudi Arabia? Or North Korea? Both have much worse track record with human rights.
Even though I think it is foolish to visit North Korea, I would not restrict it.
-
There's a scene in The Godfather, where Generalissimo and President Batista, who was overthrown by Castro in real life, accepted a huge payments from the Corleone family of the Godfather to do gambling business in Cuba. So now American companies will be making deals with Cuban companies to do business but with the military of Castro's government. The true owners might appear to be non-military on the surface. But you know it will be Castro and his cronies who actually control and own the front companies. Trump is allowing that to continue. Airlines and cruise ship will continue their operations. So you really got what you want despite Trump's "tough" stand.
So in 57 years we've gone from Batista to Castro. Nothing's changed.
Mixing Hollywood with real life now? You did read the recent articles on how the latest Churchill movie gets all the important parts wrong, so sorry if I can't help but question this.
A lot has changed in 57 years; the Cubans are getting their economic freedom back. Political change will come as this flourishes.
I think you are also over looking that Castro retires in February.
-
What area you questioning? It's been estimated that the Castro family and cronies have enriched themselves with 800-900 billion dollars over the years. I believe Castro's son in law will take over after Raul. Like I said, it's like North Korea but warmer.
You have no idea what you are talking about. Your statement about Cuba being like North Korea but warmer shows your utter lack of knowledge on the subject. Not to mention your arrogance is amazing since you have been to neither and I have been to one of them.
In all your retorts, you have only provided the reasoning behind the embargo, that you approve of, is because we have axes to grind.
I on the other hand recognize your policy has a 54 year track record of pure and utter failure and that it's time to try something else. I also recognize that Cuba is beginning to go through a capitalist revolution and that now would be the time to get on board.
-
Well, my wife and I have seen most of the other islands in the Caribbean. I suggested a cruise as she really loves those. But she said that she wasn't giving any money to those Communists. I guess we'll have to take another cruise too conservative Canada.
You don't what you are missing.
I found Cuba to be, by far, the safest country I have visited in the Caribbean. I would say Havana is just as, if not more, safe than Hamilton, Bermuda. It's much more safe then NYC, especially outside of Manhattan, and Philadelphia. I not once felt threatened, and I was walking around with a $45K camera morning, noon, evening and night.
Go down in January, get yourself a Cohiba Robusto, a double of Havana Club Anejo 7 Anos with ice and enjoy the nice dry 80 degree weather.
-
http://68.media.tumblr.com/22b4e98c2ba2276c0e9751cdee79d7d6/tumblr_oofisnOCyU1thd7hoo1_400.gif (http://68.media.tumblr.com/22b4e98c2ba2276c0e9751cdee79d7d6/tumblr_oofisnOCyU1thd7hoo1_400.gif)
Funny Lol. Maxine is going nuts about Trump.
-
The Onion's take:
;D
Those are great.
I am enjoying this piece on CNN about Nancy Pelosi (http://www.cnn.com/2017/06/21/politics/nancy-pelosi-democrats-kathleen-rice/index.html) right now.
It's almost like some Dems are finally realizing fighting against Trump non-stop, pushing witch hunts and not having a clear message, none the less, is toxic for their party.
-
Wait, can it power automated machine gun nests? ;)
Still thinking like a Russian?
-
If Mueller goes on a witch hunt and investigates more than obstruction and Russian collusion or if anything leaks from his staff about his investigations such as Trump tax records, Trump will try to fire him, and rightly so.
I find this whole situation to be rather amusing, the irony is just so thick.
First, it is pretty much agreed on both sides that Trump did not collude with the Russians. So the fact that the Dems are now pushing obstruction of justice into the collusion probe bags the question, how could Trump obstruct an investigation that had no merits to begin with? If the collusion investigation was not going to go anywhere, how could one obstruct that?
Furthermore, considering no one now thinks he colluded, it can be assumed Trump is innocent of this charge. If he is innocent, he would have known he was innocent, so why would he even bother to try and obstruct. It makes no sense.
Of course some here will say a lot about Trump makes no sense and that he did it just to do it. That argument could be valid, but if Trump is truly innocent of collusion, it is not one the overall electorate will not buy into. It will be very much like Benghazi. Did Hillary make decisions that likely made a bad situation worse, yes, but, was she guilty of anything, no. So the public did not care.
However, the real funny thing about all of this is that the Dems and Pelosi are doubling down on obstruction, even after being walloped in the recent special elections. The Dems nationwide have become branded as the party of witch hunters, which certainly played a big roll in causing Ossoff to loose.
Even after a small, but notable, group of Dems called for Pelosi to step down and new leadership to take over (even Schumer is in the crosshairs), directly due to the recent losses and lack of any positive branding, I still see no evidence of anyone in a leadership position in the party trying to develop an actual message other then, "resist, resist, resist, obstruction, obstruction, obstruction, impeach, impeach, impeach!"
Now I certainly don't agree with Trump on everything, but one thing I have to is, "it would be a very, very sad day for Republicans" if Nancy Pelosi steps down.
-
Joe,
Nobody knows, but I think it is unlikely that he do that willingly. However, he does keep piling on strange behavior in relation to Russian connections and a somewhat questionable choice of advisors (e.g. Manafort). Maybe Trump is just a fool who keeps digging when in a hole ...
As far as I've understood, the collusion that is being investigated is that between members of the campaign staff and Russia, not necessarily or exclusively Trump himself.
That's the trouble with such investigations, dig deep enough and (initially innocent) things start surfacing that fit a suspect situation. Add to that Trump's behavior, e.g. obstructing justice (possibly just out of stupidity), and a new (more serious?) investigation is born.
Cheers,
Bart
I would not necessarily call him a fool, but inexperienced. If he did obstruct out of stupidity (inexperience), I doubt it will get very far and he will more then likely be given a pass by the overall public.
Aside from Trump, I can't help but notice the Democratic party is imploding right now, primarily due to a lack of any clear positive messaging, and that the leaders really don't seem to care.
2018 could be brutal for the Dems if this keeps up.
-
Joe: I think the obstruction charge has to do with Flynn, not Russian collusion, that Trump tried to get Comey to stop any investigation of Flynn and "let him go". That's what the whole testimony was about with Comey's notes in the middle of the night. But your point is the same. Trump "hoped" that Comey would just move on regarding Flynn which is a hard thing to pin obstruction of justice on. So there's no "there" there.
Trump did ask Comey and other officials to publicly announce that he was not being investigated when they told him he wasn't. He wanted the cloud over him to be removed so he could go on governing and dealing with the Russians as he saw fit and not constrained by the "cloud". But again, there's no obstruction in that case either as asking someone to public acknowledge what they are not doing anyway is not obstruction.
Yes, the whole Flynn thing, forgot about that.
To be honest, I'm not really paying attention to it anymore. It clearly looks like a witch hunt and the Dems are just being so negative for the sake of being negative.
Unfortunately for them, people don't get excited and vote on negatives. Sure, maybe the bases do, but they are a small part of the overall electorate.
-
Someone who seems incapable of learning from his mistakes and keeps repeating them is a fool, IMHO of course.
Cheers,
Bart
I was speaking directly to unknowingly obstructing, which I would say only seemed to have happen before this mess and not since, if it actually happened at all.
-
Actually, he is...even the name Pocahontas generally refers to a historical myth with racist overtones...in case you are unfamiliar with the REAL "Pocahontas" whose birth name was actually Matoaka, here's a story about the historical sad reality...and if you know the real story of Pocahontas you would understand why native Americans find the use of the name to describe Warren as racist...and so should you. (I'll be you don't real the whole story :~)
The True Story of Pocahontas: Historical Myths Versus Sad Reality (https://indiancountrymedianetwork.com/history/genealogy/true-story-pocahontas-historical-myths-versus-sad-reality/)
Well, thanks you for going off the deep end on that one. By the way, great straw man argument.
Too bad no matter how great it is though, it is still a fallacy. The feelings of the Native Americans on using Pocahontas have absolutely no baring on how Warren exploited those same Native Americans, regardless of those two may be related. (AKA a straw man.)
Personally do I think the POTUS should be throwing around insults, no. However, Warren really did bring it on herself.
She falsely identified as a Native American for personal gain. Then, when she was called out on it, doubled down at first, insisting that her father was 1/16 Native American (or some insignificant fraction) but could not provide any verifiable proof that this was the cause. Additionally, the tribe (I can't remember which one) she claimed to have heritage in denied any knowledge of this being the case.
After this, she simply ignored the issue, hoping it would go away.
Although I would prefer a less crass way of Trump pointing this out, and thus lowering her creditability, I do not condemn him for it. She does not deserve to be taken nearly as seriously as other politicians due to this, and other things.
-
And you know this how?
The funny thing is that Scott Brown tried that same line on her back in the 2012 Senate race and was awarded "Two Pinocchios" for the claim...Scott lost BTW.
Did Elizabeth Warren check the Native American box when she ‘applied’ to Harvard and Penn? (https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/everything-you-need-to-know-about-the-controversy-over-elizabeth-warrens-claimed-native-american-heritage/2012/09/27/d0b7f568-08a5-11e2-a10c-fa5a255a9258_blog.html?tid=a_inl&utm_term=.6a5b8d7522cd)
Trump is using the Pocahontas tag as a way of belittling Warren. It's simply base, mean hearted nastiness with racist and sexist overtones–something Trump does all the time and seems to get away with. But it's something that the President of the United States of America should have the class to avoid...
But Warren appears to have been well-qualified for the teaching positions and excelled once she was hired...
So you're telling me that the main reason a conservative republican lost to Warren in the liberal NE was because he questioned her heritage and whether or not she was lying? ::)
She claimed to be Native American on several talk shows, well actually she claims her mother was part Cherokee and Delaware, so unless she was adopted, she is implying that she is also Native American. (Sorry, I got the wrong parent in my post.)
However, neither the Cherokee nor the Delaware can verify this since they have no records of her Mother having heritage within those tribes.
Now, can you definitively say that she is lying, no, but it is nearly impossible to prove a negative. However, the facts are clearly not on her side and more then likely she fabricated this.
Furthermore, stating that she was qualified after receiving the position is once again a straw man. It does not matter how qualified she was, that still has no baring how she misrepresented her ethnicity for personal gain. (I know you did not say this, you were just forwarding the message. Maybe you can write the author and let him know that that statement was a straw man.)
-
Trump has been president for almost 6 months. Shouldn't the vetting review already be done?
Or has the Trump administration done nothing?
The courts blocking the executive orders did not, in any way, affect the government's plan to review the vetting process.....if they ever had a plan that is.
I personally do not agree with the ban nor do I think it will do any good. It is a waste of time.
Regardless, I think the President should have the right to limit immigration as spelled out in the law, even if I do not agree with it. This is a prime example of a case that should go in front of the SCOTUS, especially since so many have made this into something it is not, if not for anything more then clarity.
-
While it's estimated that 13 million people would lose insurance under the GOP plan. I don't believe America will ever have the level of affordable and accessible healthcare enjoyed by Australia, Japan, and most other advanced countries.
That is correct. People in the USA eat poorly and don't exercise nearly as much. Until we stop actively trying to kill ourselves, our healthcare is always going to be pretty damn expensive.
-
So, as a recent GOP representative said:
And all those babies (49%) whose births are subsidized by Medicaid, let's just quit allowing all those poor people to have babies because it's costing the rest of us too much money?
And how about the the kids with disabilities? According to the Kaiser Family Foundation (http://www.kff.org/report-section/medicaid-at-50-people-with-disabilities/) more than 10 million children and adults who qualify for Medicaid based on disability include individuals with physical impairments and conditions such as cerebral palsy, epilepsy, HIV/AIDS, and multiple sclerosis; spinal cord and traumatic brain injuries; severe mental health conditions, such as depression and schizophrenia; intellectual and developmental disabilities, including Down Syndrome and autism; and other functional limitations. So, sick or disabled through no fault of their own, do these kids not deserve care?
So, yeah, America doesn't eat healthy and doesn't exercise enough...so let's just let the sick and fat people die?
Do you realize how heartless that sounds? We don't eat right and exercise so what, we don't deserve healthcare?
First off, nothing of what you said refutes anything that I said. Actually it supports it.
Now, if you are born with a disability or a chronic illness, or if you are exposed to a substance of no fault of your own that causes an illness, I think you should be entitled to affordable healthcare. I think as a society, this should be standard.
If you're leading a healthy lifestyle, you should get affordable healthcare, and more then likely will since you are less expensive to insure.
However, if you eat in excess, drink too much, don't exercise, or smoke, or any combination of those, you brought it on yourself. Don't expect me to have enough sympathy to be willing to allow my tax dollars to go towards your medical bills. I would certainly give money to a direct family member in this case, but my sympathies pretty much end there.
Anyway, you deserve to pay a higher cost for insurance since you are directly causing yourself to be more expensive to be kept alive. Money talks and bull shit walks. Meaning you can preach to people until you are blue in the face to lead a healthy lifestyle; most won't care until you start dipping into their wallet.
In most cases, allowing society to pay for your bad choices is not going to force you to fix them. You will continue to be a sloth. This is the case in all actions; people follow the path of least possible resistance. If someone can continue to lead a bad lifestyle while not needing to spend the money to fix the results of their actions, they will continue to do so.
However, if we start to require those whom are unhealthy due to their own actions to pay a higher premium, maybe people will start to get the hint. Or maybe they will just start eating better and exercising so they don't have to pay as much in healthcare. Either way, it is a win.
Furthermore, if people want to have children why can't they have them when they are ready? Also, why can't people practice safe sex? Neither are difficult to do.
