Democrats organize to fight back

[Galen]

(11-19-2016, 03:02 PM)taramarie Wrote:

(11-19-2016, 11:30 AM)pbrower2a Wrote:

(11-19-2016, 06:14 AM)Galen Wrote:

(11-19-2016, 05:50 AM)taramarie Wrote:

(11-19-2016, 05:44 AM)Galen Wrote: [quote pid='13451' dateline='1479551693']
I asked you to look at Trump's appointments in order to understand what is really happening and to take the measure of the man for yourself.  I don't regard him as a cause but rather an effect but understanding his intentions may give you some insight where this current turning is going.

Not interested and I am done with America. They will destroy themselves and bloody deserve it for their behaviour towards each other. I will simply sit and wait for the day they destroy themselves but hope they wake up before then. I am done. They are full of irrationality and  it is destroying them while they busy themselves pointing fingers at the enemy....their own. Yep I am done.

Like it or not, even New Zealand is going to have to deal with the consequences of decisions in the DC.  It may be unfair but there is nothing I can do about it.  I am more interested in getting you to see things ahead of everyone else so that you may make the decisions that will improve your own life.  History will proceed no matter how annoyed you are with the US but understanding it and the present may yet allow you to avoid misfortune.

As for Trump, I will say this: By becoming 45th President he has accomplished the impossible.  By the usual standards of the last eighty years he should have never pulled this off.  Who knows? Trump may yet beat the odds again.  I am in a position to know because statistically I should have been dead many years ago.

I see your suggestions as advice on how to live a nastier world in which economic elites trample over every human decency and expect people to be thankful that they get to survive in a far nastier world in which the economic elites rule without any lasting contest (because anyone who opposes them will be rendered helpless, if not murdered outright). If that is the world that I must accept as a condition of survival, then I have nothing to live for.

Donald Trump has achieved what seems impossible -- bringing what looks like dictatorship to America. Such is his style, and he has doubled down on his style after being elected. This is the Mordred of the modern world. I have no claim that the Arthurian legend shaped ideas of our Founding Fathers -- but I expect the Round Table to have been smashed to smithereens this time.

Then you are not reading my comments correctly so i am no longer wasting my time.
[/quote]

Consider the following idea for a moment.  If Trump is a tool of the economic elites that have run the US for the last century then why did they expend so much effort to keep him from being elected?  One way to take the measure of a man is to look at his allies.  It is also possible and necessary to look at his enemies as well.

[pbrower2a]

(11-20-2016, 03:05 AM)Galen Wrote:

(11-19-2016, 03:02 PM)taramarie Wrote:

(11-19-2016, 11:30 AM)pbrower2a Wrote:

(11-19-2016, 06:14 AM)Galen Wrote: Not interested and I am done with America. They will destroy themselves and bloody deserve it for their behaviour towards each other. I will simply sit and wait for the day they destroy themselves but hope they wake up before then. I am done. They are full of irrationality and  it is destroying them while they busy themselves pointing fingers at the enemy....their own. Yep I am done.

Like it or not, even New Zealand is going to have to deal with the consequences of decisions in the DC.  It may be unfair but there is nothing I can do about it.  I am more interested in getting you to see things ahead of everyone else so that you may make the decisions that will improve your own life.  History will proceed no matter how annoyed you are with the US but understanding it and the present may yet allow you to avoid misfortune.

As for Trump, I will say this: By becoming 45th President he has accomplished the impossible.  By the usual standards of the last eighty years he should have never pulled this off.  Who knows? Trump may yet beat the odds again.  I am in a position to know because statistically I should have been dead many years ago.

I see your suggestions as advice on how to live a nastier world in which economic elites trample over every human decency and expect people to be thankful that they get to survive in a far nastier world in which the economic elites rule without any lasting contest (because anyone who opposes them will be rendered helpless, if not murdered outright). If that is the world that I must accept as a condition of survival, then I have nothing to live for.

Donald Trump has achieved what seems impossible -- bringing what looks like dictatorship to America. Such is his style, and he has doubled down on his style after being elected. This is the Mordred of the modern world. I have no claim that the Arthurian legend shaped ideas of our Founding Fathers -- but I expect the Round Table to have been smashed to smithereens this time.

