Posts: 683
Threads: 41
Joined: May 2016
Back in 1979 then President Jimmy Carter gave a talk to the nation saying that America was experiencing a Crisis of Confidence. In that speech he mentioned the need for energy conservation, which, as we all know now, most of the public seemed to want no part of. The speech went on to be labeled the "Malaise speech", even though that word was never used in it.
Now, nearly four decades later, America once again appears to be experience what might be called Crisis of Confidence II, and may actually be more worthy of the malaise title because during the first one people were at least going out to dance nights away in discos. Today it seems no one, or at least very few, are in the mood for too many good times. This even though many fairly pricey restaurant are pack a great deal of the time. The recent defeat of healthcare reform, rather sarcastically referred to as Trumpcare, went down to defeat last week. Who was reinforcing the need to see its defeat? I guess it was the general public, as they did not wish to see our new President assume dictator mode, as many had been fearing since he first announced his candidacy. Now more than ever it is important to be wise in our convictions. There is much that should be done that I still don't believe the public has the will to really take up.
While much has been said about the need to rein in the power of Wall Street and large multinational corporations, up until now most fledgling protest movements, such as Occupy Wall Street, were noble failures at best--with the exception that it did bring on a dialogue about the subject of immense inequality brought on by the fact that the interests of Wall Street have consistently superseded those of Main Street for at least three decades with no end appearing in sight. To many folks the election of Trump only added fuel to the already blazing fire. Out of the ashes of discontent appeared Bernie Sanders, who for all intents and purposes was probably the only candidate who proposed the sensible change yet was largely ignored by the corporate controlled media. Had he been given adequate coverage, he possible could be our President today. But would he have to face the same level of obstruction in Congress that President Obama did? Probably so, as the men and women composing said Congress have their bread buttered on the corporate side.
Meanwhile, many substandard urban neighborhoods are even worse off today than they were at the heights of the civil rights struggles half a century ago. There are many areas with not a decent grocery store, leading to them being labeled as food deserts. At the same time relentless gentrification has forced many modest income yet decent folks out of the neighborhoods their families had occupied for generations. If Chicago is a prime example, and I believe that it is, nearly all the housing being built in the past 35 years has been pricey upscale condos and townhouses that the average Joe and Jane couldn't even begin to afford. The poverty in our cities is probably just the same as it was many years ago; the main difference being that it is much less visible. This may be good in some ways, but certainly not so good in others. The primary movers and shakers within our cities are without a doubt doing everything in their power to make sure that little if any so called "affordable" housing is being built. And the real estate moguls and developers have tremendous clout over what gets built and what doesn't. For a great on this, I heard a talk over the weekend about a book titled "How to Kill a City" by Peter Moskovitz.
Stories of folks trying to get by on minimum wage or even less have become legendary, as many are forced to work multiple jobs and at times even that isn't enough. The fear people have for others of the species have also become pervasive, leading to loss of social interaction despite the ascendance of so-called "social" networks such as Facebook, Twitter and LinkedIn. And yet the social stigma against those on the lower rungs of the income scale is as pervasive as ever. This implies a general attitude such as "I have, and if you will just go get a job you can have as well". It really isn't all that simple, and there are many destitute folks who actually are working. They just don't earn enough to get by, let alone live the good life.
Do we have the belief that with positive application will come positive rewards? Probably not by too many. There are a significant number who are now waking up to the idea that they have been had for the past few decades, and what is likely to happen when that number becomes the majority?
Posts: 1,402
Threads: 17
Joined: May 2016
03-28-2017, 07:12 PM
(This post was last modified: 03-28-2017, 07:17 PM by Ragnarök_62.)
(03-28-2017, 06:16 PM)X_4AD_84 Wrote: (03-28-2017, 12:08 PM)beechnut79 Wrote: Back in 1979 then President Jimmy Carter gave a talk to the nation saying that America was experiencing a Crisis of Confidence. In that speech he mentioned the need for energy conservation, which, as we all know now, most of the public seemed to want no part of. The speech went on to be labeled the "Malaise speech", even though that word was never used in it.
...
Meanwhile, many substandard urban neighborhoods are even worse off today than they were at the heights of the civil rights struggles half a century ago. There are many areas with not a decent grocery store, leading to them being labeled as food deserts. At the same time relentless gentrification has forced many modest income yet decent folks out of the neighborhoods their families had occupied for generations. If Chicago is a prime example, and I believe that it is, nearly all the housing being built in the past 35 years has been pricey upscale condos and townhouses that the average Joe and Jane couldn't even begin to afford. The poverty in our cities is probably just the same as it was many years ago; the main difference being that it is much less visible. This may be good in some ways, but certainly not so good in others. The primary movers and shakers within our cities are without a doubt doing everything in their power to make sure that little if any so called "affordable" housing is being built. And the real estate moguls and developers have tremendous clout over what gets built and what doesn't. For a great on this, I heard a talk over the weekend about a book titled "How to Kill a City" by Peter Moskovitz.