-
Some of the healthcare costs are because Americans expect the best and not have to pay for it because insurance covers it. The reasons it's cheaper in Europe and other places is that healthcare is rationed. For example, you can get an MRI in the US the same or next day. In other countries you have to wait months. My wife who broke her leg and had surgery had 7 or 8 X-rays of the leg after surgery prescribed by the surgeon. It cost around $475 for each x-ray including the radiologist's reviews. Of course it only cost us 10% of that out-of-pocket. So who cared? If we had to pay that much, I would have at least asked the surgeon if it was necessary to have an xray every time. Also, the surgeon ordered these Xrays for each visit to protect himself from malpractice lawsuits in case something went wrong. So huge and unnecessary amounts are being spent for little practical purpose.
What will happen with Obamacare, national health care, or Trumpcare, or whatever is that once everyone has insurance whether private or national, costs will become so high that rationing will be imposed. Also, more cost limits for doctor payment will be imposed lowering the quality of the doctors. In any case, healthcare in the US is a runaway train.
Absolutely.
Also, Americans expect everything that is related to health to be covered, for instance basic physicals. If you have your car get a tune up, you don't expect your car insurance to cover it. It should be the same thing with medical insurance.
Something else, prescription plans. Most people expect the worse and insist on covering for that and nearly any other prescriptions they would need.
When I first bought insurance in the free market, I opted for only having my insurance cover prescriptions that totaled over a $1000 in one calendar year. Now I could have gotten full prescription coverage for $40 more per month, but the one time I got sick per year, I only needed to pay at most $15 for the prescription.
-
Hum, I'll bet the Trumpster won't be happy that overrated Alec Baldwin will be back on the overrated Saturday Night Live Fall season :~)
'SNL': Alec Baldwin will return as Donald Trump in season 43 (http://www.msn.com/en-us/tv/news/snl-alec-baldwin-will-return-as-donald-trump-in-season-43/ar-BBDiLng)
(http://img-s-msn-com.akamaized.net/tenant/amp/entityid/BBDj0vJ.img?h=486&w=728&m=6&q=60&o=f&l=f&x=1314&y=462)
I have to say Alec Baldwin does a really really bad Trump impersonation. There are much better comedians out there that pull it off flawlessly, like Frank Caliendo. The only reason he got this, was because of who he is.
But seriously, he just comes of as an angry old man trying too hard to make fun of somebody with that bit.
Now Melissa McCarthy's act, that's pure magic.
-
Van Jones said that "the Russia thing is just a big nothing burger." and is on camera saying it. LOL
https://townhall.com/tipsheet/mattvespa/2017/06/28/cnns-van-jones-russian-collusion-story-is-a-big-nothing-burger-n2347957
-
Sorry, can't go along with this. He called Mexicans rapists, used "Pocohontas" to demean someone, called HC a "nasty woman", can't remember other instances right now. I understand why you want dignity and respect for the office, but that ship sailed a long time ago. Trump brought this on himself by his own undignified behaviour, no one else to blame but himself. Anyway, I thought you liked it when people are politically incorrect and "tell it like it is".
Yes Trump has no dignity or crass, which was clearly demonstrated by his insults on Mika this week. Mexicans are not rapist, or criminals, in any more number then us Americans. He should apologize for this; I doubt that will happen. With this said, I am quiet amazed by the media's surprise of his lack of any class at this point. It is pretty obvious he has no class; why are we still talking about it? Let's get on with our lives and read about what is really important.
To be honest, though, I would be greatly pleased if his whole branch was impeached and Paul Ryan took over. I would very much appreciate a dean's list economist, especially a conservative one, as president. I was hoping this would happen at the GOP convention.
With this said, Warren brought this on herself. She has yet to apologize for misrepresenting her ethnicity for personal gain. Now you could take that the same route as Jeff and claim this can not be proven while at the same time completely ignoring the universally accepted premise that it is quite the feat to prove a negative.
Here, listen to John Oliver talk about proving a negative, at about 12:30. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7VG_s2PCH_c)
But Warren deserves to be called out on this! I listen to Schumer seriously, but Warren is bat shit crazy and can not be taken seriously due to this and other things.
Also, it has been well documented that HRC is a nasty woman; remember those "Bimbos" her husband had to deal with. This is not to say Trump is a saint; he clearly is not, but HRC is not any better. According to reports she lost it election night, started throwing objects at her staffers and cried inconsolably; not the qualities of a president. There has been many more examples like this as well.
It would be a different story if Angela Merkel, or perhaps Joe Biden, ran against Trump, but you Dems picked one horrible candidate. Maybe next time you will pick a real representative instead of a self appointed emperor with such great "new cloths."
-
Wait, who are you talking about, Trump or Clinton? Sorry, you lost me there :~)
Both!
Really Jeff, for people like me, and you, this election was about our personal political constitution and what we feel government should be responsible for.
Don't tell me you voted for Clinton for her personal qualities; you've admitted that you did not already.
-
I voted for Clinton so I didn't have to cast a vote for Trump.
I honestly think Clinton would have been a better president even with a GOP House and Senate. Clearly she would not have been the disaster that Trump has been.
Exactly! But don't tell me you voted for her because you liked it.
For me, a stanch fiscal conservative and capitalist first, my vote was for the same reason as your vote. If Anthony Kennedy retired this term, I would be more than happy to concede the next election to you.
-
Yeah. All us deplorables are racists too.
You know, it's funny.
I got in an argument with my brother, who is extremely liberal, because he was saying I was being mildly racist in supporting charter schools.
The funny thing, in polling, the majority of blacks and minorities in major cities support charter schools. So, regardless of the fact that I was supporting what most of my fellow Philadelphians, who happen to be black, support, I was still being racist.
This whole argument has run it's corse, and is becoming nothing more then another empty tactic on the Dems part to separate and concur.
It would be nice if we all were Americans that happened to disagree on the role of government instead of the Anglo-Saxon vote, and the Irish vote, and the Black vote, and the Hispanic vote, and the Eastern European vote, and the right vote, and the poor vote, and the ...
-
Obama was dealt a virtually unplayable hand. It's nothing short of amazing that he was able to remain in the game at all.
Consistent myopic blaming of Obama for all of America's ills does nothing to advance the conversation.
Schewe's mention of McConnell's obstructionist tactics is particularly germane. It will, I predict, be ignored.
Come on now. Leadership stems from the top. Obama and Bill Clinton had virtually the same amount of obstructionism, but Clinton still got shit done. Obama dug his heels in the sand and whined. Sure, he tried to work with John Boehner but kept on moving the goal posts in his direction after agreements were already made.
On top of that, we can not compliment Obama on any economic issues merely because he did something; any sitting President would have done something. Instead we need to look at the results of his actions, an anemic recovery, stagnate wage growth and family income (slightly negative if you take into account inflation), an unemployment rate that only came down due to people dropping out of the workforce, high paying full time jobs being replaced by low paying part time one, etc., etc., etc.
Why do you think Trump's economic message resonated so well. (Not saying I feel his agenda will completely work ,especially in regards to coal and fossil fuels, but Obama's poor economic performance certainly helped.) There were more then a few emails released (by now, who cares from where) that showed many Dems spoke to the President about his abysmal economic performance and how it would effect the election even though these same Dems were touting how well the economy was publicly.
I saw a great article on CNBC a couple of days ago. Turns out nearly directly after Seattle's minimum wage went from $11 to $13 per hour, the average family income of low wage workers went down about $125 per month due to a decease in hours and layoffs. Turn's out raises in minimum wage really does hurt low income workers.
Seattle Wage Study (http://www.cnbc.com/2017/07/02/seattles-minimum-wage-hike-may-have-cut-wages-and-jobs-study-author.html)
Of course the author can not say for sure, since there is no control group, as is the case in all economic studies, but the correlation is pretty high. It's policies like these, that Obama supported, that stagnated the economy.
-
Joe mentioned the economic issues above. But Obama really created a lot of problems on the international scene as well. When he pulled out of Iraq in 2011, he created a vacuum for ISIS. He lost all respect when he erased the red line he drew in Syria. That created a massive problem there and the refugee problems in Europe. His reducing American naval forces in the Pacific in addition to the red line debacle gave the Chinese the green light to militarize the islands and for North Korea to double down on nuclear tests and missile research.
Trump has done a lot to reverse that image of America in the few months he's been president. The calculations out of Peking, Moscow, Tehran etc. have taken a turn. The leaders there know they won't have a free hand any longer. Our allies in Israel, Saudi Arabia, Japan and other Pacific nations feel America has their back again. Europeans might have their doubts because of NATO and Paris Accord. But Trump has actually added troops and missiles there annoying the Russians even more. His missiles in Syria hasn't made them feel warm either.
The whole Benghazi debacle I attribute to Obama too; I never thought it was Hillary's fault. More then likely Obama's fecklessness kept HRC, and the rest of the administration, from sending in reinforcements. This is why I believe HRC left as secretary of State soon afterwards. Of course, since she wanted to run for president herself, she needed Obama's support and just could not throw him under the bus.
With that being said, I really wish we would decrease our roll military world wide. It's bankrupting us, and I could care less what happens across either ocean so long as Americans are not targeted.
-
Yeah, despite all our bloviating about the risks of other nations having nuclear weapons, we are still the only country that used them.... twice.
But we can be trusted with nuclear weapons but no one else can be trusted. After all, they may use them. :o
I take issue with the USA being judged for using nuclear weapons in Japan, especially with 70+ years of hindsight.
Most historians agree that doing so shortened the war by two years. Additionally, in just the initial planned invasion of the mainland at Kyushu, it was estimated that 50K USA solders would have died plus several times that of Japanese solders and civilians. Beyond that initial invasion, there would have been many more casualties, of both solders and civilians, in the effort to take over Japan and destroy their spirit.
(I say destroy their spirit because they would have never surrendered since their religion prevented them from doing so.)
It would have been a long drawn out horrible battle if Hirohito had not decided to surrender, and the nuclear bombs are the only reason he did.
In comparison to the millions of people that would have died in a conquest, 80K and 45K people died in the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, respectfully. That adds up to 125K, which is the same amount of civilians that died in the bombing of Tokyo using conventual bombs. No one talks about this though.
Now one could argue that Japan was a beaten country by that point and we over estimated how many would have actually died in an invasion. With this same logic, one could also say Japan would have given up after our troops made it to the mainland, and our use of nuclear bombs was morally wrong. This logic does not hold though.
On the ground in Japan, most of the citizens still felt they were winning the war and would have continued to fight regardless of an invasion. On top of that, after conquering the island in the first two years, it could have take an additional 10 years of occupation to stamp out the last remnants of warriors in hiding and kill the spirit.
This is backed up by the fact that it took so long for Japan to formally surrender after saying they would. The reason for this was because a large group of citizens, backed by a small military force, tried to stage a coup and continue the fight. Whether or not the Japanese government could actually rely on the population to support a surrender was up in the air at first.
War is hell; no way around it. But these weapons were not used in a war of conquest, but to finish an aggressive advisory that invaded countries and committed atrocities worse then the Nazis, much worse.
This is much different then NK, who is using nuclear weapons as a way to get the USA to back out from supporting SK so they can, once again, invade and try to conquer the South.
PS., on an existentialist level, the use of nuclear bombs I consider to be immoral. It is just those that argue against our use of them on Japan do so by implying that there were other options that would have resulted in a lower lost of life. This is just not true and what annoys me about this topic.
-
what a nice position for perpetrators - so let us wait 70 years and then judge Assad too, with a hindsight ...
Thank you so much for taking into consideration that we, the Allies, were only stopping an enemy that invaded many other countries beforehand and executed, in the most extreme and horrific fashion, men, women and children (even infants) ... in comparison to a dictator that gasses his own people.
Yep, the USA stopping the war is virtually the same as Assad gassing his people.
Sounds like you are really looking at both situations in their entirety.
What did Jeff call creating simple answers for complex problems? Anti-Intellectualism
-
you nuked civilians ... it does not matter whether they were your people or not... and then you spend 70 years inventing reasons why Unites Fruit of Marines was moved by some noble intentions ;D
I am not familiar with Unites Fruit of Marines, so I can not comment on it, nor will I.
However, acting like we could some how have ended the war without killing civilians is a fools errand. Furthermore, your ignorance of the fact that an invasion would have resulted in two million civilian deaths shows that you either can not look at this logically or are selling something.
Like I said, using nuclear weapons I consider existentially wrong. However, I have the advantage of 70+ years of knowledge vs. 0 years at the time. Furthermore, many more civilians would have died in any other means that we could have used to end the war.
-
The point is that if it is/was acceptable for the US to use nuclear weapons, then it stands to reason that it is acceptable for other countries to have the same capability.
It is the position that we can have nukes but other countries can't that I find indefensible.
Especially when it is pretty difficult to prevent a nation from developing or purchasing them.
I agree with this, and believe the idea that we can control what happens in other countries is our biggest flaw in international affairs. It has gotten us into more problems and created more enemies then what it is worth.
However I don't think it will end well if NK gets the bomb.
If we end getting another feckless president, the North might very well test him/her with a small scale attack on the South. If we do nothing, the North will invade the South. (I believe the North truly wants to control all of Korea, not just the northern part and our alliance is the only thing holding them back.)
Unfortunately for the South, their military is more then capable of beating the North. I say unfortunate for them because as soon as the North realizes this, there is a good chance the North will nuke Seoul.
-
Why in the world Kim will decide to attack first w/o US provocation with conventional forces ?
You need to brush up on your history my friend. It is commonly accepted, through out most of the world, that the North invaded the South and started the Korean War.