Then you are not reading my comments correctly so i am no longer wasting my time.

Consider the following idea for a moment.  If Trump is a tool of the economic elites that have run the US for the last century then why did they expend so much effort to keep him from being elected?  One way to take the measure of a man is to look at his allies.  It is also possible and necessary to look at his enemies as well.

I do not know whether you are a libertarian, a conservative, or a fascist, but either way you should recognize the danger of populism. Politicians running on populist lines often betray the people that they use to achieve power once achieving the promises become inconvenient to the Judas who wins election. People who feel cheated (and they wi9ll feel cheated) keep the old anger and herd instinct which together prove incompatible with domestic tranquility. They will be angry as long as the leader  who betrays them remains in power.  Another possibility is that the populist tries to deliver on his often contradictory and absurd promises, which usually has the effect of draining the treasury in measures that counteract each other. Quite possibly the hazard to someone on the Right is that the populist fails to have your agenda.

I expect Donald Trump to reconcile with the economic elites with which he is a member and support the usual right-wing agenda of gutting the strength of labor, attacking intellectuals of all kinds when they find that even scientific data (as on global warming) contradicts the will of the economic elite), crushing academic freedom when it runs afoul of a profits-first ideology, and fostering the brutalization of corporate management. This is not the capitalist ideology of, for example Ronald Reagan; this has a dictatorial style attached.

We are in new and uncharted lands. Here be cannibals inland; here be crocodiles in the waterways.

[Mikebert]

(11-19-2016, 03:47 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote:

(11-19-2016, 02:29 AM)Eric the Green Wrote:



Should We Give Donald Trump a Chance? | The Resistance with Keith Olbermann | GQ

"All we are saying, is give fascism as chance? It might not be as bad as we think?"

Through Obama's two terms, the Republicans in Congress gave me the impression that they cared more about making the first black president look unsuccessful than they cared about the United States being successful.  The blocked everything he tried to do.  The new Democratic senate minority leader in his coming in speech said he did not intend to do that.  He would not reject and idea because it came from Trump, but he sure would reject bad ideas, fighting them tooth and nail.  I think this an important distinction, in part because I don't think the Democrats need to worry about Trump seeming like a successful president.

In the early presidential elect period, I'm not seeing that Trump is taking many of his campaign promises all that seriously.  As such, I'm not sure what in the world he intends to do.  To that extent, and to the extent that there seem to be enough Trump demonizers doing their thing, I don't think I need join the demonizer bandwagon just yet.

I am also seeing president elect Trump being the same guy as candidate Trump.  I was wondering if he was willing to fan the Republican base with hate and unusual ideas as a candidate, but would show a more intelligent rational side once elected.  So far, the only sign of a rational Trump has been what Obama has been saying.  Obama seems to be the biggest advocate for 'give Trump a chance' thus far.  While I don't care for demonization, I find myself less interested in giving Trump a chance than Obama is.

Now, I don't think the country is going to shake off its unravelling funk, it is not going to have a regeneracy, until the work together to promote good ideas crowd dominates the extreme partisan demonize anyone who disagrees crowd.  Our current culture of demonization brought us Trump.  Everyone in Washington being demonized resulted in the real unvarnished non-Washington guy getting elected.

At the same time, there is a strong case that Trump really is a demon and ought to be demonized.  Olbermann's point of view is hardly unique.  The demonization bandwagon is rolling, will not be stopped, the volume is unlikely to diminish.

My magic eight ball predicts an ugly 2 years followed by a disaster for the Republicans at the mid terms.  The question for me is what this will do to the extreme partisan divide.  I can see the gap, the mutual misunderstanding and distrust, being made worse, the government becoming even more dysfunctional.  I can hope for an anti-Trump coalition pushing for more good ideas than partisanship resulting in a regeneration enabling unity.  I can see a mix, with the divide of ideals being as strong as ever, but with one side having the numbers to quash the other.

Worst of all, the stagnant unravelling bickering could continue unchanged.