Stories of folks trying to get by on minimum wage or even less have become legendary, as many are forced to work multiple jobs and at times even that isn't enough. The fear people have for others of the species have also become pervasive, leading to loss of social interaction despite the ascendance of so-called "social" networks such as Facebook, Twitter and LinkedIn. And yet the social stigma against those on the lower rungs of the income scale is as pervasive as ever. This implies a general attitude such as "I have, and if you will just go get a job you can have as well". It really isn't all that simple, and there are many destitute folks who actually are working. They just don't earn enough to get by, let alone live the good life.
Do we have the belief that with positive application will come positive rewards? Probably not by too many. There are a significant number who are now waking up to the idea that they have been had for the past few decades, and what is likely to happen when that number becomes the majority?
Increasingly, the disenchanted and angry subset will be Millennials. A subset of the Millennials are now combat hardened and are excellent with marksmanship. All the ingredients are there.
1. Carter. Well, what can I say. In my 18 year old frame of mind, Carter was the penultimate oracle of doom. Obviously, doom sux, and I rushed to vote for Reagan. That, added with the failed hostage rescue indicated a note of incompetence. [ I did vote for some Democrats down ticket though...]
2. Urban poverty: What was old, is new again. I'd really like to say, where's this job training the Republicans keep yammering about? Whatever job training is available is half assed. It neither trains folks for actual jobs nor has much thought to it, beyond "you have to take job training to keep your food stamps." That position is ludicrous.
The real thing is that most folks on SNAP [food stamps] are already working. The Republicans go even deeper down the rat hole with 3 contradictory positions. [ I agree with your point as stated above.]
a. A person is precious when said person is a fetus/embryo/whatever said person is before actually being born.
b. After that person is born, said person is a product of irresponsible sex.
c. Birth control should not be readily available.
The ultimate contradiction in worth is a person is precious while in the womb, but is the product of "irresponsibility"
after the person is born. I can't fathom why the Democrats haven't hammered that contradiction. The Republicans can't win , do to the inherent internal contradiction. Now, I know there's a progressive faction and a Neoliberal faction within the Democratic party. We Democrats really need to listen to Truman , who basically stated that "Given the Choice between Republican lite vs. a real Republican, the voters will select the Republican every time."
IOW, the Neoliberal/3rd way faction needs to be just chucked.
Here's the chain of internal contradictions.
a. If you are poor, birth control is hard to come by. Result: Women can't be "responsible" with that policy.
b. From item a, if an unplanned pregnancy happens, it's the couple's fault. The problem here is that most men with assets are opting out. Who wants to be a wallet for the biased divorce courts. I did that and opted for career/partying/poker junkets instead of getting hitched. The reason should be obvious. The divorce courts are a codified asset confiscation scheme for successful men. After all, there are plenty of means of scratching the sex drive besides relationships. Sorry, but partying with inanimate substances which get me off is a good trade off with that reality.
c. The result is a lot of women get knocked up with asset less men. 
d. Social Networks: Easy, those facilitate atomization. I think this forum is also an example. I sort of know folks all over the country, but lack the means to actually meet them in person. It's hard to get the travel nut to go to say California, whose denizens , the ones here at least have something in common with myself. I work minimum wage and , yes that limits the ability to travel.
e. The idea that say the denizens of Appalachia can "just get a job, if they moved". This is a really stupid argument, regardless of which side supports it. First, most rural/depressed area living areas can't be sold. That means someone from , say Oklahoma can't just move after getting dubious "skills" from retraining can just up and leave. It also means in the case "move to where the jobs are". How the fuck can that work, when we already have a large contingent of urban area poor? The answer is that I think that's stupid. If folks in poor urban areas can't get jobs, then how the fuck can some rural yahoo do likewise?
f. Millennials: I don't think that would work. Millenials as a generation are/were raised to act as a group, under a leader [Prophet/Nomad] to work for a goal set by elders [as long as the goal makes sense to them. ] So, I see the current mess as a crisis in leadership, now. XY_MOX_4AD, that means the blame falls more on elder generations than Millenials than anything. IOW, Millenials can't do their generational mission without some sort of cogent agenda set forth by said elders.
g. Real Estate-gentrification: This is now a product of an asset bubble. I'm sure that real estate prices will correct to the point that us proles can afford it, ... provided there's a crash where real estate prices are not propped up with bailouts, etc. Screwed up asset prices = "what was old is new again", burn, baby, burn. May the whole rotten edifice just go in flames, baby. -> Rags is a denizen of his "home decade", the 1970's. Damn, I miss those protest book drops in grade school.
---Value Added 
Posts: 1,499
Threads: 16
Joined: May 2016
I feel the need to bring up several points to rebut this long screed.
Beechnut79 Wrote:The recent defeat of healthcare reform, rather sarcastically referred to as Trumpcare, went down to defeat last week. Who was reinforcing the need to see its defeat?
Actually among the politcially active it was primarily called Ryancare or Obamacare Lite. The need to defeat it came straight from the administration through reverse psychological methods. I don't expect the MSM commentariat to understand the psychology of GOP reps, nor do I expect the likes of Odin to understand it either. When the President's Chief strategist is openly telling Reps to vote for something--it is in their very nature to give him the middle finger.