Not to mention the North has engaged in single missile attacks on Southern locations, killing South Koreans, albeit in small numbers, and also has kidnapped its fair share of South Koreans too, without provocation I might add.
They would invade because they want to control the entire peninsula, not just the North, that's why.
If you don't agree, ask yourself why has the North refused to sign a pease treaty. Are they just lazy? Or maybe they want an excuse for an invasion when they do so, because they are technically still at war.
-
it will end well - US will just have to learn to live deterred by one more country ;D ... just like USSR deterred USA with few nukes and few means to deliver.
Once again you are either ignoring the point I was making in order to back up some straw man argument or you did not take the time to try and understand the meaning of my post.
My comment about it not ending well had nothing to do with attacks on USA territory. The USA had the technology to shoot a falling piece of space debris, moving much faster then a ICBM, with a missile more then 10 years ago. I am sure the technology has advanced significantly since then, although the military would never admit to it for obvious reasons. Unless NK releases a plethora of missiles all at once, which I doubt they have, I don't think any will reach the USA before they are shot out of the sky.
However, it would be a disaster for Seoul if NK decides to nuke the city in an invasion they suddenly realize they can not win. And I would not put it past Kim to do so.
-
and you need to understand that calculus is different today that it was back then - there are no uncles or chairmans behind Kim's back ...
so ? it seems you lack the understanding of the difference between the war and such behavior ...
I want to have extra $1m ... am I going to rob the bank or so ?
I 'd not sign it myself - just like USSR/Russia still does not have a peace treaty w/ Japan ... because of the opposing parties pre-conditions on both sides ... tell us what is the other side offering to NK in the peace treaty as of today ?
USSR/Russia (with thousands of nukes) is technically still at war with Japan ... watch out ;D
Calculus has remained the same since the 1950s in the areas that existed then. However, it has advanced into other fields of study. ;)
And what is the difference between war and such behavior as you put it. Is killing of only a handful of SKs in a single missile strike acceptable because it was just a single missile?
You seem to be missing the point the point though of these one off strikes. The North was doing these to test the South's resolve and whether or not we would be there. Fortunately we were, otherwise the North could have very well decided it was time to invade again.
Your comment about wanting an extra million dollars is a red herring by the way, another type of argument that is a fallacy. Your mental and moral capacity has nothing to do with Kim's. In order to determine whether to not Kim would invade, we need to look at Kim's actions, not yours.
Insofar as your comments about the USSR and Japan, technically they are not true either. The USSR no longer exists, so therefore it can not be at war with Japan.
Not to mention, it is pretty obvious that Putin is a rather shrewd leader that makes well thought out decisions, which I accept even if I don't agree with some of those decisions. Kim I am not so sure about. He seems either unstable or power hungry; neither are good qualities for a leader of a nuclear nation.
-
did I say anything about attacking __USA territory__ in this text "just like USSR deterred USA with few nukes and few means to deliver." ? you have a wild imagination about the situation in the first half of 1950s with USA having technology to shoot down few medium range propeller driven bombers that USSR had (flying one way at best)
You said that it is something that the USA would have to learn to live with, implying that the North could very well decide to attack the USA and that would keep us at bay.
However, you missed my point on "not ending well." It had nothing to do with the USA, but with the people of South Korea. You should be making comments on my point of it "not ending well" in regards to the South, instead of the USA.
Also, in regards to defending against ICBMs, I said ten years ago, which would be 2007, not the 1950s.
You can read about it here. (http://www.cnn.com/2008/TECH/space/02/20/satellite.shootdown/)
-
only in paranoid minds of some people... Kim is not - he is just doing his best with cards he was dealt
US is not "were", US is "are"... US forces are in SK - so no invasion to SK under current circumstances with NK forces ... but of course if Kim decides that US really wants to take him out then by all means he will be right to nuke Seoul first ... he can't afford not to.
how do u know ? do I need anything more than pen and paper to take on a bank ? and I am not more smart in the matters of survival than Kim (neither is you) - I bet we both long 'd be gone in NK, and he rules ...
it takes more to rule, survive and deter USA in NK for Kim that for Putin to do the same in Russia ...
I was making a joke in regards to mathematical calculus.
So NK nuking of Seoul without provocation is fine (a preemptive strike as you say in so many words), but the USA nuking Japan after Japan decided to try and take over the world is not?
Your comment on survival is once again a red herring. Talking about survival is very different then talking about whether or not someone will actually attack another country with a nuclear weapon without provocation. Once again, your mental health and moral code has nothing to do with someone else's.
-
Reading and commenting on current events keeps you aware of your surroundings-both good and bad...it's empowering and provides an avenue to vent, as long as you don't take too serious...are you taking it too serious?
What? Sorry Jeff, this sounds like a lame middle school response.
Not that I care that you keep on posting news clips, but this forum is suppose to be about conversation, not dictation, and perhaps original thoughts too. I just simply ignore most of your posts since it's obvious you really don't care for responses to them and almost all have become nothing but cut and paste, not too original.
Anyway, how do you have that much free time on your hands to read and post all these things?
-
I would be more than happy to discuss anything with you (and we have as I recall). But I understand how frustrated Trump supporters must be with all the negative news (#FAKENEWS) that is flowing out of mainstream media, but it wouldn't be flowing if Trump and his Minions™ weren't screwing the pooch so badly ya know?
But as for this thread, I'm treating it like a gallery wall that I can post interesting, entertaining or scathing news items all about Trump and his Deplorable™. I kinda see myself as the curator...I've gotten real good at mining all the Trump stories–it really doesn't take long with Google and MSN and BING news searches...I'm sorry you don't like my copy/pastes but I like to conserve my time and find it more efficient to point people to the stories. I do it as a service to save the viewers of the thread from having to do their own news aggregation.
As for how I have the time and energy to do all these posts? Well, I don't have to work for a living and I'm in the fortunate position of only doing those things I find fun, entertaining or enriching. As I said, I find researching and being on top of the news therapeutic and gives me a place to vent about the idiots running the insane asylum formerly know as the White House. I know Trump supporters find that irritating...good. That's gratifying :~)
Wow, that's the best ya got dooode?
A "lame middle school response"...well, hopefully this response will be more to your liking, is it?
Otherwise I can resort to (https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/236x/3c/6f/cc/3c6fccc6de2055cae131966656b87a8e.jpg) is that better?
(Note to Moderator: Don't worry Chris, I quit taking anything personally in this thread a long time ago so I just let stuff roll off and refuse to attack back :~)
See, this is what I am talking about! A thoughtful original post that is not a cut and paste from an article, which is exactly what forums are about.
They are not about looking up articles, then posting them verbatim, often with little to no posted opinions or personal commentary, as if this is your personal gallery.
I am glad you do not need to work for a living, I don't either. I just take pictures and fortunately people pay me a few grand every now and then to do so. However, I still need spend the time to take and edit those pictures, which could easily add up to 70 to 80 hours some weeks. I have a marathon of post production I am looking forward to right now, and I just got a job I priced high so as not to get, damn clients!
And yes, at 7 in the morning, before coffee, that was the best I had. But don't think for a second yours was any better.
-
Well, I did start this thread (a really long time ago) so I kinda think I can post anything here that doesn't violate the LuLa Terms of Service (right Chris & Kev?)...so, yeah it is kinda like my own personal gallery of all things disturbing or humorous regarding the Trumpster...
8)
I disagree. You merely continued a previous thread that was started by BernardLanguillier and closed because a few posters went off the rails. :P
-
Wasn't Jared going to fix the Middle East? We should stop distracting him and let him get on with the job. ;)
Not really sure what you are implying here. Every administration have had a plethora of so called "experts" that "will" fix the middle east and nothing has happened yet. So it's not like he could do any worse.
In all seriousness though, the Middle East will never be fixed unless we, the USA, stop providing all help to Israel until they end their apartheid governance of the Palestinians. I don't see any political will strong enough in this country for that to happen though; not even Obama had the grit to vote against Israel last fall.
-
Point me to the lies and libels...lots of inconvenient truths but I really don't see the lies.
Oh, wait, you weren't talking about Tito's Vodka huh?
Props on that one Jeff!
-
If "The Juice" gets paroled Trump may be trumped. LOL
Don
-
ODE TO THE BIG ORANGE ONE (https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=R3gL0xsmkt8)
ODE TO THE BIG ORANGE ONE (https://youtu.be/R3gL0xsmkt8)
(http://www.heraldnet.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/web1_TSR-TrumpHair-EDH-170122.jpg)
-
No I didn't curse nor swear. I was raised in a very religious family. Public profanity or even swearing was not acceptable.
No wonder your parents didn't allow you to join. You would have been an embarrassment to them. There's nothing worse than a 14 year old with the mouth of a sailor.
As a former high school teacher, I can guarantee you, you're the unique one.
-
I can wait to find out what Trump does when Hillary's book comes out in Sept.
Hillary Clinton lets her "guard down" in new memoir after stunning election defeat (http://www.cbsnews.com/news/hillary-clintons-new-book-what-happened-presidential-election-russia-james-comey/)
(http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2017/07/27/13/42BD6CA800000578-0-image-a-11_1501159505971.jpg)
The ultimate Trump troll?
Is this serious? Is she really writing a book stating how she feels she lost? And are you promoting it?
You Dems just can't get rid of her can you?
She has to be the most conceited and full of hubris individual in politics right now, and is certainly bringing down the Dems with her. And this is only making her look more foolish, especially since all of those on the left are finally starting to accept and admit she was a bad candidate and that that was the reason she lost.
Let her publish her book; it's only going to be a big negative for the Dems, especially in the current leadership vacuum you guys have.
I think the sooner you get rid of her, the better.
I just can believe how tone-deaf HRC is. I mean after the whole email thing and her refusal to accept any culpability for it for months on end was baffling, especially since the majority of the country thought she was culpable. Now her refusal to admit she had a bad (really no) message and ran a horrible campaign, when every expert, on the right and left, has said so, is even more perplexing.
-
So the New York Times in their continuing anti-Trump effort now uses a trans-gender soldier, Chelsea Manning, dishonorably discharged from the service for treason and who served 7 years in a brig to speak to why the service should allow trans-gender people into the service. Beside the insult of letting a traitor speak to this, she (he) only highlights the point that maybe trans-gender people are unstable enough mentally that they shouldn't be allowed in the military or any part of the government where security is involved. The NY Times so hates Trump, that they are apparently blind to their stupidity in using her to support trans-gender rights regarding the military. What buffoons. They actually make Trump seem reasonable in his position.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/27/opinion/trump-transgender-military-chelsea-manning.html?_r=0
I think one of the biggest mistakes Obama made was pardoning Chelsea Manning, but not Snowden.
Snowden deserved a pardon; his actions were for the good of the country. Chelsea Manning's actions were selfish and about self-promotion.
-
She lost to Trump because of messaging.
Trump: Vote for me and I'll make your life better.
Hillary: Vote for me because I want it really bad.
Whether true or not, that's the vibe many got from these two lesser-of-evil candidates. Which message is more marketable? Yup, you guessed it.
-
Wow you really hate her huh? What did she ever do to bring forth that level of hate? I mean at least Trump has a career of doing and saying hateworthy things...
And yes th book and title are real and no I'm not promoting it but pointing out the odds are Trump will become fixated by what she writes (well fixated by what people think ho read the book and go running to Trump to tell him).
You figure the Donald will EVER quit mentioning his election win over her?
Yeah me neither :-)
I dont hate her. She is almost as good for the Republicans as Nancy Pelosi. ;)
I just think she is pathetic, and always has been. As a 1st lady, she put up with her husband's infidelity just for her career and tried to take down those "bimbos" who he cheated on her with. As a senator, she did the bare minimum; she never put her name on any new pieces of legislation, and never stuck her neck out. Played way too safe. As SoS, her inaction in the middle east cost the lives of Americans, gave way to ISIS, and decreased our standing in the world. Otto Phocus pointed out all of her negatives with the campaign.
To be honest, I can not possibly fathom how she got the ticket. Any other Dem would have been better.
Anyway, it's really you who should be hating her. She is the only one filling the leadership vacuum in the Democratic party and these continuous self-loathing comments she is making is only making the Dems look bad.
-
Looks like the German "illness" is becoming pandemic ;)
If 0%of muslim foreign nationals secretly wanted to hurt us Americans, surely it would be immoral to ban ALL muslims from entering the U.S. If 100% of muslims wanted to hurt us, however, surely it would be morally justifiable to ban ALL muslims.
So what do we do when the actual percentage is less than 100% but more than 0%? How much risk are you willing to take? And is it racist/Islamaphobic/intolerant if I am more risk averse than you are? And if so, by how much? Can you be 10% of a racist? Are you a racist if you draw the line at 1% but I at 2%? How much risk should a non-racist be allowed to take? .01%? 1%. How about 10%? Maybe 99%?
-
If 0%of foreign nationals secretly wanted to hurt us Americans, surely it would be immoral to ban ALL people from entering the U.S. If 100% of the people wanted to hurt us, however, surely it would be morally justifiable to ban ALL people.
If 1% of students at school (A) had unscreenable Ebola virus, and 99% of students at school (B) had Ebola, surely it would be moral to enroll your children into school B.
-
So you and Peter think what's happening in Venezuela is good?
I have been giving a good deal of thought about this situation. One thing I kept on coming back to is why are they not fighting back? I would certainly be fighting if I were in this situation.
I was never in the military, I don't own a gun, I don't get in physical fights, but if my freedom was being threatened directly in my own country, I would not hesitate to fight for it especially when it is obvious peaceful tactics are no longer viable.
It just blows my mind no armed resistance has be organized yet.
PS, I do have to agree with Otto Phocus on his statement above though.