Considering the source I assume the we is Democrats.  How does Trump need Democrats to do what he intended to do?  The GOP hold on the levers of power, the Democrats are powerless, unless they deploy the fillibuster, in which case it will simply be taken away.

[Bob Butler 54]

(11-20-2016, 06:29 AM)pbrower2a Wrote:

(11-20-2016, 03:05 AM)Galen Wrote: Consider the following idea for a moment.  If Trump is a tool of the economic elites that have run the US for the last century then why did they expend so much effort to keep him from being elected?  One way to take the measure of a man is to look at his allies.  It is also possible and necessary to look at his enemies as well.

I do not know whether you are a libertarian, a conservative, or a fascist, but either way you should recognize the danger of populism. Politicians running on populist lines often betray the people that they use to achieve power once achieving the promises become inconvenient to the Judas who wins election. People who feel cheated (and they wi9ll feel cheated) keep the old anger and herd instinct which together prove incompatible with domestic tranquility. They will be angry as long as the leader  who betrays them remains in power.  Another possibility is that the populist tries to deliver on his often contradictory and absurd promises, which usually has the effect of draining the treasury in measures that counteract each other. Quite possibly the hazard to someone on the Right is that the populist fails to have your agenda.

I expect Donald Trump to reconcile with the economic elites with which he is a member and support the usual right-wing agenda of gutting the strength of labor, attacking intellectuals of all kinds when they find that even scientific data (as on global warming) contradicts the will of the economic elite), crushing academic freedom when it runs afoul of a profits-first ideology, and fostering the brutalization of corporate management. This is not the capitalist ideology of, for example Ronald Reagan; this has a dictatorial style attached.

We are in new and uncharted lands. Here be cannibals inland; here be crocodiles in the waterways.

It's too soon to know exactly what Trump will do, but he does seem to be disregarding the 'drain the swamp' promise.  An awful lot of the people he is bringing in are former lobbyists.  One can also find any number of articles suggesting he intends to abandon this promise or that, but anyone can float a rumor.  I don't really know where he is going to go.

I have a sense that the various people fighting for positions and status in his new White House are selectively leaking to the press in their own self interest.  Thus, I'm taking lots of stuff with many grains of salt.

Still, he's no longer a robber baron.  He's the robber king.  I anticipate you are correct, that he will end up abandoning the populists promises and support his own kind.  I'm just going to wait a bit before making a call on how far he'll go in that direction.

I also don't think he has the people skills to build and hold a coalition.  The cast of Hamilton can join all the other people he is displeased with.  The New  York Times has earned a special place in a media he scorns.  Repeating lies worked on the Republican base, but that won't fly with the media and professional politicians.  He reacts directly and emotionally to any form of criticism or opposition, and he's going to get lots of that.  Will he learn the discipline not to shoot from the hip at the first sign of disparagement?  Will he try to use the government to retaliate against political opposition, or will he stick with 3:00 AM tweets?  I just don't know.  I suspect he is too old to change his temperament, but if he doesn't he'll find himself constantly swarmed by angry hornets.  How many hornet stings before things get fatal?

There are enough people on this forum anticipating the worst, rousing up anger and distrust for stuff he hasn't had a chance to do  yet.  Fine.  Enjoy yourselves.  There is plausible reason to anticipate the worst.  I'm just concerned that minds are being closed by the hatred and paranoia.  Is one paranoid if there is reasonable cause to believe he is out to get you?  Perhaps not.

There are some who think it's a good thing to keep one's head when everyone else has gone bonkers.  Might be quite a trick these days.  I may try to give it a shot.

[pbrower2a]

(11-20-2016, 07:29 AM)b Butler 54 Wrote:

(11-20-2016, 06:29 AM)pbrower2a Wrote:

(11-20-2016, 03:05 AM)Galen Wrote: Consider the following idea for a moment.  If Trump is a tool of the economic elites that have run the US for the last century then why did they expend so much effort to keep him from being elected?  One way to take the measure of a man is to look at his allies.  It is also possible and necessary to look at his enemies as well.