Quote:I guess it was the general public, as they did not wish to see our new President assume dictator mode, as many had been fearing since he first announced his candidacy.
Who exactly is doing this? The MSM and their hangers on who are doing nothing more than autistic screeching. It wasn't that long ago that the President's candidacy was considered a joke. Then again the following axiom which is attributed to Mohandas K. Gandhi (he never actually said or wrote these words btw) rings true:
First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win.
Quote:up until now most fledgling protest movements, such as Occupy Wall Street, were noble failures at best
Occupy's major failing was its lack of structure. A criticism I issued not only here but in a meeting of a communist party that I used to be a member of. Also it lacked a coherent ideology. Having been involved myself with both Occupy and the Tea Party; Occupy had a bad habit of breaking down over trivialities in their General Assemblies. I remember once attempting to steer a meeting away from the topic of smoking while at the protest to a more pertinent topic.
Also there is no such creature as a noble failure.
Quote:To many folks the election of Trump only added fuel to the already blazing fire. Out of the ashes of discontent appeared Bernie Sanders, who for all intents and purposes was probably the only candidate who proposed the sensible change yet was largely ignored by the corporate controlled media. Had he been given adequate coverage, he possible could be our President today.
1. Maybe. Given the reality of how presidents are elected you had a choice between an inexperienced Republican, and a known Democrat criminal--part of the very problem you're describing. I speak of course of HRC.
2. Sanders is/was I feel the Whig wing GC but he went down in flames. Because of the corporate media? Well they certainly helped, but that isn't the whole story. No he was actively cheated out of the nomination by behind the scenes super delegate deals. As I told everyone at the time, when the DNC selected HRC they were going to lose. And they did lose.
3. Sanders might have been able to beat Trump had he secured the Green Party nomination, but instead he genuflected to the DNC's hand picked candidate. As soon as he did so he lost any credibility as a trans-formative figure.
Quote:But would he have to face the same level of obstruction in Congress that President Obama did?
Depends on if the Democrats did well on the down ballot. But even if Sanders had run--and he was the only democrat who had a chance of beating any Republican (let alone Trump who used completely new tactics in the election)--and he won chance are that the GOP would have retained the House even if the Democrats picked up seats in the Senate.
As such at least one of the two legislative bodies would obstruct at least some of his agenda. But all of this is speculative.
Quote:Meanwhile, many substandard urban neighborhoods are even worse off today than they were at the heights of the civil rights struggles half a century ago.
Yes, and in these cities who has held control over them for all this time? Not the GOP. As a black man there is a reason I call it "walking off the plantation" when I refuse to vote for Democrats.
Quote:If Chicago is a prime example
Having lived in Chicago myself I can tell you that Chicago is a prime example of how Democrats run and control their territories. The Democrat machine has run that city for at least a century.
Quote:Stories of folks trying to get by on minimum wage or even less have become legendary, as many are forced to work multiple jobs and at times even that isn't enough.
Yes and which party wants to import tons of cheap labor from Latin America? I'll give you a hint---it isn't the Trumpist GOP. Establishment Neoliberal/NeoCon GOPers are a different story. That's okay though party alignment is going to be changing over the course of the next 8 years.
And yes Trump will be a 2 term president barring some sort of catastrophe, an assassination or his death. I think the middle one is most likely--swamp creatures don't like their swamps being drained.
Posts: 1,131
Threads: 6
Joined: May 2016
(03-29-2017, 01:30 PM)Kinser79 Wrote: I feel the need to bring up several points to rebut this long screed.
Beechnut79 Wrote:The recent defeat of healthcare reform, rather sarcastically referred to as Trumpcare, went down to defeat last week. Who was reinforcing the need to see its defeat?
Actually among the politcially active it was primarily called Ryancare or Obamacare Lite. The need to defeat it came straight from the administration through reverse psychological methods. I don't expect the MSM commentariat to understand the psychology of GOP reps, nor do I expect the likes of Odin to understand it either. When the President's Chief strategist is openly telling Reps to vote for something--it is in their very nature to give him the middle finger.
Pretty much what I thought except that I think the real target is Ryan. Given Ryan's past behavior toward Trump it would be just like him to sink Ryan as Speaker. This also gives Trump the bonus of having the Dims still owning Obozocare as the system continues to collapse. This is what I have come to expect from Trump and is why his apparent mistakes seems to work out in the end.
Democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want, and deserve to get it good and hard. -- H.L. Mencken
If one rejects laissez faire on account of man's fallibility and moral weakness, one must for the same reason also reject every kind of government action. -- Ludwig von Mises
Posts: 1,499
Threads: 16
Joined: May 2016
(03-29-2017, 02:20 PM)Galen Wrote: (03-29-2017, 01:30 PM)Kinser79 Wrote: I feel the need to bring up several points to rebut this long screed.