-
so do feel IRA of various flavors, ETA, ISIS and so many others ... does not look like you recognize their choice freedom because it does not suit u, does it ? you don't have a monopoly on what freedom is, you just have the United Fruit States army to impose your view about it ;D ...
Oh ...
Freedom (according to google): the power or right to act, speak, or think as one wants without hindrance or restraint; absence of subjection to foreign domination or despotic government; the state of not being imprisoned or enslaved.
Freedom (according to Merriam-Webster): the quality or state of being free: such as
a : the absence of necessity, coercion, or constraint in choice or action
b : liberation from slavery or restraint or from the power of another : independence
c : the quality or state of being exempt or released usually from something onerous freedom from care
d : ease, facility spoke the language with freedom
e : the quality of being frank, open, or outspoken answered with freedom
f : improper familiarity
g : boldness of conception or execution
h : unrestricted use gave him the freedom of their home
I sincerely doubt anyone who actually follows what is going on in the world would truly concede, without an alternative motive, that any of the governments you mentioned above actually promote(d) freedom and allowed those whom live(d) under their rule to be free. Furthermore, in all of your examples, the majority of people living under those regimes were/are against them, an antonym to the definition of freedom.
BTW, you are right in that freedom is not a monopoly of the USA; mainly other countries have freedom. However, your implication that the rights of people can be constrained in the manners listed above while at the same time considering those same people as free is wrong according to the definition of freedom.
You should brush up on your diction.
-
google, really ? why not Koran ? try for a moment to consider that people might have totally different mindset at all ...
Was the Merrian-Webster (one the most well regarded sources of diction in the English language) definition too long to read?
Or did you not bother because you can't criticize me for ignoring variations of the word "freedom" when you recognize/admit that I listed 8 variations of the word's definition?
But anyway, here is a link for the definition of freedom (https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/freedom) according to the Oxford English Dictionary. The OED lists all variations of the definition of all words since that word's creation and inception into the English language.
You won't find a single definition of freedom there that supports your previous statement about ISIS, the Taliban, Maduro, etc.
So as you can see, not only am I taking into consideration different variations, I am takin into consideration every variation.
Last, if someone's mindset on how to live does not coincide with the definition, then their mindset is not one of freedom. Furthermore, if that mindset is one of instilling a rule of government onto a people where the majority are against it, that is a mindset of tyranny.
-
The Republican says to the Democrat: Our problems started on your president's watch; therefore, he is to blame.
The Democrat replies to the Republican: No, it is the previous Republican administration's fault. The effect was delayed.
The Democrat says to the Republican: It was Republican policies that failed to fix our problems.
The Republican replies to the Democrat: No, our policies were too restrained. We didn't go far enough, or we didn't give it enough time.
The Republican says to the Democrat: Here are statistics that prove your policies caused our problems.
The Democrat replies to the Republican: No, your statistics are unreliable.
The Democrat says to the Republican: Your party had majority rule and didn't fix our problems. You failed.
The Republican says to the Democrat: No, our party couldnt fix the problem because your party interfered and refused to cooperate.
And round and round we go.
-
google, really ? why not Koran ? try for a moment to consider that people might have totally different mindset at all ...
Let's step back for a moment.
Are you arguing that there is more then one form of viable governance? If yes, then I completely agree with you and realize that since english is not your first language that that may have gotten lost in translation.
However, if you are arguing, as your posts imply, that a form of governance that does not have majority support of the people it is governing and is forcing itself upon them can still be considered free, that is simply not possible by definition. Furthermore, I would not support any governance that does not have majority support.
-
President Trump said the head of the Boy Scouts called his recent address “the greatest speech that was ever made to them”.
Except the Boy Scouts did no such thing, according to a source within the organization.
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/boy-scouts-disputes-leadership-praised-trump-speech-greatest-article-1.3376061
-
You also keep complaining that regulations are strangling american enterprise. There is a UN ranking of country competitiveness (can't remember its name) that is done by some economic development agency that ranked the USA as fourth in the world for ease of starting a business. That, and given the huge wealth in your country, your assertion that federal government regulation is harming business is a little difficult to swallow. It's just not plausible.
I know you are talking to Alan here, but I feel the need to comment.
You are not correct on this.
I, myself, do not deal with regulations as a photographer, but my clients (architects and GCs mainly) do. Not a single one of them would agree with you. They could all site multiple projects that either did not even start or went extremely over budget, so the quality of the project suffered in other areas, due to regulations, some of which make no sense.
They would all say we are over-regulated and that regulations are costing businesses.
-
Actually, Joe, as a photographer, you too deal with regulations. Fees are required for commercial photography in public places. Complicated accounting procedures and tax regulations require you spend more money on accountants. Issuing a tax form at the end of the year as required by Obamacare to show that employees have health care through your firm. I'm sure if you think about all the things you do, you'll come up with a lot more.
I was a contractor in NYC. The rules and regulations were burdensome and costly. Filing plans and the associate costs for architects and engineers are astounding. Trump being a NY real estate developer is well acquainted with extra costs to build because of regs. So he probably has a pet peeve against regulations. Of course we need some regulations. The problem is they just get out of control so they begin to hurt more than help. They grow like weeds. They add costs that make us less competitive against imports and countries that have less regulation.
True, I can think of a few things, however the East Coast is pretty conservative when it comes to photography and regulations. NYC is only really concerned about getting permit fees if lighting and grip are on the ground. Tripods and shooting handheld are free. Philly is even better, they don't care at all so long as you don't need to shut down the street.
The West Coast though is crazy. Nearly all municipalities require permits for any type of commercial shooting. I know some photographers who regularly spend 3 to 4 hours obtaining the permits for even a simple shoot. Most of it is due to politicians over reacting. (One great example was some bored stupid assistant shined a 1K at a landing airplane, so the town made it illegal to do any commercial photography on public property. They should have fined the dumbass and made an example of him, then moved on, but the politicians needed to make sure they were seen doing something.)
Of course they charge for this time, but you don't make resales off of permits.
Time is better spent making pictures that can be licensed multiple times then dealing with stupid regulations even if you are being paid for your time.
-
I found the podcast I was referring to: http://www.npr.org/sections/money/2015/01/28/381652827/episode-599-the-invisible-wall (http://www.npr.org/sections/money/2015/01/28/381652827/episode-599-the-invisible-wall).
I fail to see how this relates to my comment on over-regulation. ???
-
Only in that it was the interview in that podcast that mentioned that the USA is relatively unregulated, fourth best in the world from that measure. The main point of the podcast supports what you said.
No one is contesting that silly regulations stifle enterprise. That is self-evident, I'd say. The point in my earlier thread was that what we call regulation varies from person to person and from time to time. A large swath of the population at one point thought that pollution controls on cars was over-regulation.
Okay, maybe I should drink more coffee before posting here that early.
-
Frankly, I have a soft spot in my heart for immigrants. My grandparents were immigrants. Also, someone has to pay for the Social Security I'm getting. :)
But there is a difference between today and years ago. Back then, there was little in the way of free government services. If you needed help it came from your church or synagogue, from charitable organizations, or from friends and family. So people had to get on with it. They couldn't loaf around. They may have spoken their original language at home but spoke English in the marketplace. They wanted to be an American.
Today, things are different. It costs a fortune to school, medically care for and support immigrants. It's not just a federal problem but a big state and local community problem. My school taxes is 55% of my property tax bill. There's not the same incentive to get work and get ahead. Many people come to America to sponge off of our society instead of being part of and contributing to it as past immigrants did. I'm not saying all. But a lot. Requiring immigrants to have skills before being let in is not something Trump invented. It's been around for decades.
I think both sides are wrong on this.
It takes a lot of stock to pick up and move to another country. I know so many people that would be scared to change states, so anyone willing to change countries, and languages, has more grit then the average person. To paint these people with a wide brush as those whom live off our system purposely is non-sense. A group of people with that kind of grit is good for the overall economy, and one of the reasons risk-taking and entrepreneurialism is part of the American DNA.
Sure, they get certain social services that cost us money, but I attribute that to our inflated government and would rather concentrate on lessen that.
With this being said, I do think our transition from a merit based immigration system in the 1960s to a family based one was a mistake.
Many on the left have this notion that anyone could have come to this country, regardless, and that only now is immigration an issue. This is just not the case; we had merit based immigration policies for decades prior to the 1960s. Abandoning that has created a few issues.
First, although girt is part of the immigrant persona, value does not necessarily come with it. We have many coming to this country whom are not adding to our economy. Second, because of the large influx family based immigration policies provide us with immigrants to vet, many immigrants whom do not have family here, but are very valuable, end up not getting visas or green cards quickly enough. This causes them to return to their country to start their businesses, a loss for the USA economy.
Now, I do realize I kind of contradicted myself here by saying immigrants have grit, but then criticized some of them for lack of value. So I obviously do not have the complete answer to this, but do think some form of merit based system would be beneficial, along with 58% of the rest of the country. The policy needs to be formed in a way to not discourage those with value from coming here.
However, I fear if the Dems don't stop being crazy and come to the table, and the Reps don't stop being arrogant and let them do so, we will end up with an over-reaching merit based policy that will do more harm than good.
-
Will someone please hide the bubblegum.
(https://www.google.com/search?client=tablet-android-samsung&biw=1024&bih=768&tbm=isch&sa=1&ei=2ruDWYPON8XrmQHjwbDoDQ&q=i%27m+here+to+kickass+and+chew+bubble+gum+trump&oq=i%27m+here+to+kickass+and+chew+bubble+gum+trump&gs_l=mobile-gws-img.3..30i10k1.3820.5558.0.5870.7.7.0.0.0.0.183.836.0j6.6.0....0...1.1j4.64.mobile-gws-img..1.1.183.EhkoOmTElsU#imgrc=y_uD12cqUFh-XM:)
-
Let's assume that estimate is correct and not fake news, it's still only half the story. Presumably, these people are working at something somewhere, so they contribute to the economy. If your argument is that because they're illegal then they don't pay taxes, i.e., don't pay into that social safety net out of which they draw benefit, then how is that any worse than Trump not paying any tax (assuming his bragging about not doing so is true). If they are living and working in your cities, then they are contributing to the economy by buying food, clothes, cars, paying rent, etc. The consumption of those goods and services IS the economy.
People expend an inordinate amount of emotional energy, it seems to me, worrying about the possible "costs" that illegals cost the system, but are there data showing that they cost the system any more than legal citizens do? How does that compare to the various forms of corporate welfare that the various levels of government pay out to Big Oil, Big Corn, Big Sugar, etc.
How much tax money paid by the avg joe is turned over to the one-percenters who own pro sports franchises when cities and states given them stadiums and other tax holidays based on the confidence game that these places benefit local economies (something that has been fund untrue by every economic analysis ever done)? We like to make fun of corrupt governments in the underdeveloped world, but viewed from a couple of steps back, how is the handing over of tax money to pro sports enterprises anything but corruption? It's theft on a grand scale, imo, although at the same time I have to admire the audacity of the con.
I have to primarily agree with you on that the average immigrants over the long term provides to the economy, equalizing their impact, and, actually, I think more so then a native born citizen of any country.
Immigrants have more grit and are more entrepreneurial then the average citizen; this has been shown in many studies. However, I think that the family based system has let in many people who are not very entrepreneurial, if at all, into the country. I for one would rather us allow in entrepreneurial immigrants who provide to the economy then those who do not.
As of right now, bureaucratic red tape is letting family members in while at the same making it difficult for some of the creme de la creme remain in the country due to clouds in the system.
This has to change. If someone gets hurts because they can not bring their "average" brother here, so be it. Given the choice, I would rather have an entrepreneur then someone who's main goal is to labor for someone else and just get by.
With that said, Alan is (sort of) correct in noting you are Canadian. Canada has a merit based immigration policy, which Trump is basing his off of. Are you actively trying to change your country's policies while also criticizing ours? Or are you only criticizing ours and fine with leaving yours as is?
PS, as a photographer, I know for a fact how much of a pain in the ass it is to photograph a project, even a one-off project, in Canada as a USA citizen. However, Canadian citizens can easily do multiple projects in the States without any issue.
-
NOT MY FAULT!
(http://www.patdollard.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/12/maxresdefrewrererewault.jpeg)
-
NOT MY FAULT!
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CleuMuWXEAA3oCu.jpg:medium)
-
RACIST! . . . la-la-la. . . RACIST! . . . la-la-la. . . RACIST!
(https://mauryk2.files.wordpress.com/2010/03/race-baiting-for-dummies.jpg)
-
I didn't think I had much of a stance on illegal immigration. A country has the right to keep out people it doesn't want and should do so. I was just questioning some of the emotional rhetoric concerning the current US situation. When you reach the point where you have 13 million illegal aliens/immigrants, who have been there for a while and are probably, in the main, productive members of society, I'm not sure it serves much purpose to demonize them. If the US wants to prevent future illegal immigration, then you should do so, of course. I'm just not convinced that the presence of the ones who are already there is as big a problem as some people think and was just questioning many of the assertions about them.
(And I don't accept the notion that I don't have a right to discuss these issues because I happen to be Canadian. This is a public discussion board, a Canadian one in fact, so if you don't want to hear Canadian opinions, you might be in the wrong place. Just saying.)
I very much respect this!
I have seen more then a few on this forum criticize the proposed immigration policies of the USA while being citizens of other countries with stronger immigration policies that what is being proposed here. I feel that many here have no right to do so, unless they themselves are willing to criticize their counties' policies, when we are doing nothing but trying to create policies on par with the majority of the rest of the world.
At the same time I though, I see so many of some of my fellow countrymen criticize immigrants for the differing cultures and changing of American culture.