I do not know whether you are a libertarian, a conservative, or a fascist, but either way you should recognize the danger of populism. Politicians running on populist lines often betray the people that they use to achieve power once achieving the promises become inconvenient to the Judas who wins election. People who feel cheated (and they will feel cheated) keep the old anger and herd instinct which together prove incompatible with domestic tranquility. They will be angry as long as the leader  who betrays them remains in power.  Another possibility is that the populist tries to deliver on his often contradictory and absurd promises, which usually has the effect of draining the treasury in measures that counteract each other. Quite possibly the hazard to someone on the Right is that the populist fails to have your agenda.

I expect Donald Trump to reconcile with the economic elites with which he is a member and support the usual right-wing agenda of gutting the strength of labor, attacking intellectuals of all kinds when they find that even scientific data (as on global warming) contradicts the will of the economic elite), crushing academic freedom when it runs afoul of a profits-first ideology, and fostering the brutalization of corporate management. This is not the capitalist ideology of, for example Ronald Reagan; this has a dictatorial style attached.

We are in new and uncharted lands. Here be cannibals inland; here be crocodiles in the waterways.

Quote:It's too soon to know exactly what Trump will do, but he does seem to be disregarding the 'drain the swamp' promise.  An awful lot of the people he is bringing in are former lobbyists.

Lobbyists and their financial suppliers are the real power in the legislative branch in America. At this he will be no worse than Dubya, and we survived eight years of that. It's the other stuff that gets scary.
 

Quote:One can also find any number of articles suggesting he intends to abandon this promise or that, but anyone can float a rumor.  I don't really know where he is going to go.

The one promise that he has made to the working class that he will most certainly keep is to 'stick it' to people that he castigated as arrogant elites out of touch with proletarian culture -- mostly educated people, the sorts of people who think the National Inquirer fit only to line bird cages, people who recognize science as the arbiter of natural reality, people who have discovered something richer than the pop culture in music. That is rhetorically cheap. Donald Trump has not turned the masses against the big landowners, financiers and industrialists, and the executive elites. A left-wing populist would have turned against real exploiters instead of against cultural 'offenders'.  

Quote:I have a sense that the various people fighting for positions and status in his new White House are selectively leaking to the press in their own self interest.  Thus, I'm taking lots of stuff with many grains of salt.

They do that for every Administration. So what's so different this time?

Quote:Still, he's no longer a robber baron.  He's the robber king.  I anticipate you are correct, that he will end up abandoning the populists promises and support his own kind.  I'm just going to wait a bit before making a call on how far he'll go in that direction.

He might keep the promises on abortion, anti-intellectualism, and deportations. Those will cost him nothing, and there are profits to be had (coddling polluters, publishing school textbooks full of propaganda and pseudoscience, and filling private prisons) to be made from them. As a crony capitalist he will need to keep fellow capitalists happy with him -- so I expect any big spending by him to be full of budget-busting graft.  Republicans have the majority in both Houses of Congress, so I expect the Republicans to use this time to weaken occupational safety laws and establish a national Right to Work (for far less!) law intended to cause wages to crash and Big Business to have more power over employees. Financial firms could do well with the privatization of Social Security, perhaps changing it into a system that requires people to deposit retirement savings into non-interest-bearing accounts on which the holders get to charge maintenance fees.

Quote:I also don't think he has the people skills to build and hold a coalition.  The cast of Hamilton can join all the other people he is displeased with.  The New  York Times has earned a special place in a media he scorns.  Repeating lies worked on the Republican base, but that won't fly with the media and professional politicians.  He reacts directly and emotionally to any form of criticism or opposition, and he's going to get lots of that.  Will he learn the discipline not to shoot from the hip at the first sign of disparagement?  Will he try to use the government to retaliate against political opposition, or will he stick with 3:00 AM tweets?  I just don't know.  I suspect he is too old to change his temperament, but if he doesn't he'll find himself constantly swarmed by angry hornets.  How many hornet stings before things get fatal?