Beechnut79 Wrote:The recent defeat of healthcare reform, rather sarcastically referred to as Trumpcare, went down to defeat last week. Who was reinforcing the need to see its defeat?
Actually among the politcially active it was primarily called Ryancare or Obamacare Lite. The need to defeat it came straight from the administration through reverse psychological methods. I don't expect the MSM commentariat to understand the psychology of GOP reps, nor do I expect the likes of Odin to understand it either. When the President's Chief strategist is openly telling Reps to vote for something--it is in their very nature to give him the middle finger.
Pretty much what I thought except that I think the real target is Ryan. Given Ryan's past behavior toward Trump it would be just like him to sink Ryan as Speaker. This also gives Trump the bonus of having the Dims still owning Obozocare as the system continues to collapse. This is what I have come to expect from Trump and is why his apparent mistakes seems to work out in the end.
I don't think he actually makes mistakes--or at least not many. I think he's playing a completely different game than the Establishment. Just like how he campaigned was completely different from campaigns that came before. Relying more on the Meme Team, the internet and the like as opposed to Tee-Vee and MSM.
I have said in other threads that Trump had to get rid of Ryan (who is a dangerous snake), however, he has to do so without getting his hands dirty. So, get him to initiate a major proposal, attempt to force it through the House and then throw a wrench into the machine just as it's about to hit the floor so the whole bill blows up.
Over all who ends up owning Obamacare? The Dims. Who has egg all over his face? Ryan. Who ends up getting a new speaker eventually? Trump. Ryan wasted a lot of political capital on Ryancare, he can't afford too many more mistakes before the Republican Caucus decides it's time for someone else. I would suggest Louie Gohmert.
Posts: 1,131
Threads: 6
Joined: May 2016
(03-29-2017, 03:27 PM)Kinser79 Wrote: Over all who ends up owning Obamacare? The Dims. Who has egg all over his face? Ryan. Who ends up getting a new speaker eventually? Trump. Ryan wasted a lot of political capital on Ryancare, he can't afford too many more mistakes before the Republican Caucus decides it's time for someone else. I would suggest Louie Gohmert.
Ryan was put into place because on the surface he appeared to be a fiscal conservative but is sufficiently spineless in order to fold at every opportunity to Hillary. Currently Ryan is attempting to push Ryancare through again and with a bit of luck the Freedom Caucus will sink it again since they don't like Ryan either.
Democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want, and deserve to get it good and hard. -- H.L. Mencken
If one rejects laissez faire on account of man's fallibility and moral weakness, one must for the same reason also reject every kind of government action. -- Ludwig von Mises
Posts: 1,499
Threads: 16
Joined: May 2016
Chances are that unless it is substantially changed it has no chance. That being said I have no problem writing Reps to kill it.
Posts: 4,336
Threads: 7
Joined: Jul 2016
(03-29-2017, 01:30 PM)Kinser79 Wrote: Beechnut79 Wrote:The recent defeat of healthcare reform, rather sarcastically referred to as Trumpcare, went down to defeat last week. Who was reinforcing the need to see its defeat?
Actually among the politcially active it was primarily called Ryancare or Obamacare Lite. The need to defeat it came straight from the administration through reverse psychological methods. I don't expect the MSM commentariat to understand the psychology of GOP reps, nor do I expect the likes of Odin to understand it either. When the President's Chief strategist is openly telling Reps to vote for something--it is in their very nature to give him the middle finger.
So you're arguing that it's all a ploy, and Trump, et al, are really playing a deep strategy. That's nonsense. If you read Trump's book, you'll see that he is intellectually and emotionally incapable of doing that. By his own words, his modus operand was: go to the office, sit down and wait for something to happen. He made a point of being unprepared in advance, and totally reactive to events. Bannon may be a strategist, but he's not the guy in charge. Unless he becomes a true puppet master, with his hand firmly up his boss's butt 24/7, any strategies he spins will be overturned by Jarret Kushner of Ivanka, both of whom have Trump's ear much more than Bannon.
Intelligence is not knowledge and knowledge is not wisdom, but they all play well together.
Posts: 1,499
Threads: 16
Joined: May 2016
(03-30-2017, 10:15 AM)David Horn Wrote: (03-29-2017, 01:30 PM)Kinser79 Wrote: Beechnut79 Wrote:The recent defeat of healthcare reform, rather sarcastically referred to as Trumpcare, went down to defeat last week. Who was reinforcing the need to see its defeat?
Actually among the politcially active it was primarily called Ryancare or Obamacare Lite. The need to defeat it came straight from the administration through reverse psychological methods. I don't expect the MSM commentariat to understand the psychology of GOP reps, nor do I expect the likes of Odin to understand it either. When the President's Chief strategist is openly telling Reps to vote for something--it is in their very nature to give him the middle finger.