The USA has no culture; we are a country of immigrants. We mix many cultures and what comes out, so be it, and this is always changing.
My last name makes it more than obvious I am Anglo-Saxon, so I should have a strong right to desire for the USA to be strictly Anglo Saxon, the first major settlers of this country, in culture. I don't, because much like the rest of America I am a mutt, also part German and Italian (but ... I don't tan at all, so I whole-heartily believe all those genes skipped me and went straight to my brother who does ;D) and Irish (a sworn enemy of the English). My last name makes me feel more on November 5th then on March 17th, but I would not restrict my fellow Irishmen from celebrating St. Patty's day as my right to also celebrate Guy Folk's day.
My feelings on immigration though are that in a highly competitive world, precedence should be given those whom can provide most to the economy. Many other countries, including Canada, agree with this on policy.
The family based immigration policy I can sympathies with, since anyone would naturally want to bring his/her relatives to a country they have been successful within. However, this does little for that country if highly skilled and entrepreneurial individuals are held up due to a clog in the system from an influx of family members.
The USA has not always used a family based immigration policy. Returning to a merit policy, although a mild one, I think would do a great good for the USA.
Of course, the road to hell is paved with good intentions, so it would be best if the Reps and the Dems worked together on this.
-
Don't worry Canada. . . .for a few more years, at least.
(http://groundreport.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/mexicocrimeflow-thumb.jpg)
-
I never did like the color blue.
(https://lawofmarkets.files.wordpress.com/2016/04/make-america-mexico-again.jpg)
-
But illegals do the low-pay work Americans refuse to do. Isn't wage slavery great! Oh America the Beautiful.
(http://www.4thmedia.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/Wage_slave-483x300.jpg)
-
There is an upside to the ghetto-ization of America. Just think how amazing this shot would look on Hahnemuhle Photo Rag Satin.
(https://qph.ec.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-845d92e71079b28c84812c84e9a7e207-c)
link (https://qph.ec.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-845d92e71079b28c84812c84e9a7e207-c)
-
Why do so many non-Americans feel they have to tell Americans how we should live?
Because we'll be moving up there soon.
(https://globalclimat.files.wordpress.com/2014/09/polar-vortex.jpg)
-
Why bother outsourcing skilled jobs to foreign countries when we can just as cheaply insource them from foreign countries?
(http://glennherman.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/termination-of-employment.jpg)
-
One man's leaks is another man's whistleblowing.
(https://topclassactions.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/whistle-blower-lawsuit-e1444052420803.jpg)
-
Great article I agree with (most of).
Maybe It's Time to ... (https://www.cnbc.com/2017/08/04/maybe-its-time-to-pull-the-plug-on-health-insurance-commentary.html)
Amazing how one of the biggest golden gooses in history was given to one of the most hated group of businesses in history.
-
You will be culturally assimilated says she. No, you will be culturally conquered says they.
(http://i.imgur.com/4LanvTQ.jpg)
(https://themuslimtimesdotinfodotcom.files.wordpress.com/2012/02/sharia.jpg)
-
If most illegal immigrants were Republicans, would Democrats support the Wall? Would Republicans oppose it?
(https://www.rushlimbaugh.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/650-032717-Undocumented-300x144.jpg)
-
Let my people go!
(https://penraker.files.wordpress.com/2010/03/behold_his_mighty_hand_01.jpg)
Let my people in!
(http://www.femalista.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/react8n-1-web.jpg)
-
Speaking of vacations, Bill and Hillary spotted on their way to Martha's Vineyard. Lots of catching up to do.
(https://i0.wp.com/moralmatters.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/08/Hillary-Clinton-As-Mad-Max-With-Willie-J.jpg?resize=768%2C432)
-
I suggest you attend a screening of "Dunkirk" to perhaps adjust your attitude towards the idea of "sweet revenge".
-
The optics are terrible for a President who said he wants to clean up the Washington swamp. First off, what a private company does is different than what a public tax supporting government agency does. Second, the idea that the taxpayers should find a job for a spouse to increase the take-home pay for the diplomat just stinks regardless of the arguments you make. There are already supplemental payments for serving overseas, danger pay (it's 35% extra serving in Kabul and Baghdad the two cities mentioned in the article) , size of family payments, etc. That's similar to what the military overseas gets, actually less as combat pay is less than 35%.) Why should the State Department be different. Are we suppose to find a job for every spouse of every secretary or diplomat who works overseas? Can you imagine what the New York Times would say if he continued that policy, They'd claim he's betraying his supporters. Well, of course we know anything he does they would come up with a way why he's bad so much do they want to destroy him.
I think this really comes down to keeping good employees with little cost, vs. hiring new employees that need training and vetting for a few months.
If keeping the good employees means finding jobs for spouses while at the same time avoiding the cost of training, then why not?
-
Sigh. Talk about pulling a quote out of context.
I read the article in full as well, and although those quotes are out of context here, their meaning is changed little within the article. The author clearly implies that because liberals have take such a hard line on immigration, refusing to even consent that appropriate restrictions may be good for the country, that that has contributed to the rise in anti-immigration sentiment from the right.
-
Joe, anyway you cut it, it smacks of nepotism and politically it has terrible optics. If Trump continues this policy, you know the NY Times' next article will be headlined, "Trump and Tillerson Continue Nepotism in State Department - Reversing Promises Made to Supporters to Drain the Swamp".
Nay, that would be the Washington Post's next headline. The NY Times probably would not even report on it. ;D
Anyway you slice it though, it's good employee retention. I always regret the first day using someone new, even though it is a necessary evil.
-
Yeah, I can see Trump's campaign slogan for 2020: "Keep Making America Great - I'm already trained. And so are my children."
When I was a teacher I once had an administrator tell me that I should worry about being good, not about looking good.
-
Quite. The problem is that the quotation out-of-context entirely misses Douthat's point. It's like a short blurb yanked out of a review panning a movie that gives an impression quite the opposite of what the critic intended.
I would encourage anyone interested in current American conservative thinking to read more of Douthat's stuff. I've never met the guy, and I certainly don't consider myself a conservative by any means, nor a liberal ("progressive"), for that matter—I'm skeptical of doctrine of any flavor—but I find many of his columns to be nuanced and quite provocative. He is essentially a direct lineal descendant of the William F. Buckley line of libertarian Christian conservatism. His writing seems to have quite a strong following among political intellectuals who otherwise would be considered to be left-wing. Hence the interest in him by publications such as Mother Jones.
Alternatively, you could navigate over to the Breitbart site (http://www.breitbart.com/). If so, may Ronald Reagan have mercy on your soul.
I'm not quite understanding you here. Are you suggesting that since I have not read most of his work, I can not understand what he means by his quotes? I am also failing to understand what you meant by "quite." Did you agree with me only to throw more stuff back at me, or were you just being condescending?
Unless you are ready to explain to me what I am missing, my points still stand. His quote was very simple. The far left has taken a stand that any immigration laws that restrict immigration are wrong, which is preposterous, and that has lead to the majority of the country wanting immigration reform to restrict immigration to a certain degree.
It was pretty cut and dry, and nothing in his article counters this premise.
By the way, I don't read Breitbart, and never will. I pay attention to the NY Times, Washington Post, CNN, and CNBC mostly.
-
Yes. I was agreeing that the quote accurately reflected Douthat's argument regarding the second obstacle to immigration reform.
Thank you for the explanation. I really had no idea what you meant with that response.
-
90%? Socialist? You crack me up sometimes.
I tend to agree with you on this, 90% socialist is kind of a stretch. 90% for Clinton though was shown in a couple of studies, but that does not necessarily imply socialist.
There was an interesting opinion piece on CNN a few weeks ago written by a pollster (wish I saved it). He said all of the poll's on the election actually were right, they just were interpreted incorrectly by journalists. They (media) only paid attention to the main figure of the percentages for, but ignored the margin of error and other ancillary, but important, items noted in the results.
He blamed it on an overwhelmingly majority and blinding support of Clinton by the media, causing a bias and for them to ignore anything that disputed their opinions, and our country's seriously inapt ability in mathematics.
I certainly agree with the second part of the theory, and the first would make sense as well.
-
Never mind the resurrection of coal miner jobs, or a tax reform, Trump acted pretty quickly where it counts most. He reduced substantially the fines for the financial industry.
http://thehill.com/policy/finance/345606-financial-regulators-issue-fewer-fines-under-trump-report
Whether we like it or not, banking makes the world go round.
Did you know banks create money? Yes, lending and interest gained is what increases values and creates money.
But anyway, I truly believe that congresses' overreach in 2009 with the financial industry is what is holding our economy back. I don't agree with all deregulation (especially environmental), but I think Dodd-Frank did much more harm then good and these regulations need to stop.
-
Credit creation is the process you describe above. It's not the interest gained, but in a closed system when you lend money, some of that money ends up being deposited again and then the banks can lend it again. The credit creation ratio is important and the value of it forms part of the money in an economy. By controlling capital adequacy ratios, governments can control credit creation (also through other means such as interest rates but that is indirect control).
Your second point isn't really right. Currency is a part of broad money which includes other things of value in the economy such as bank deposits and other representations of value typically with a maturity not longer than 2 years. There are numerous definitions of money to suit different needs, but they all include the notes and coins (cash) in the economy which is real money. What that money is worth compared to other currencies or in terms of buy power changes such that just printing more money simply increase inflation (quantitative easing, as it has been know since the GFC, is literally the act of creating more cash and therefore more money in the economy and therefore reducing the value of the money - if money is less valuable you pay less for it - lower interest rates. You also enable inflation to stop stagnation of an economy in a super low (or even negative) interest rate environment).
And, contrary to your view of over regulation, it was strong prudential controls that largely saw Australia avoid the GFC in the sense that we didn't go into recession because our major banks were financially sound. Our last recessions ended in the September quarter of 1991 - just coming up on 26 years ago. How you control and regulate your banks is a worthy discussion, but suggestions that you need to deregulate to help the economy is demonstrably false in the long term. That doesn't mean you need excessive controls and regulations, but you need banks to be kept within a reasonable bound because they're not just "another business" - they're in fact the core of all business and financial activities and have a role beyond that of a simple commercial enterprise.
That is why I deleted my second part, but I never said that currency is not part of the money, or value, of a certain economy as you imply. In my note, it certainly is along with other things such as interest earned and appreciation of investments. If one decides to liquidate his investment, currency is what he will receive (or a deposit note) and that currency has value reflected in the economy. I just merely stated that money and currency are not the same thing, which many people think.
However I stand by my view that Dodd-Frank has caused more harm then good, along with other overreach. Just like with anything, (our) congress has a tenancy to over-react.
Since Dodd-Frank has been put into place, small banks are disappearing in the USA. The reason is that Dodd-Frank is so massively complicated, you need a staff dedicated to just Dodd-Frank to make sure you are following it. Small banks can't afford this, and so they sell out to larger banks.
On top of that, our large banks have gotten larger since Dodd-Frank has been put in place, which I find to be rather funny since those whom voted for Dodd-Frank want smaller banks.
Ahhh, the law of unintended consequences.
A couple articles:
http://www.politico.com/agenda/story/2016/09/community-banks-dodd-frank-000197
https://www.forbes.com/sites/carriesheffield/2015/02/09/dodd-frank-is-killing-community-banks/#520b9ce73a72
-
There are only two types of voters: Those who want to keep money and those who want to take money.
(https://s3.amazonaws.com/thumbnails.illustrationsource.com/huge.9.46415.JPG)
-
http://thehill.com/policy/finance/345606-financial-regulators-issue-fewer-fines-under-trump-report
So it took Obama until 2016, 8 years after the crisis to actually fine a few banks. $1.6 billion is pennies on the dollar for what the Fed gave them back in free money. No one went to jail. May I remind you, that the Fed re-imbursed all the banks by bailing them out. So many would have gone bankrupt. Not only were the bankers bailed out, but they were rewarded with more money than ever before making them bigger then ever before. The bankers are richer after Obama's terms then they were back when Bush was President.
So appreciative were the financiers and bankers for his hands off approach during his eight years, Obama was awarded after his presidency with a $400,000 for a speech he gave to Wall Street. Just like Hillary. What a pair!
It's that BS, the inside the Beltway to Wall Street, incestuous relationship that helped Trump in the election. His let's clean the swamp mantra worked as million of his voters understood they were screwed for 8 years while the usual suspects lined their pockets.
I watched the Fareed Zakaria special last night on why Trump won and why Clinton lost.
He made an interesting point that when Bill Clinton came to power, he shifted the party demographic from working man to including the elite professionals too. Then the party got drunk on Wall Street money and social justice causes from these elites, which is what turned the working class against them in 2016. Also, by 2016 HRC was the antithesis of this; a well educated rich woman from a well to-do family that hung out with bankers and Wall-Streeters giving secret speeches.
I think Fareed Zakaria got this, along with his other reasonings, right.
-
Why Trump won.
(https://i.redditmedia.com/uT4kp_mIVTRm7jkrNMSV-S32WanbzwNxKfR_gFe8KUM.jpg?w=320&s=0ba31b625a482c0032bb9a15acbd7da4)
-
he only has the job @ CNN for diversity reasons, otherwise he is just dumb...
I disagree. I find him to be rather thoughtful in his reporting.
-
Are these the same pollsters who told us Hillary was a shoo-in on election night?
(https://blog.lecturio.de/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/186473466_87514032df_z.jpg)
-
Get ready. The Korean people will be reunified, Kim Jong-Un's nuclear regime will be destroyed, and China will annex land north of Pyongyang. The deal has already been made.