He does. He could apply the same 'people skill' that every tyrant from Nero to the current Kim in North Korea  has used -- brute force.
Can he get away with it? Here's the best answer: watch for any new or expanded federal police force that starts appearing at demonstrations. Watch for any sponsorship of state secret police units such as the Mississippi Sovereignty Commission of the 1950s and 1960s. Watch any private, politicized militia taking any roles as counter-protesters. May none of this pass. But can you trust someone who has called for violence against opponents at his political rallies when the whole American political system has him as the focus of all political life?

Quote:There are enough people on this forum anticipating the worst, rousing up anger and distrust for stuff he hasn't had a chance to do  yet.  Fine.  Enjoy yourselves.  There is plausible reason to anticipate the worst.  I'm just concerned that minds are being closed by the hatred and paranoia.  Is one paranoid if there is reasonable cause to believe he is out to get you?  Perhaps not.

Low expectations are a good defense against ominous situations. Of course it would be unwise to escalate a scary situation with violent language and rhetoric. We who dislike the President-elect can take notes and prepare for the worst in American history... and expect for the disgraceful treatment of First Peoples, such is either the incarceration of Japanese-Americans, government complicity with Big Business in suppressing the labor side of labor strife, and the subjection of Southern blacks. If we prepare for something that does not happen, then we simply wasted a little effort.

The same sort of non-violent resistance that broke Segregationism in the American South, Marcos in the Philippines, Communism in central and Balkan Europe, and Apartheid in South Africa can work here. In a way we are in better shape: the police and the military got their training in democratic times and can be trusted to not fire upon peaceful protesters.

Are we heroes who stand for the rights of strangers, or are we cowards who feed people that we are told are 'enemies of the people' to American equivalents of Gulags as if casting kittens to hungry alligators? Our national character can come under test now as it did when Nathan Hale was caught as a spy or when brave Rangers scaled Ponte du Hoc under mass-killing fire of German soldiers defending a critical piece of Normandy on D-Day.  But this is a Crisis Era, and even something so precious as Freedom itself is at stake.

Quote:There are some who think it's a good thing to keep one's head when everyone else has gone bonkers.  Might be quite a trick these days.  I may try to give it a shot.

Good idea. Don't provoke trouble, as that may be exactly what the Dark Side wants us to do. But cultivate reason, compassion, and courage nonetheless. We may need them in very difficult, ominous times. [/quote]

[Warren Dew]

(11-20-2016, 01:30 AM)pbrower2a Wrote: ...in some cases, aiding people in getting along with certain disabilities would keep people from becoming public charges  over longer times.

Heck, if society had adapted to my Asperger's, like retraining me, then I might have had a long and successful career doing something useful, highly remunerative, and suitable for me becoming an above-average tax-payer. To be sure, there is no medical treatment for Asperger's; it is as damaging as alcoholism. I am sure that anyone can tell much about my verbal skills and mastery of formal logic through my posts. That's not bragging. I am humble about the rest.

I'm borderline aspie, I definitely wouldn't trade it for being neurotypical.  I did have the luck to get into a university, MIT, which was majority aspie, and then collecting a resume that was strong enough to get me hired without sucking up to the interviewers.  And I tended toward jobs where attention to detail and getting things correct was important, helping balance the scales with more voluble but less persnickety coworkers.

So basically, I disagree that Asperger's is damaging at all.  It's just different and makes one suitable for a different - and admittedly smaller - set of jobs.

[Warren Dew]

(11-20-2016, 07:29 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: There are enough people on this forum anticipating the worst, rousing up anger and distrust for stuff he hasn't had a chance to do  yet.  Fine.  Enjoy yourselves.  There is plausible reason to anticipate the worst.  I'm just concerned that minds are being closed by the hatred and paranoia.

You may be projecting here.  There isn't anyone on this forum whose posts are more paranoid about Trump than yours are.

[Warren Dew]

(11-20-2016, 03:05 AM)Galen Wrote: Consider the following idea for a moment.  If Trump is a tool of the economic elites that have run the US for the last century then why did they expend so much effort to keep him from being elected?  One way to take the measure of a man is to look at his allies.  It is also possible and necessary to look at his enemies as well.