So you're arguing that it's all a ploy, and Trump, et al, are really playing a deep strategy. That's nonsense. If you read Trump's book, you'll see that he is intellectually and emotionally incapable of doing that. By his own words, his modus operand was: go to the office, sit down and wait for something to happen. He made a point of being unprepared in advance, and totally reactive to events. Bannon may be a strategist, but he's not the guy in charge. Unless he becomes a true puppet master, with his hand firmly up his boss's butt 24/7, any strategies he spins will be overturned by Jarret Kushner of Ivanka, both of whom have Trump's ear much more than Bannon.
 Seriously. Here, lets have Scott Adams explain as he always does what's really happening.
http://blog.dilbert.com/post/15881265448...healthcare
We see three different levels where Trump wins, one where Ryan loses, and of course the clueless are just as confused as ever.
Level 1: Trump weakens Ryan who is a snake, and is hated by the Trumpist base. Remember the GOP is also embroiled in its own civil war between nationalist and globalist factions--the globalists are losing so I expect by the end of the decade the Dims to swing more to the right (and they may also purge their SJW elements). Meanwhile the GOP will move further left, but be overtly nationalist and populist.
Level 2: The Dims still own Obamacare, and as it collapses under its own weight delaying actually helps the president--so it can be repealed (and maybe replaced--with something that actually works). As for the replacement I'm in favor of the "buy your own goddamn insurance" model. If we can trust adults to buy mortgages, and car insurance they can be trusted to buy health insurance. If need be we can even have it cross state lines.
Level 3: The Leftist meme "Trump is literally Hitler zomg" is permanently broken. Now the meme is "He's incompetent" as Scott Adams points out the meme will be different by summer.
And at the price of what? A terrible bill no one wanted. Sounds like the President got a bargain.
Also which book? He's written around a dozen books.
WRT Ivanka and Mr. Ivanka, I imagine that one's daughter and Son-in-law are relatively important figures in his life. Such is natural. How much influence over policy remains to be seen--I know that Bannon heavily influences the President--he's been hired twice to do exactly that. Remember, the hardest part of running a business is not hiring people--it is firing them. Trump made "You're Fired" a catch phrase. Obviously for someone to not only not get fired by Trump, but to be hired a second time indicates that he values Bannon's opinion.
Also don't be surprised at how much leeway White House staff is likely to get. Trump's business model consists largely of delegating tasks to competent people. He's built an empire on that particular skill.
Posts: 4,336
Threads: 7
Joined: Jul 2016
(03-30-2017, 09:16 PM)Kinser79 Wrote: (03-30-2017, 10:15 AM)David Horn Wrote: So you're arguing that it's all a ploy, and Trump, et al, are really playing a deep strategy. That's nonsense. If you read Trump's book, you'll see that he is intellectually and emotionally incapable of doing that. By his own words, his modus operand was: go to the office, sit down and wait for something to happen. He made a point of being unprepared in advance, and totally reactive to events. Bannon may be a strategist, but he's not the guy in charge. Unless he becomes a true puppet master, with his hand firmly up his boss's butt 24/7, any strategies he spins will be overturned by Jarret Kushner of Ivanka, both of whom have Trump's ear much more than Bannon.
Seriously. Here, lets have Scott Adams explain as he always does what's really happening.
I like Dilbert as much as the next guy, but really?
Kinser Wrote:We see three different levels where Trump wins, one where Ryan loses, and of course the clueless are just as confused as ever.
Level 1: Trump weakens Ryan who is a snake, and is hated by the Trumpist base. Remember the GOP is also embroiled in its own civil war between nationalist and globalist factions--the globalists are losing so I expect by the end of the decade the Dims to swing more to the right (and they may also purge their SJW elements). Meanwhile the GOP will move further left, but be overtly nationalist and populist.
Where we are is just where we, and the Europeans, should expect to be. A long-followed governing model that's become sclerotic and ineffective will always trigger an antithetical response. So what? I see no chance that the neo-nationalists have anything approaching a workable model, and that's becoming clear to others as well. When the sound asleep finally awaken, this movement will be toast.
That still leaves a need for a workable model, of course. Bernie Sanders was pretty close to an answer, so look in that quadrant. The only issue is: how soon?
Kinser Wrote:Level 2: The Dims still own Obamacare, and as it collapses under its own weight delaying actually helps the president--so it can be repealed (and maybe replaced--with something that actually works). As for the replacement I'm in favor of the "buy your own goddamn insurance" model. If we can trust adults to buy mortgages, and car insurance they can be trusted to buy health insurance. If need be we can even have it cross state lines.
If the plan is to have an insurance-based system of healthcare finance, then the ACA is the least bad option. Going to "buy your own goddamn insurance" guarantees that the poor, sick and elderly will be priced out of the market and the healthy young will simply opt out. If employers opt out too, and I think they are looking for an excuse to do just that, then the actual healthcare system will collapse due to lack of funding.
BTW, that's the true definition of a death spiral.
Kinser Wrote:Level 3: The Leftist meme "Trump is literally Hitler zomg" is permanently broken. Now the meme is "He's incompetent" as Scott Adams points out the meme will be different by summer.
I could care less about the meme. I call what I see, and I see a 70-year old adolescent playing at being President. I doubt he'll make it through his entire term.