And if not, time to stock up on them iodine tablets.
(https://cdn.newsbusters.org/images/trump-nuke.jpg)
-
Cultural diversity fueled the Rise of the American Empire, and it will fuel the Fall.
(http://fairbanksonline.net/Fairbanks_Online/Fall_of_Rome_Debate_files/shapeimage_2.png)
-
Kim Jong-un is what you get when you don't fight wars to win them.
(http://coldwarsite10a.weebly.com/uploads/5/0/7/3/50730253/7949513.gif?592)
-
Translation: Have at it hoss, but clean up your own sh*t.
(http://www.natureofhealing.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/determination.jpg)
-
You got anything even mildly useful to say on the subject?
Yeah. End the war on drugs now!
(http://www.cannabisculture.com/files/images/LEAPbillboard.preview.jpg)
-
Meanwhile at the lair, Kim bemused by Trump's Fire and Fury speech. Such pranksters. Gotta love 'em.
(https://charismanews-secure-charismamedia.netdna-ssl.com/images/stories/2017/05/Kim-Jong-Un-Generals-Missile-Launch.jpg)
-
You Canadians best speak nicely of us Americans because Al Gore predicts we are going to become much tighter neighbors soon.
(https://static.businessinsider.com/image/50080defeab8ea2349000004-400/image.jpg)
-
As for addiction, you call it "illness," I call it "cleaning the gene pool."
(https://media.tenor.com/images/7200bfe446480bc8dea0ab38b2dea585/tenor.gif)
-
Are Trump haters pathological snobs, or is half the country (who voted for him) evil?
(https://img.huffingtonpost.com/asset/58275e7d1500002600b0c8e2.jpeg?ops=scalefit_720_noupscale)
-
You seem to locked into the mindset that people who take drugs are criminals. And I don't mean that just from the point of view that some laws are being contravened, because that can easily be remedied by repealing those laws. I mean that you actually seem to believe it, the way you keep talking about a "stick". Think back, there was a time when people who drank alcohol in the US were declared to be criminals, something which also didn't work very well. I hope you'll agree that alcohol prohibition was basically a nutty idea.
There is no need for a "stick" in this scenario, because viewing the issue from the criminal point of view makes no sense. People will do things that are not good for them, and humans have always devised ways to help mitigate that. Drugs are no different and it serves no purpose whatsoever to compound the problem by criminal action.
Your self-stated moral objection to the government providing drug relief (such as safe injection sites or other related programs) is nonsensical and is based on the notion that using drugs is, in itself, a criminal act. But that notion is an arbitrary one, not based on reality. Why would you morally object to handling a problem in a cheaper way that works better? It seems to me that you should have a moral objection to spending money unnecessarily through criminal action when it itself obviously causes so much harm, and has not only NOT helped solve the problem but has made it worse by increasing the cost of the crime, and thus increased the power of the criminal gangs who control drug distribution.
People who self-administer drugs often harm themselves, so doesn't it make sense to direct help to them specifically? By arbitrarily making them criminals, and making them dependent on criminal systems for drug delivery, that ends up causing harm to the rest of society, something that is utterly unnecessary. It simply makes everything worse for everyone.
-
Payback is a beeotch.
(https://i0.wp.com/legalfido.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/hunter.jpg)
-
The Party of Greed vs the Party of Stupid.
Can one really be worse?
(https://i0.wp.com/virginiaconservative.net/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/rvf9ww7m-1435680516.jpg?resize=300%2C148)
-
Pick your poison.
(http://web.nmsu.edu/~gchavez7/red_pill_blue_pill-copy3.gif)
-
And shove it.
(http://www.teapartytribune.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/OBAMA-CARE-640x606-e1333335159836.jpg)
Then kick it.
(https://kathleenvinehout.org/wp-content/uploads/kickingcan.jpg)
-
And let your children become. . .
(https://newworkplace.files.wordpress.com/2016/12/photo-570.jpg?w=550&h=281)
-
Hillary will resent that comment.
(http://d1uy76iqdnrcvf.cloudfront.net/wp-content/uploads/2016/08/hillarys-health-concerns-fueled-by-inability-to-climb-stairs.jpg)
-
Dems will get their fourth chance soon enough.
(https://i.redditmedia.com/9uKkILqHxA-Ni0zAoKHIvGpWfb-RjBi45HPQIs6so9w.jpg?w=320&s=cbc9e015673fc72aade3a0833eec1876)
-
Kim Jong-un is a fast learner.
(https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-C9Zr0L4M-tk/WViYnCgr4EI/AAAAAAAAE40/7PMDvZkozqkuDaqLharXH9G1xxBYEAuVwCLcBGAs/s640/We-Came.gif)
-
Kim threatens us because he knows we'd never attack preemptively. We threaten Kim because we know he's right.
(http://media.cagle.com/105/2017/05/02/195001_600.jpg)
-
Unless. . .
(http://www.washingtonsblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/d.jpg)
-
Are violent protesters "Terrorist" or "Triggered"?
(http://files.abovetopsecret.com/files/img/dy5859e3df.gif)
(https://i.ytimg.com/vi/GNdN6QCae8A/hqdefault.jpg)
My thoughts exactly.
-
"Not all Muslims are terrorists" = Do nothing to stop it.
"Not all White Southerners are racists" = Do nothing to stop it.
"Not all gun owners are mass shooters" = Do nothing to stop it.
"Not all illegal immigrants are criminals" = Do nothing to stop it.
Your inept government in action inaction.
(https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/originals/89/7f/cf/897fcf80643443aba94eb155bcde6300.jpg)
-
There is no such thing as incitement of violence speech (noise pollution, maybe). Freedom of speech should never be infringed for fear of how some may violently react to that speech.
Banning hate speech is a short and sure road to tyranny and incompetence, because the truth often gets censored alongside the hate.
(http://4.bp.blogspot.com/--lOXkQejvek/Tt9-k1sguUI/AAAAAAAADGk/81McdK9KhFI/w1200-h630-p-k-no-nu/07jan5885.JPG)
[Note: This photo (by Robert E. Fuller) might be a poor metaphor for free hate speech because sea lions occasionally eat, as well as rape, penguins But you get my point]
-
But of course the Alt-Left will infer the mere sight of a Trump advocate as physical intimidation. To them I can only suggest they titrate their medication.
(https://oig.hhs.gov/reports-and-publications/top-challenges/2011/images/issue12.jpg)
-
Their posture looks defensive, not offensive, to me. But then I wasn't there. And frankly I wouldn't waste my time giving neo-Nazi idiots any attention by attending. To be fair to Trump, if violence broke out at a pro-Hillary march, should the first words from Trump be condemnation of Hillary supporters without first learning who's to blame for the violence? Trump detractors knee-jerked this one, again. That said, I'm sure Trump had and would blame Hillary for violent outbursts at her rallies. He does like to blame. And for those who say Tump supports white supremacists because he didn't single them out in his impromptu address moments after the vehicular rampage is absurd to say the least. I lost count of how many times Obama fell silent upon news of our citizens murdered by catch-and-released illegal immigrant career criminals, and nobody from the Left hissed a fit.
Yet another
(http://static.wixstatic.com/media/e58be1_73a87af6f6df4e36bf089fb17ca2b2cb.jpg/v1/fill/w_313,h_161/e58be1_73a87af6f6df4e36bf089fb17ca2b2cb.jpg)
-
The more you deny something the more people believe you are guilty of it.
The leftist media is baiting Trump to do just that, to deny being a racist, over and over again. He's not about to fall for that trick.
(https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQQkwN_alKNIp97ZM2hx66ap1YdbbY-hoVC027n5oLfYu3kOSvlWQ)
.
-
Australia has already started to ban synagogues in Sydney out of fear of Islamic attacks. I guess being Jewish qualifies as hate speech ( a.k.a. "incitement of violence") nowaday. I'm sure the Left in America laud Australia's crackdown on free speech as "progressive."
(https://prowhiteparty.files.wordpress.com/2013/12/free-speech.jpg)
-
So "we" is the people of Charlottesville + you, OK I understand ;)
Regarding your comparison, we're talking about General Lee, not about Van Gogh and we're talking about removing a statue of a general and not raising a new one for a painter. So I don't see the connection you're trying to make and I don't see why you call my position illogical. If anything is illogical it's you're story of trying to compare the two.
Whether you (or I) like everything he did or not, Lee is still a historical figure and the support for removing the statue is not unanimous. I find it a stupid decision to remove it, but I understand many people don't agree with me, and that's fine.
I could possibly agree with this on the grounds that we need to keep relics to remember our history, until I found out that the name of the park is Emancipation Park.
I do not think that a statue of a man who fought vigorously to keep slaves slaves should be in a park named after the freeing of slaves. I find it quite perplexing that the person to developed the park thought that a statue of Lee would be a good fit there. ???
Anyway, for those of you arguing that we should be keeping these statues to remember history, I could agree with this on an intellectual level. However, these are not one-off relics in a museum here and there. The South is peppered with these things in public parks.
On top of that, many of these monuments were not erected during the civil war or shortly there after. They were erected in the 1920s, during a time of great social, cultural and religious change in the USA due to an influx of immigration. They were put there by other white supremacist as a symbolic rejection to other cultures.
-
Abraham Lincoln was a racist.
(http://www.azquotes.com/picture-quotes/quote-our-republican-system-was-meant-for-a-homogeneous-people-as-long-as-blacks-continue-abraham-lincoln-66-57-88.jpg)
As for the Lincoln Monument. . . . Burn it down!
(http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2015/01/22/172788D4000005DC-2921540-image-a-67_1421927650652.jpg)
Oh wait, he freed the slaves didn't he?
-
But he was a member of the Republican party. He had to be a racist.
-
Was that white nationalist driving a sports car? If so, more reason to ban them.
People don't kill people, high horsepower vehicles do.
(https://pictures.topspeed.com/IMG/crop/200706/europe-to-ban-cars-c_600x0w.jpg)
-
Trump is stealing my lines. Comments he made today regarding Charlottesville riot.
"“Many of those people were there to protest the taking down of the statue of Robert E. Lee,” Mr. Trump said. “This week, it is Robert E. Lee and this week, Stonewall Jackson. Is it George Washington next? You have to ask yourself, where does it stop?”
He noted that the first American president had owned slaves.
I don't think your lines have extended to saying there were lots of "very fine people" at Nazi rallies, as Trump has just managed to say 😀 The head of the KKK has already tweeted his thanks and approval, btw.
-
I find zero fucking nothing in the least bit humorous about that, do you? Texshooter I suggest you delete that post...I'm reporting it to a moderator.
I think reasonable minds will interpret my post as a satirical jab at extreme gun control advocates, not vehicular homicide. You're smarter than that.
-
...it says something about you.
Those are fighting words.
-
But because this thread is your pleasure, I will delete my post.
-
When David Duke thanks you, you screwed up "bigly" Donald...
I'm afraid he hasn't screwed up. He's said what he really thinks (amid the usual waffle and lies). The USA is run by a white supremacist and bigot. Recall the campaign talk about Mexicans. Things are likely to get much worse before they get better. America will carry the shame of this man for many years. Still, not too late for some around him to save themselves by leaving before the storm.
-
"Uniting" a nation is a difficult concept to define, no doubt. But I'm pretty sure it doesn't include condoning neo-Nazis and the clan.
Well, the leadership's business councils have just disbanded, according to the news. I guess the chiefs of corporate America decided that neo-Nazis are bad for business. I expect the leadership will spin this as a break-up from above but I'd imagine they walked away.
-
What does it take to turn one into the other?
This would do it.
(https://i.guim.co.uk/img/media/30c30ffbec0acf7928a416576537f3a99940817d/0_91_4096_2458/master/4096.jpg?w=700&q=55&auto=format&usm=12&fit=max&s=7cf180b8aeb4f09191b0ea28310dada1)
-
Maybe he's keeping the left and Democrats off balance as he did during the campaign. While he's focusing on the economy and making America safe, the Democrats are still playing the race card and identity politics. People still need to feed their families and need jobs, good jobs. During the next election, no one is going to remember or care about a bunch of bronze statues of dead people sitting on dead horses. Democrats are staying trapped in the same thinking as during the campaign rather than addressing the real concerns of most Americans as Trump is doing: jobs, debt, terrorism, immigration, health, trade, security. As long as Republicans and Trump stay focused on these things, Dems will be left on the dock and miss the boat again.
Bon voyage!
You're bang on with "jobs, debt, terrorism, immigration, health, trade, security" and the media is making an epic mistake by not focusing on this.
But you've picked the wrong guy to deliver them. He's a rage-fuelled demagogue on a one-man mission to exact revenge on the America which elected a black president. Let him carry on and he'll take you to bloodletting and chaos. Even corporate America and the military are stepping away from him now. Nazis are bad for business and they're no good in the Marine Corps either.
Rage isn't a plan. Destruction isn't achievement. The things you list need urgent work for certain sure but they'll never come from this guy. Good luck.
-
Where does it end?
It doesn't.
(https://static01.nyt.com/images/2015/03/31/arts/31split-1/31split-1-master675.jpg)
-
How about Barcelona reality?
More prayer vigils to follow. . . And more terror.
(But not If my vote can help.)
(https://historicizingrefugees.files.wordpress.com/2017/01/16107463_1179041965465401_4911369376953976220_o.jpg?w=640)
-
California no longer requires english and math competency to enter college because it violates the civil rights of minorities.
Does the Left care for the poor, or do they want everybody to be poor?
source (http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-cal-state-remedial-requirements-20170803-story.html)
(https://i.ytimg.com/vi/GMZvVAGQJJU/hqdefault.jpg)
-
I wonder where are the Left's instruments of teaching love (a.k.a. baseball bats) when it comes to Muslim Supremacy? Where is the outrage, counter-protests, violent attacks?