If you believe Turchin's theory about elite competition that Mikebert is so fond of, Trump is not a tool of the economic elites, but he is one of them himself.  The others among the elites hate him because he's a competitor.  Imagine how Bloomberg, who is ten times as rich as Trump and was considering a presidential run, is feeling now.  Suddenly Trump, who was previously some minor billionaire barely on his radar screen, is more powerful than he is.

From the standpoint of a typical prole, there may not seem to be much difference between a middleman for the elites like Clinton, and someone who cuts out the middlemen like Trump.

From the standpoint of Turchin's theory, though, this should be a hopeful development for the proles.  Because Trump isn't beholden to the economic elites, he is far more free to set about cutting them down to size than anyone else would have been.

[Warren Dew]

Unfortunately attention to detail doesn't tend to come across in interviews. The trick is to get jobs where it's important, so that one's job performance will be strong enough to be valued. Getting some breaks early on helps a lot.

It might not be too late to learn Java or another computer language.

[pbrower2a]

(11-20-2016, 05:22 PM)Warren Dew Wrote:

(11-20-2016, 01:30 AM)pbrower2a Wrote: ...in some cases, aiding people in getting along with certain disabilities would keep people from becoming public charges  over longer times.

Heck, if society had adapted to my Asperger's, like retraining me, then I might have had a long and successful career doing something useful, highly remunerative, and suitable for me becoming an above-average tax-payer. To be sure, there is no medical treatment for Asperger's; it is as damaging as alcoholism. I am sure that anyone can tell much about my verbal skills and mastery of formal logic through my posts. That's not bragging. I am humble about the rest.

I'm borderline aspie, I definitely wouldn't trade it for being neurotypical.  I did have the luck to get into a university, MIT, which was majority aspie, and then collecting a resume that was strong enough to get me hired without sucking up to the interviewers.  And I tended toward jobs where attention to detail and getting things correct was important, helping balance the scales with more voluble but less persnickety coworkers.

So basically, I disagree that Asperger's is damaging at all.  It's just different and makes one suitable for a different - and admittedly smaller - set of jobs.

I was not quite in that rarefied zone, so people interviewing me saw the eccentricity and not the attention for detail. I ended up in the pack, competing for entry-level opportunities and doing badly at them. Maybe I am not so borderline.

What is terrible is having to live a lie, scared at all times that one will mess up as anxiety strikes. it can be a lonely, frustrating life. 

But even had I known, I might have drifted much less in life.

[Bob Butler 54]

(11-20-2016, 05:51 PM)Warren Dew Wrote:

(11-20-2016, 07:29 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: There are enough people on this forum anticipating the worst, rousing up anger and distrust for stuff he hasn't had a chance to do  yet.  Fine.  Enjoy yourselves.  There is plausible reason to anticipate the worst.  I'm just concerned that minds are being closed by the hatred and paranoia.

You may be projecting here.  There isn't anyone on this forum whose posts are more paranoid about Trump than yours are.

That seems a strange comment.  I know Eric and a few others are beating me in number of posts and intense partisanship.  I've been making some efforts to convince him to tone down his style to the point that those with who aren't already convinced might listen.

But partisan is different from paranoid, perhaps.  How do you measure paranoia?  Fear of something with no evidence of its likelihood?  Would you care to give a few examples?

I will admit to thinking the high number of lobbyists alleged to be on the short list for high government office has me concerned that he will be heavily pro robber baron, that his promises to 'drain the swamp' aren't going to be honored.  I will admit that his continued 3:00 AM tweets dissing those to diss him makes me concerned that the childish tantrums thrown against any who oppose him are going to continue.  This reflects questionable temperament and a lack of people skills that are apt to make it difficult for him to govern.  I admit I find his campaign promises to push borrow and spend trickle down extremely troubling given the history of what happens under those policies.  Bleeding Main Street dry to gratify Easy Street is just bad policy. What happened under the Bush administrations should give reason enough for concern. I am concerned that the racist and sexist attitudes he voiced during the campaign have encouraged bigots and alarmed their victims, stirring a pot better left unstirred.