Kinser Wrote:And at the price of what? A terrible bill no one wanted. Sounds like the President got a bargain.
Who was arguing for the AHCA POS? Not me!
Kinser Wrote:Also which book? He's written around a dozen books.
I only found two, and The Art of the Deal is the biggie. That's the one that cites his management style -- in his own words.
Kinser Wrote:WRT Ivanka and Mr. Ivanka, I imagine that one's daughter and Son-in-law are relatively important figures in his life. Such is natural. How much influence over policy remains to be seen--I know that Bannon heavily influences the President--he's been hired twice to do exactly that. Remember, the hardest part of running a business is not hiring people--it is firing them. Trump made "You're Fired" a catch phrase. Obviously for someone to not only not get fired by Trump, but to be hired a second time indicates that he values Bannon's opinion.
Also don't be surprised at how much leeway White House staff is likely to get. Trump's business model consists largely of delegating tasks to competent people. He's built an empire on that particular skill.
Trump is operating on bravado, which may work in his chosen field but not in the public domain. He isn't a king, and acting like one won't change that one iota.
Intelligence is not knowledge and knowledge is not wisdom, but they all play well together.
Posts: 1,499
Threads: 16
Joined: May 2016
(04-01-2017, 12:37 PM)David Horn Wrote: (03-30-2017, 09:16 PM)Kinser79 Wrote: (03-30-2017, 10:15 AM)David Horn Wrote: So you're arguing that it's all a ploy, and Trump, et al, are really playing a deep strategy. That's nonsense. If you read Trump's book, you'll see that he is intellectually and emotionally incapable of doing that. By his own words, his modus operand was: go to the office, sit down and wait for something to happen. He made a point of being unprepared in advance, and totally reactive to events. Bannon may be a strategist, but he's not the guy in charge. Unless he becomes a true puppet master, with his hand firmly up his boss's butt 24/7, any strategies he spins will be overturned by Jarret Kushner of Ivanka, both of whom have Trump's ear much more than Bannon.
Seriously. Here, lets have Scott Adams explain as he always does what's really happening.
I like Dilbert as much as the next guy, but really?
I don't know about you but I go with what works and whose right. When Scott Adams' track record is better than CNN's who would you go with? Also Dilbert is fairly entertaining on its own, but his blog is more important.
Quote:Kinser Wrote:We see three different levels where Trump wins, one where Ryan loses, and of course the clueless are just as confused as ever.
Level 1: Trump weakens Ryan who is a snake, and is hated by the Trumpist base. Remember the GOP is also embroiled in its own civil war between nationalist and globalist factions--the globalists are losing so I expect by the end of the decade the Dims to swing more to the right (and they may also purge their SJW elements). Meanwhile the GOP will move further left, but be overtly nationalist and populist.
Where we are is just where we, and the Europeans, should expect to be. A long-followed governing model that's become sclerotic and ineffective will always trigger an antithetical response. So what? I see no chance that the neo-nationalists have anything approaching a workable model, and that's becoming clear to others as well. When the sound asleep finally awaken, this movement will be toast.
That still leaves a need for a workable model, of course. Bernie Sanders was pretty close to an answer, so look in that quadrant. The only issue is: how soon?
The current system isn't working--but there isn't a solution at least not one that can be implemented this cycle (the whole order still has yet to be discredited--you know Mega-Unraveling), and it certainly isn't Bernie Sanders. The Europeans all have much larger welfare states than the US and they're failing too.
Even if we agreed Sanders had the solutions to our problems where would we get the funds to pay for all these programs and such like? Massive raising of taxes? Massive printing of money? You know because raising taxes and inflation never causes problems.
Quote:Kinser Wrote:Level 2: The Dims still own Obamacare, and as it collapses under its own weight delaying actually helps the president--so it can be repealed (and maybe replaced--with something that actually works). As for the replacement I'm in favor of the "buy your own goddamn insurance" model. If we can trust adults to buy mortgages, and car insurance they can be trusted to buy health insurance. If need be we can even have it cross state lines.
If the plan is to have an insurance-based system of healthcare finance, then the ACA is the least bad option.
No the least bad option is to have people buy their own damn insurance. We trust the free market to provide us with bread and vegetables and junk food all of which are in such abundance even the poor are obese but we can't trust it to provide a plethera of insurance options? Seriously if there is a profit to be made someone will try and make it.
Quote:Going to "buy your own goddamn insurance" guarantees that the poor, sick and elderly will be priced out of the market and the healthy young will simply opt out.
So what you're saying is people cannot be trusted to buy their own insurance. Yet they certainly can be trusted with buying home owners insurance, renters insurance, car insurance and so forth. Are you sure you want to go that route?
Granted some people will be priced out, some will opt out. In any freedom based system you're going to have that. So unless you're proposing forcing everyone buys a certain product approved by the state or they are jailed, the ACA or any other force based insurance system is not going to work. And that doesn't even get into the whole one-size does not fit all situation (which is a whole other kettle of fish).