Because most American Muslims vote Democrat.
source (https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/03/american-muslims-demographics/520239/)
Sad to say, evolution has hardwired humans to fear being outnumbered--history gives ample justification for this fear. The greatest appeal the Democratic Party has is its promise to protect minorities (Muslims, Jews, Hispanics, etc.) from the majority (white Christian). The GOP will never win over minorities until it is no longer predominantly white. If the GOP wants to survive, they must selectively open our borders to non-whites who lean politically to the right. Trump promotes a merit-based immigration policy to replace Obama's need-based policy. Perhaps that might save the GOP, not sure. But I am sure the constitutionality of his policy will be challenged.
In the meantime, the Left will continue to race-bait because it sells like hotcakes. They will not react as angrily when an Islamic terrorist mows down a crowd as when a white supremacist does it. We should still be talking about the Orlando massacre, but we'll be talking about Charlottesville for years to come. This explains why Obama liked to blame Islamaphobia or geopolitics for terrorism more so than religious motivation. Politics is dirty.
(https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-wZLKTVBIo9k/WGt4vQZVANI/AAAAAAAAJiA/Gz8LlNekGlEpt7GB1Z5W-LAfCC_en9BdACLcB/s1600/race%2Bvote.png)
-
I hope Alt-Left Antifa's southwest chapter is not as racist as their northeast chapter.
(https://50ampfuse.files.wordpress.com/2017/04/antifa_smash_the_white_man_march_trump_2017_inauguration.jpg?w=648)
-
The Nazi apocalypse continues.
Chicago flower shop requires customers to swear they are not white supremacists before purchase.
source (https://www.dnainfo.com/chicago/20170814/west-town/flowers-dreams-white-supremacy-nazism-steven-dyme)
(https://igiftfruithampers.com.au/product_images/uploaded_images/roses-only.jpg)
Uber reassures its customers that Uber will protect them from white supremacists.
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DHdbb3jUQAA8CJh.jpg)
And let's hope Vice News was just being cheeky.
(https://i.redd.it/11mk4sfvgcgz.jpg)
Pundits: America is "on the cusp of a second civil war."
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/rush-limbaugh-warns-of-second-civil-war-after-charlottesville-violence/article/2632040 (http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/rush-limbaugh-warns-of-second-civil-war-after-charlottesville-violence/article/2632040)
(https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/474x/4f/9f/b8/4f9fb81f2625b81cfabc89195e051b82.jpg)
-
I have to admit, Alan is a hoot
-
James, you left out the main reason for electoral college and the distortion of votes value. And that is that we are a Federal system where each state is sovereign. That regardless of geographic size or population, each State is equal to every other State. Just like the General Assembly in the UN, tiny Jamaica has one vote just as China with over a billion people or Russia that spreads about 10 times zones.
Also, if you do away with the unequal vote applied to each State, then you would also have to eliminate the Senate which was created as an acknowledgement that each State is equal sovereignly. After all, regardless of geographic size or population, each State has two Senators. Tiny Rhode Island has two Senators as does California, the most populous state as does Alaska the largest State. By the way, the Senate was created not to represent people but their State. The House of Representatives represent people. In fact, this was so acknowledged that the original election of Senators was not by the people but by the Representatives of each State's legislature. Of course, the Constitution was amended a while back to change that to popular vote of the Senate.
Finally, although the number of electors are weighted due to the Federal system, they pretty much follow the popular vote in each state. That whoever gets the most popular votes in the state, then all the electors for that state select the candidate of the popular vote. So the electors are not, as you said, "beholden to a populist mob conned by a skilled, though vulgar and incompetent liar." Just the opposite. Actually there were some electors who didn't vote as their state popular vote demanded. If you recall, Hillary tried to get a lot of the Trump won electors to change their votes to her. Well they didn't. In fact, of the few that did, more changed their votes from Hillary to Trump than from Trump to Hillary which was noticed by those who didn't read the bias news which mainly ignored that tidbit. The rest of us had a good chuckle with that one.
YES
-
Did Trump ban all transgenders or just those diagnosed with gender dysphoria (a mental pathology for which treatment is sought)? And what will happen to the ones already listed?
-
No need to spend $95. Even more if it is $95 in US currency. If you live in Canada, you are bombarded with PC news every day.
-
A good point. The market's been coasting on the Obama recovery for awhile now, so it's about time for the typical Republican crash to set in. We should be reaching the nadir just about in time for our next Dem president to fix things. Again. (Or - crazy thought - we could just take one of the guys dumping the stocks at his word. He's not Donald Trump, after all, so maybe he's telling the truth.)
Yes, and it's been so unfortunate that the average American was kept from benefiting from that coasting recovery due to Obama's failed economic policy.
I think someone was actually elected directly due to that.
-
I don't know if you've heard this Alan - you probably haven't because the right wing media won't report it, but a lot of people are saying that these "antifa" losers are being paid by the Koch brothers and the ghost of Andrew Breitbart to show up and cause violence. Believe me.
(Satire aside, I am 100% opposed to political violence and don't agree with these tactics )
Well, we agree on this. Violence has no place in political debate but it's nothing new. The 1960's and 1970's were a lot worse and we made it to the other side. We'll get through this one too. So far it's pretty minor despite the headlines.
-
White supremacist stabs self and blames it on black anti-fascist.
http://www.theroot.com/white-guy-lies-about-black-anti-fascist-stabbing-him-be-1798509349 (http://www.theroot.com/white-guy-lies-about-black-anti-fascist-stabbing-him-be-1798509349)
(https://i.kinja-img.com/gawker-media/image/upload/s--zFF9ZAnQ--/c_fill,fl_progressive,g_north,h_77,q_80,w_137/n2mtsafnn81l2buazyvj.jpg)
-
America blew their chance.
(https://img0.etsystatic.com/131/0/7028586/il_340x270.925183260_a1jk.jpg)
-
We don't need cheaper labor. We need better robots.
(http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-tptS1k6BH1c/TlE71hqGAhI/AAAAAAAAA80/HqYGfxdKtzc/s1600/chinese-chicken-factory.jpg)
-
Speaking of fashion faux pas, the new face of the Democratic Party, bricks and billy clubs aside.
(https://i.pinimg.com/600x315/e4/ea/c1/e4eac141bdfe0484808907d2f2db4822.jpg)
-
I see her true colors shining through...so yes be afraid...
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CuM6h5HXEAAQ_uJ.jpg)
-
I don't understand how you could arrive at that interpretation of what I wrote.
My point was not self-evident it seems. Of course there are agencies investigating the groups that I mentioned. There should be. But given the number of those crooks (and others) still roaming the streets, they're not exactly getting them all (the foolish and ineffective war on drugs is a glaring example). So why would you want to waste those resources chasing people who are doing an honest day's work to throw them out of the country? How are you further ahead by doing so, is what I was asking. Is that really a priority or is it just ramped-up anti-foreigner emotion? It's not clear to me which it is.
And by selective prosecution, what I was getting at was that the authorities probably ignore some criminals to give priority to others all the time. So that it's well within the investigative discretion to NOT give priority to some things at certain times. Which is another reason for me to scoff at the chasing down of illegal immigrants. Does anyone actually believe that the authorities will be able to maintain the momentum of doing that over the next 5 months, 5 years, 15 years? I just find that hard to believe.
I guess what I'm saying is, in crude terms, if you can't keep illegal drugs out of prisons, how are you going to chase down millions of illegal immigrants, DACA or otherwise? As offended and irritated as some people are at their presence in the country, I find it impossible to believe that anything much can be realistically done about it.
First, you're comparing apples to oranges here, and then throwing in some pears too. As Slobo stated, legal citizens engaging in illegal activities need to be charged first, and then those charges need to be proven. This is not an easy task, and, although sometimes police officers choose not to follow throw, this is not the case the majority of the time. Police officers, detectives and DAs work in vain trying to prove a case they know will not work out all the time. Alas, you are innocent until proven guilty, and rightfully so, but this does mean justice is not always given. This is why not every criminal is off the street.
If someone is here illegally, it takes matter of minutes to prove so. Significantly less resources are needed.
Second, although enforcement of the law is important, a law's first purpose is to act as a deterrent. What deterrent exists to keep people from illegally emigrating currently? It seems to be very little.
In 1990 only 3.5% of the USA were illegal aliens, it is now up to 11.3% according to the Pew Research Center. That is a staggering increase, not to mention an incredibly large amount of the population. I would say that this stat clearly shows a problem exist, and a solution is warranted.
Third, 59% of Americans in a recent poll agree and stated that they want immigration reform. This is a loosing battle for the left; either they sit down and start negotiating or they're just going to loose more elections, and we'll end up with a much stricter immigration policy then what is good for the country. This is why Trump ended DACA, to force congress to act and negotiate.
Last, do I think we should round up, kick out and ban all of these dreamers? No, that would be cruel. However, do I think they should be given a free pass and a jump to the front of the line? Absolutely not, and doing so would be a slap in the face to all of those who choose the legal way of emigrating here. Give them the option to apply for a visa, without needing to leave the country, and then let the natural course of the process work out.
-
That's mighty white of you, son.
Technically speaking, any one of European origin is considered white (caucasian), including most illegal aliens.
-
2 million illegal aliens registered to vote.
To disapprove is to support Apartheid.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/feb/15/nearly-2-million-non-citizen-hispanics-illegally-r/ (http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/feb/15/nearly-2-million-non-citizen-hispanics-illegally-r/)
(http://www.strangepolitics.com/images/content/183500.jpg)
-
He does no such thing. He tells it like he thinks his supporters want to hear.
You criticize Europeans when they comment on American politics, but you interfere in European politics. Double standards and hypocrisy ??? It looks like you are here only to stir the brown stuff ?
-
These type of jokes are fine by me, what I don't like (but it doesn't annoy me) is that when there is Trump critique the discussion gets diverted to Hillary, Obama or anybody else besides Trump just to divert attention away from his bonehead and stupid mistakes.
Sort of like the Obama supporters did with Bush for 7 years?
-
Well Trump is correcting some of the bonehead mistakes of Obama and Hillary. So we are mentioning them to make a point. Such as Obama's Syria red line which emboldened all our enemies and pulling our fleet out of the Pacific and giving a green light to China to build those islands into military bases. How about the mess of Obamacare creating medical insurance costs out of site? Hillary's giving the green light to execute Libya's Gadhafi and fracturing that country into a terrorist nest? Obama doing nothing about North Korea so now we have to deal with his missiles and nukes almost at our doorstep. Any mistakes Trump has made, so far, are rather minor and more about tone than policies.
+1 on the mistakes of our last administration. If only good speeches ensured good leadership.
-
Be careful, Alan is from German orgin ;)
And believe it or not, English is also a Germanic language (if we believe Wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Germanic_languages)) :o
Not exactly. English is the melding of Anglo-Saxton and Welch dialect, Irish, German and French.
Plus, Germen only has about 200K word families, whereas English has about 550K (matched in size only by Russian). All those extra words had to come from somewhere.
-
And here it is today:
(https://www.thelocal.fr/userdata/images/1421318350_gouttedor.jonte.flickr.jpg)
(https://www.thelocal.fr/userdata/images/1421318152_goutte.dor.david.dufresne.flickr.jpg)
https://www.thelocal.fr/20150115/are-there-really-no-go-zones-in-paris
-
Nice painting...oh, wait, did you think that was a photo instead of a romanticized illustration?
Perhaps Paris was not as romantic as today, but one can still reminisce
(https://williamkeck.files.wordpress.com/2013/09/urinals.jpg)
-
Nice painting...oh, wait, did you think that was a photo instead of a romanticized illustration?
You got me. Paris is just as romantic as ever.
-
Using this logic, we should all be happy and support the Republican proposal. For two years, both of my daughters were independent contractors. They had good incomes but were reliant on Obamacare for their health insurance. A number of their friends are/were free-lance workers and also dependent on this type of healthcare access. Again, think twice before you post throw away lines. It may be a small group of individuals but these folks are important and in many cases are good earners and taxpayers.
Alan, every time you say this, you say it as if freelancers had difficulty finding/getting coverage and could not get it for a reasonable price.
This is simply not true; I, for years, prior to the ACA was able to get reasonable health insurance. Since the ACA, by the way, my premiums have almost doubled by now.
If your daughters, or their friends, could not find health insurance prior to the ACA being passed, then they certainly were not looking hard enough. I got my coverage in about a week after I started looking for it.
-
Both girls were free lancers after the implementation of Obamacare and had no prior experience with purchasing individual policies.
Well then, my recommendation to you is to stop using your children to justify keeping the ACA since neither has any 1st hand experience in how easy it was to buy insurance as a freelancer prior to the law going into effect. Considering this, using them as a justification for the ACA makes no sense, especially since many freelancers, myself included, easily bought health coverage prior to the ACA.
Furthermore, you should also stop using the increase in freelancers as a reason to keep the ACA since those freelancers you know have never tried to acquired coverage prior to the ACA.
Let me repeat myself, I had absolutely no problems whatsoever in getting health insurance prior to the ACA. Additionally, the insurance I had then was cheaper, had lower deductibles and better coverage then what I have now, unless you count the free yearly prostate exams or colon screenings or (my favorite) maternity care I am now offered.
-
What state were you in and how old were you when buying that pre-ACA insurance?
Considering Alan has lead on to that his daughters are about my age, I don't see how this matters to our conversation.