Some of these concerns will be confirmed or not within a few months. We will see soon enough his final cabinet choices, and how well he can work with Congress.  It takes longer to ruin the economy, and racist / sexist undercurrents are hard to predict.  Depending on how partisan one is and in which direction, the above concerns and many others might already be considered confirmed with perceived good cause, or they might be perceived as cheap partisan lies and attacks by a hostile media, or otherwise dismissed as unimportant.  I've seen enough direct evidence, much of it coming directly from Trump's mouth or Twitter account, that I perceive my concerns as valid.  Alas, whether these concerns are considered real or paranoia depends on one's personal values. People can perceive what confirms their values much better than they can perceive that which opposes them.

Anyway, I'd rather talk issues than answer personal attacks.  If you could slant your posts that way, it would be appreciated.

[Warren Dew]

(11-21-2016, 06:18 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote:

(11-20-2016, 05:51 PM)Warren Dew Wrote:

(11-20-2016, 07:29 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: There are enough people on this forum anticipating the worst, rousing up anger and distrust for stuff he hasn't had a chance to do  yet.  Fine.  Enjoy yourselves.  There is plausible reason to anticipate the worst.  I'm just concerned that minds are being closed by the hatred and paranoia.

You may be projecting here.  There isn't anyone on this forum whose posts are more paranoid about Trump than yours are.

That seems a strange comment.  I know Eric and a few others are beating me in number of posts and intense partisanship.  I've been making some efforts to convince him to tone down his style to the point that those with who aren't already convinced might listen.

But partisan is different from paranoid, perhaps.  How do you measure paranoia?  Fear of something with no evidence of its likelihood?  Would you care to give a few examples?

Eric has a more bombastic style no doubt.  However, you're the one calling Trump a "robber king" when he's still in the exact same economic ranks as he was before the election, well below the richest people such as Bloomberg and Buffett.

Quote:I will admit to thinking the high number of lobbyists alleged to be on the short list for high government office has me concerned that he will be heavily pro robber baron, that his promises to 'drain the swamp' aren't going to be honored.

That's another good example.  You're happy to amplify reports of lobbyists that were appointed to the transition team by Christie, but you're ignoring the fact that Christie was replaced by Pence, who is demoting and kicking those lobbyists out, as well as continued insistence on exceptionally - perhaps unrealistically - strict restrictions on future lobbying by any political appointees.

[Warren Dew]

(11-20-2016, 09:03 PM)pbrower2a Wrote:

(11-20-2016, 05:22 PM)Warren Dew Wrote:

(11-20-2016, 01:30 AM)pbrower2a Wrote: ...in some cases, aiding people in getting along with certain disabilities would keep people from becoming public charges  over longer times.

Heck, if society had adapted to my Asperger's, like retraining me, then I might have had a long and successful career doing something useful, highly remunerative, and suitable for me becoming an above-average tax-payer. To be sure, there is no medical treatment for Asperger's; it is as damaging as alcoholism. I am sure that anyone can tell much about my verbal skills and mastery of formal logic through my posts. That's not bragging. I am humble about the rest.

I'm borderline aspie, I definitely wouldn't trade it for being neurotypical.  I did have the luck to get into a university, MIT, which was majority aspie, and then collecting a resume that was strong enough to get me hired without sucking up to the interviewers.  And I tended toward jobs where attention to detail and getting things correct was important, helping balance the scales with more voluble but less persnickety coworkers.

So basically, I disagree that Asperger's is damaging at all.  It's just different and makes one suitable for a different - and admittedly smaller - set of jobs.

I was not quite in that rarefied zone, so people interviewing me saw the eccentricity and not the attention for detail. I ended up in the pack, competing for entry-level opportunities and doing badly at them. Maybe I am not so borderline.

Unfortunately interviews are a terrible way to assess attention to detail.  One needs a bit of luck first getting positions where attention to detail is more visible and  important than neurotypical relationship bonding.  Granted such positions are not that common.

[pbrower2a]

Yes -- I have always shown attention, often putting people off, to detail. That obviously fits a computer programmer. But at 60 I am backward enough on technology that I still listen to music CDs, and that I have a blu-ray player and flat-screen TV solely for visual quality. I was up to date on technology when I was 25... but that was when Carter was President. I have a tablet, a digital computer, and a 'dumb' phone rather than consolidating them in one item. My computer use is more typical now of a language or history major than of a computer nerd. I could probably go back to programming in BASIC if I got my hands on an ancient computer that still allows such.