What I do find interesting though is someone on Medicare, who isn't effected by the ACA is attempting to dictate why this terrible piece of garbage is good for me and good for business.
Quote: If employers opt out too, and I think they are looking for an excuse to do just that, then the actual healthcare system will collapse due to lack of funding.
Two issues: 1. Employers only started offering health insurance during WW2 due to war time wage caps.
2. Employers only continue to do so to retain employees because health insurance is non-taxable compensation.
Ideally employers should not be paying for health care insurance. Maybe if the tax system was structured in a different way they could offer their employees enough money to buy their own damn insurance. Finally, for those who have employer provided health insurance what happens to their insurance when they get laid off or their job is sent to Chi-nah? Oh they lose it....with the "Buy your own damn insurance" system they have their insurance whether they work or not as long as they can pay the premium. And this doesn't even get into the whole not wanting to hire older workers or workers with pre-existing conditions in situations where companies (many of who can't really afford to provide insurance to their full time workers--or they would without being forced to) because doing so would raise their rates.
Quote:BTW, that's the true definition of a death spiral.
No that's the sound of a bubble popping. If people have to buy their own insurance then they are most likely going to go for what they need and not for what some third party is going to pay for. This means single men aren't going to have coverage for mammograms--cause guess what men don't need that. I imagine single women will not want their prostate exams covered (you know not having a prostate and all). I figure if an adult human is competent enough to dress themselves then they are compotent enough to buy what kind of health care coverage they need.
Quote:Kinser Wrote:Level 3: The Leftist meme "Trump is literally Hitler zomg" is permanently broken. Now the meme is "He's incompetent" as Scott Adams points out the meme will be different by summer.
I could care less about the meme. I call what I see, and I see a 70-year old adolescent playing at being President. I doubt he'll make it through his entire term.
Yeah like a sick, corrupt, career politician--the very essence of everything wrong in Washington was any better. As for being a 70 year old adolescent...I can't tell if that is a statement from ignorance as to how New Yorkers behave, or if you're simply delusional. Were he some unchecked over grown teenager he wouldn't have been able to make 1 Million into Billions.
Or is it that you're secretly jealous of Daddy in that the presidency is the cherry on top and all you have to look forward to is hopefully dying before dementia sets in?
Quote:Kinser Wrote:And at the price of what? A terrible bill no one wanted. Sounds like the President got a bargain.
Who was arguing for the AHCA POS? Not me!
And you think I was?
AHCA was never going to pass because it isn't a repeal, and it also wasn't a replace either--unless the goal was to rearrange the deck chairs on the Titanic.
Quote:Kinser Wrote:Also which book? He's written around a dozen books.
I only found two, and The Art of the Deal is the biggie. That's the one that cites his management style -- in his own words.
I have The Art of the Deal, I actually bought a copy but that is hardly his only book. It was written 30 years ago and is all about business and business management. [Incidentally that is why I bought the book.] It is not about politics at all except where he exposes how inept many politicians he dealt with over the years were. Most of those politicans retired 20-10 years ago, so...I'm not following your logic (assuming you even have one).
Trump has written more than two books. It is clear you didn't google hard enough.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bibliograp...nald_Trump
Time to Get Tough: Making America No. 1 Again (2011), co-written with Wynton Hall, ISBN 978-1-59698-773-9
Crippled America: How to Make America Great Again (2015), ISBN 978-1-5011-3796-9
Great Again: How to Fix Our Crippled America (2016), ISBN 978-1-5011-3800-3
Are the three books that deal with contemporary politics. In all three he explained what he thinks is wrong, and offers several solutions on how to fix it. His solutions may or may not work--they need to be tried before we know for sure. But I know what won't work--doing nothing or doing the same thing that has been done before. It depends on how one looks at the world though--as Scott Adams pointed out. Are goal orientated or systems orientated.
Quote:Kinser Wrote:WRT Ivanka and Mr. Ivanka, I imagine that one's daughter and Son-in-law are relatively important figures in his life. Such is natural. How much influence over policy remains to be seen--I know that Bannon heavily influences the President--he's been hired twice to do exactly that. Remember, the hardest part of running a business is not hiring people--it is firing them. Trump made "You're Fired" a catch phrase. Obviously for someone to not only not get fired by Trump, but to be hired a second time indicates that he values Bannon's opinion.
Also don't be surprised at how much leeway White House staff is likely to get. Trump's business model consists largely of delegating tasks to competent people. He's built an empire on that particular skill.
Trump is operating on bravado, which may work in his chosen field but not in the public domain. He isn't a king, and acting like one won't change that one iota.
You know who else operated with bravado and was a very successful president? Andrew Jackson. It is not for no reason I have named Trump the "Jacksonian GC" in my own words. Do not be surprised should, you live to see it--and I'm likely too, if people in the future do not brag about being born in or coming up in the Age of Trump.
History may not repeat but it certainly rhymes.
Posts: 10,013
Threads: 103
Joined: May 2016
(04-01-2017, 12:37 PM)David Horn Wrote: I only found two, and The Art of the Deal is the biggie. That's the one that cites his management style -- in his own words.