But since you asked, I was living in PA, just outside Philadelphia and was about 27. At the time, my premium was $147 with no life time maximums, a detectable $2000 per year and a copay of $45 for office visits. I did not have a prescription plan, but prescriptions were covered after I met my deductible, along with the costs of any surgeries. Now I could have bought a prescription plan for any extra $75 per month, but I only spent $15 per prescription for being sick about once every 2 to 3 years since then (full price, no copay). Also, if you don't have $2000 in the bank for emergencies by the time you're 27, you've been living life all the the wrong ways, so I did not see a reason to pay for a lower deductible plan.
Now my premium is $347 per month; I got a 47% increase from last year to this. I still have the break down for age groups from the first plan I got at 27, and, for the 35 age group (my current age), it was not nearly that high. Additionally, my deductible is $6000 now.
BTW, I love how you conveniently left out the rest of my paragraph, "Additionally, the insurance I had then was cheaper, had lower deductibles and better coverage then what I have now, unless you count the free yearly prostate exams or colon screenings or (my favorite) maternity care I am now offered."
-
I was only curious about where you were when you bought your pre-ACA insurance and your age. Why? Because when I bought healthcare insurance prior to ACA, I had a high deductible, a lifetime cap and was locked into a specific BCBS plan that kept getting more and more expensive because I couldn't change plans due to preexisting conditions. So, when we bought the first ACA plan the price was about 1/2, preexisting conditions didn't matter and there was no life time cap.
So, sorry if you didn't like your ACA plan, I liked mine. I'm just hoping the GOP/Trump doesn't screwup the entire healthcare insurance industry before I turn 65 and can get Medicare.
Yes, I will contest that the pre-existing condition senecio that existed prior to the ACA was unacceptable, most of the time.
There are parts of the bill I support like that, but the majority of it I do not support like the minimum requirements needed.
-
I don't give a darn what your thoughts are about the ACA. My only point is that it is a critical resources for those who are working as contractors and not eligible for employer paid insurance. It is particularly valuable for women as they are not discriminated against as they were pre-ACA (higher premiums and restricted benefits). If you don't like how this evolved, that's fine you are entitled to your opinion. Maybe you don't have children who are of working age and are female; I do and for me the ACA has been important to the lives of my two daughters. Both are now working for employers who provide insurance; one is a music therapist at a well respected children's hospital affiliated with a top ten medical school and the other is a special education teacher for grades 3-5 at a public elementary school.
My point here is simple. You keep on using freelancers as a reason to keep the ACA, while completely ignoring the fact that it was very easy to get coverage prior to the ACA and almost implying that this was not the case.
Therefore, your arguments are moot.
-
No Joe, you have constantly misread my comments since this thread began and the other one where there was a discussion of the ACA. I never made any comparison about the pre-ACA world as I had ZERO experience with it regarding my daughter's insurance. My comments were always about how the ACA helped THEM. You may not like that and your experience is different but DON'T go attacking me about what my observations are. The ACA worked for my daughters and a number of their friends, END OF STORY.
If you're comments were limited to, "my daughters were able to buy insurance on the exchanges," then it it would be end of story.
But you then went on to talk about how "it is a critical resource for those who are working as contractors." It simply is not a critical resource! Many, and i repeat many, other resources existed, and still do, for freelancers to get health insurance besides the exchanges.
It is not so critical if so many other just as easy to use resources (or even better, websites that did not crash for ~5 months on end upon release) exist.
Oh, and today I got a "John Dear" letter from my insurance agency. Due to the regulations stemming from the ACA, my coverage will not be offered next year, second time this has happened to me. Looks like I am in for another nice increase in my premium.
-
That's neither discrimination, nor cost control. This is how insurance works. You pay more based on risk. If I move the same car from one zip-code to another, my premium changes. If I buy a Honda Accord of certain vintage, my premium jumps (hint: Accords of certain vintage turn out to be the most stolen cars in the U.S.)
I can remember paying more for car insurance when I was 20.
What's the stature of limitations on filing suits of this nature? Can I still sue my car insurance company for age discrimination?
-
Perhaps... but first you'd have to get rid of millions of American flags everyday and everywhere, on porches, roofs, yards, cranes, American presidents' and politicians' lapels, etc. And get rid of the Pledge of Allegiance every morning in every school in America.
Or perhaps... it is American patriotism. Americans love their country. Europeans, apparently not so much. Otherwise, they wouldn't let them be so easily OD (occupied and decimated) in not so distant future.
Personally, I could care less about this. I am not a sports fan and find it rather boring to watch other people play a game.
Although I do think most of the news sources, CNN included, are covering this the wrong way. Ratings for football are way down, and from most of the people I have spoken to about this who like sports, they are upset with how political it has become. Same thing for ESPN.
Almost all feel that no player should be kneeling; lets face it, more sports fans are conservatives. Some others have the opposite feelings but still wish it was just about the game. This is the story the news is missing.
I think the NFL is just going to continue to loose more viewers and eventually it will hurt their bottom line if it has not already.
-
Then maybe that half might want to learn how to talk and behave in ways that don't come off as racist to the other half of the country...
This is one of the most absurd things you have posted.
-
Anyway, time to add a little humor to this NFL thing.
(https://scontent-iad3-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/21765154_10155789958047458_427860153165472522_n.jpg?oh=b7681ecc6af5706ef61c4fce4bacb9f5&oe=5A56A573)
-
Hum, last time I checked, people from Puerto Rico are American citizens, right?
Although this is correct, Puerto Rico is not a state, but a territory, and does not receive the same rights and benefits that states do.
This has nothing to do with Trump and more to do with congress. Puerto Rico has held various referendums on becoming a state and in all cases the majority voted yes; last one was in June of this year with a 97% yes vote. However, both houses need to vote on it as well. In both Republican and Democratic controlled congresses, the referendums died.
If you have an issue with this, you should call your congressmen about it.
-
Oh, I have an issue with the way Puerto Rico is governed all right and while congress could certainly be held to blame for Puerto Rico's current financial plight, the fact is the president could make changes to the status using executive orders...
All of which is besides the point that Trump, instead of expressing any concern for American citizens suffering in Puerto Rico, is wasting his time fighting with pro sports athletes–particularly black athletes.
So, Joe, does this help America?
Is this a good use of presidential power?
Does this help race relations even a teeny tiny bit?
Or is Trump just playing a game because he thinks it's fun?
(with the side benefit of getting back at the NFL for ruining his USFL franchise)
I can't speak on what Trump finds fun or not. Plus, I'm not a sports fan, not even a little bit, so I could care less about the whole NFL thing.
Right now though, you seem to be getting pretty mad at the President for something congress handles. And don't hide behind executive orders; that is not how things are changed. You want real action on Puerto Rico, reach out to congress.
Anyway, I am more worried about how Trump is handling North Korea and the possibility of the Doomsday Clock hitting midnight.
-
Right no I'm angry that the president is wasting time starting a war with the NFL while apparently (based on Tweets) totally ignoring the plight of millions of American citizens in Puerto Rico...arguing about who is responsible for governing Puerto Rico is irrelevant-that are US citizens and deserve the help and support to recover from hurricane damage just like citizens in the other Caribbean US territories as well as residents of Florida and Texas.
Funny, I didn't think there were different classes of US citizens...
Are you saying because US citizens are in Puerto Rico, they deserve less help and support than US citizens in Florida or Texas?
Man, your on a roll today, and no that is not what I am implying.
I am only implying that Puerto Rico is not a state, and, by law, does not get the same benefits and help that states do. Regardless of the morality of the situation, this is how our constitution works.
Now the reason for this is because congress is not acting on the referendums, more then likely because Puerto Rico grossly mismanaged their affairs from years of poor governance. Congress does not want to foot that bill, but they also don't want to be seen executing a no vote. This is why the referendums are never brought to the floor.
If you have an issue, reach out to congress and say you want PR to become a state. At the very least, you could also ask for them to put together a relief package since they need to approve it anyway.
I only really heard about help being sent to TX and FL. What other US territories are currently getting relief funds?
BTW, there are also lots of other weird things about being a territory, like you can't vote if you are a resident of one. Is this something you also take issue with?
-
So, you are ok with Trump ignoring the problems of Puerto Rico's US citizens (even if it ain't a state) while picking a fight with the NFL? I mean, is that what you think is a good expenditure of the president's time?
Wrong on both accounts.
I am much more concerned with how he is handling N. Korea; I would like him to leave the NFL alone and pay more attention to that.
Puerto Rico is not something I am paying any attention to. I am merely pointing out you seem to be getting mad at the president over something he has no control of anyway. You're going out of your way to create an issue here out of nothing.
And getting back to my question, which US territories are current receive relief funds?
-
Trump already signed a disaster declaration issued for the territory of the U.S. Virgin Islands and can apply for Federal aid as outlined in this FEMA alert:
Federal Aid Programs for the Territory of the U.S. Virgin Islands (https://www.fema.gov/news-release/2017/09/07/federal-aid-programs-territory-us-virgin-islands)
Here's the alert for Puerto Rico:
Federal Aid Programs for the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico (https://www.fema.gov/news-release/2017/09/21/federal-aid-programs-commonwealth-puerto-rico)
FEMA staff are on the ground now in Puerto Rico but are facing massive devastation:
FEMA teams in Puerto Rico: 'It's absolutely devastating' (https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation-now/2017/09/23/fema-teams-try-get-arms-around-maria-disaster-puerto-rico/697164001/)
The last Tweet about Puerto Rico seems to have been posted on Sept 19th when he said:
But he's had the time to tweet over 17 times about the NFL and pro athletes?
What a bum...(that's what LeBron James called him...bit too mild for my taste)
So who is it up to, to initiate relief? The president or congress?
Seriously, I have no idea.
My thought was that unless congress approve the spending, relief will not be sent.
Additionally, how well funded in FEMA currently? I remember reading recently they were pretty much out of money.
-
The president declares an emergency and direct FEMA to respond.
But that response is way too little:
It's rather unfortunate, but PR is a victim of timing. First came Houston, then FL, and now PR; our feelings on this have become numb. Just look at CNN coverage; it's not even making the main news strip on their website.
Not to mention FEMA is pretty much out of money, so the president can not really do anything without congressional approval on additional funding.
So, like I said earlier, you are trying desperately to make an issue for Trump that is not really his fault.
This is not an excuse for Trump's tweets, but it is just the fact of the situation.
I'd rather pay attention to something about Trump that Trump can really act on, such as how he is dealing with N Korea. I live in Philly, too far for North Koreas missiles, so I'm more perturbed by this. But Chicago is at the outer reach; I would be worrying about other things if I lived there or West.
-
Knee Draggers don't see themselves as sharing a country. So it should come as no surprise they would treat national symbols of pride (such as flags, anthems and monuments) as bothersome potholes in the road to socialist paradise.
Karl Marx -- "The working men have no country. We cannot take away from them what they have not got."
(https://i.pinimg.com/736x/f1/76/b0/f176b07b2a7afd630af7ec2b55977904.jpg)
-
David Brooks pretty much nails it in the New York Times: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/09/26/opinion/abbie-hoffman-donald-trump.html?rref=collection%2Fsectioncollection%2Fopinion-columnists
It has to be admitted that Donald Trump is doing exactly what he was elected to do.
He was not elected to be a legislative president. He never showed any real interest in policy during the campaign. He was elected to be a cultural president. He was elected to shred the dominant American culture and to give voice to those who felt voiceless in that culture. He’s doing that every day.
What’s troubling to me is that those who are the targets of his assaults seem to have no clue about what is going on. When they feel the most righteous, like this past weekend, they are actually losing and in the most peril.
I read this article and thought, maybe.
Now I just saw how Spike Lee went off on NFL owners for taking a knee while still blacklisting Kaepernick (whom most sport analysts say is past his prime and plays in a way no longer applicable), calling them hypocrites.
Now I think, more then likely we are seeing the demise of the "meritocratic establishment," although Spike Lee is perpetually angry and this could just be another one of his spats.
-
You might argue that Republican representatives in Congress are wealthy by themselves and would vote for it out of self-interest, but that has nothing to do with Trump.
Indeed: I've seen no evidence, based on his vague public comments about it, that Trump actually has any clue what is included in the tax "reform" framework that has been submitted to the Congress in his name.
And, frankly, I'm skeptical about whether the tax proposal was crafted to serve the personal financial interests of Republican members of the House of Representatives or the Senate, either. While few of them are living from paycheck to paycheck, even fewer could be characterized as among the very rich who would benefit from the elimination of the Alternative Minimum Tax or the estate tax. (By the way, it's worth noting that the Democratic members of Congress, on average, aren't exactly hovering at the poverty line, either.)
I suspect the Republican tax bill was crafted primarily to benefit major donors to Republican congressional re-election campaigns. Trump and his heirs might save many millions if Congress were to implement these proposals, but probably that is just lagniappe.
-
You might argue that Republican representatives in Congress are wealthy by themselves and would vote for it out of self-interest, but that has nothing to do with Trump.
And, frankly, I'm skeptical about whether the tax proposal was crafted to serve the personal financial interests of Republican members of the House of Representatives or the Senate, either. While few of them are living from paycheck to paycheck, even fewer could be characterized as among the very rich who would benefit from the elimination of the Alternative Minimum Tax or the estate tax. (By the way, it's worth noting that the Democratic members of Congress, on average, aren't exactly hovering at the poverty line, either.)
I suspect the Republican tax bill was crafted primarily to benefit major donors to Republican congressional re-election campaigns. Trump and his heirs might save many millions if Congress were to implement these proposals, but probably that is just lagniappe.
-
Did you ever see some of those women without their facial and body garb? Be thankful they cover up. :)
It's not always nice what is under the garb