I am going to a social worker soon, as I question whether I can get much more out of 'talk' therapy. I can do nothing to undo the unsteady gaze. I trust that my dog will do far better than I in reading body language. I have found that I might accept that nothing better alleviates anxiety than one alcoholic drink. One. The second one is worthless, but the first is safer than a pill.

You probably have seen enough of my writing skills to assess whether they might have commercial value. I've taken up painting as a hobby; attention to detail is essential to a good artist. I thought I was going to do primitive landscapes, but somehow I end up doing abstract impressionism. I love parabolas and hyperbolas.

[Bob Butler 54]

(11-21-2016, 07:11 AM)Warren Dew Wrote: Eric has a more bombastic style no doubt.  However, you're the one calling Trump a "robber king" when he's still in the exact same economic ranks as he was before the election, well below the richest people such as Bloomberg and Buffett.

Well, you've got to admit that The Donald's political influence has somewhat increased.

(11-21-2016, 07:11 AM)Warren Dew Wrote: That's another good example.  You're happy to amplify reports of lobbyists that were appointed to the transition team by Christie, but you're ignoring the fact that Christie was replaced by Pence, who is demoting and kicking those lobbyists out, as well as continued insistence on exceptionally - perhaps unrealistically - strict restrictions on future lobbying by any political appointees.

We'll see about this one in a few months. I think I'm reasonably concerned, though there are signs both ways. I don't trust the leaks about who is being considered for what, figuring the various candidates for posts are trying to work the press for advantage. Still, leaks like we've seen recently are also used to measure the amount of outrage nominating someone draws. There has certainly been no lack of outrage. It is not time to panic, but I feel it reasonable to be concerned. We'll see who is left standing after Pence finishes and the dust settles.

[Warren Dew]

(11-21-2016, 10:03 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: I don't trust the leaks about who is being considered for what, figuring the various candidates for posts are trying to work the press for advantage.  Still, leaks like we've seen recently are also used to measure the amount of outrage nominating someone draws.

The leaks, especially with respect to Secretary of State, seem weird.  Giuliani had no foreign policy experience, but one could believe Trump might consider him because he was a friend.  Romney has no foreign policy experience and was a political enemy of Trump's, so why would he be in the running?  But of course the leaks were completely wrong about Attorney General, so probably best just to reserve judgement until we see the nominations, which will likely happen in weeks.

[Bob Butler 54]

(11-21-2016, 10:17 AM)Warren Dew Wrote:

(11-21-2016, 10:03 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: I don't trust the leaks about who is being considered for what, figuring the various candidates for posts are trying to work the press for advantage.  Still, leaks like we've seen recently are also used to measure the amount of outrage nominating someone draws.

The leaks, especially with respect to Secretary of State, seem weird.  Giuliani had no foreign policy experience, but one could believe Trump might consider him because he was a friend.  Romney has no foreign policy experience and was a political enemy of Trump's, so why would he be in the running?  But of course the leaks were completely wrong about Attorney General, so probably best just to reserve judgement until we see the nominations, which will likely happen in weeks.

Weird is an appropriate word.

[Eric the Green]

[Warren Dew]

(11-21-2016, 05:16 PM)Eric the Green Wrote:

Eric, I don't know where you came up with that chart, but it's entirely bogus unless it's many decades out of date.  Here's the actual expenditures in 2015:



Food & agriculture are considerably more than you claim, but the real culprits are entitlements.

[Eric the Green]

The chart was for discretionary spending.

Social Security and medicare are entitlements, because people have paid for them. If they are running out of money, it is only because money has been stolen from them, and some people aren't paying enough into them.

I notice your chart also adds payments on the debt; that isn't "discretionary" either, unfortunately, and results almost entirely from imprudent tax cuts, recessions caused by lax Reaganomics repeals of regulation, and unneeded war and military spending.

And of course now we will be paying much more for services the debt, because the debt may explode if Trump gets his way.

It's not my "claim."