Except, of course, he didn't even write it, and he didn't even pay his ghostwriter.
Posts: 4,336
Threads: 7
Joined: Jul 2016
This thread has more stripes than a zebra, so this is my last pass.
(04-01-2017, 09:32 PM)Kinser79 Wrote: The current system isn't working--but there isn't a solution at least not one that can be implemented this cycle (the whole order still has yet to be discredited--you know Mega-Unraveling), and it certainly isn't Bernie Sanders. The Europeans all have much larger welfare states than the US and they're failing too.
Even if we agreed Sanders had the solutions to our problems where would we get the funds to pay for all these programs and such like? Massive raising of taxes? Massive printing of money? You know because raising taxes and inflation never causes problems.
First, the European welfare sates are not falling. They are suffering from excessive immigration, and the various nationalists are running on that. None of them wants to kill their welfare state
Kinser Wrote:No the least bad option is to have people buy their own damn insurance. We trust the free market to provide us with bread and vegetables and junk food all of which are in such abundance even the poor are obese but we can't trust it to provide a plethera of insurance options? Seriously if there is a profit to be made someone will try and make it.
Healthcare is not a commercial product. It's more like police, fire and military protection. I assume you aren't interested in having each of us buy our own security ... not at that level, at least.
Kinser Wrote:So what you're saying is people cannot be trusted to buy their own insurance. Yet they certainly can be trusted with buying home owners insurance, renters insurance, car insurance and so forth. Are you sure you want to go that route?
Granted some people will be priced out, some will opt out. In any freedom based system you're going to have that. So unless you're proposing forcing everyone buys a certain product approved by the state or they are jailed, the ACA or any other force based insurance system is not going to work. And that doesn't even get into the whole one-size does not fit all situation (which is a whole other kettle of fish).
What I do find interesting though is someone on Medicare, who isn't effected by the ACA is attempting to dictate why this terrible piece of garbage is good for me and good for business.
You are talking apples and jackhammers here. They aren't even in the same family. Take homeowners insurance. It's fully predicated on the idea that the fire department will respond to fires and the police to criminal acts ... all paid with tax dollars.
Kinser Wrote:Two issues: 1. Employers only started offering health insurance during WW2 due to war time wage caps.
2. Employers only continue to do so to retain employees because health insurance is non-taxable compensation.
Ideally employers should not be paying for health care insurance. Maybe if the tax system was structured in a different way they could offer their employees enough money to buy their own damn insurance. Finally, for those who have employer provided health insurance what happens to their insurance when they get laid off or their job is sent to Chi-nah? Oh they lose it....with the "Buy your own damn insurance" system they have their insurance whether they work or not as long as they can pay the premium. And this doesn't even get into the whole not wanting to hire older workers or workers with pre-existing conditions in situations where companies (many of who can't really afford to provide insurance to their full time workers--or they would without being forced to) because doing so would raise their rates.
Here we agree. We need the employer-based heath insurance system to end.
Kinser Wrote:No that's the sound of a bubble popping. If people have to buy their own insurance then they are most likely going to go for what they need and not for what some third party is going to pay for. This means single men aren't going to have coverage for mammograms--cause guess what men don't need that. I imagine single women will not want their prostate exams covered (you know not having a prostate and all). I figure if an adult human is competent enough to dress themselves then they are compotent enough to buy what kind of health care coverage they need.
Healthcare is not a product. Period. Providing healthcare to hoi polloi requires a huge infrastructure of hospitals, specialty clinics, laboratories and providers of all types. Setting up competing services merely guarantees huge and unnecessary costs. Take NICUs, for example. Even the air handlers are special. A one day stay by a preemie in a NICU is $10,000, assuming the NICU is large enough to share the specialty resources needed to make it work. If it's boutique care, like the mega rich get, then multiply by 10. In other words, it's barely affordable in its most communal form ... and NICUs are only one of many services with similar cost structures.
Kinser Wrote:Yeah like a sick, corrupt, career politician--the very essence of everything wrong in Washington was any better. As for being a 70 year old adolescent...I can't tell if that is a statement from ignorance as to how New Yorkers behave, or if you're simply delusional. Were he some unchecked over grown teenager he wouldn't have been able to make 1 Million into Billions.
Or is it that you're secretly jealous of Daddy in that the presidency is the cherry on top and all you have to look forward to is hopefully dying before dementia sets in?
Trump has talents, of a type, but they are ill suited to the job he has now. He is an adolescent with money and power. But if success impresses you, you may wish to consider Michael Bloomberg who started with less and made much more. He knows the Donald personally, and his opinion of him is not flattering. On the healthcare bill, Bloomberg said, 'The TrumpCare bill failed because of two traits that have plagued the Trump presidency since he took office: incompetence and broken promises. In my life, I have never seen an administration as incompetent as the one occupying the White House today.'
Kinser Wrote:AHCA was never going to pass because it isn't a repeal, and it also wasn't a replace either--unless the goal was to rearrange the deck chairs on the Titanic.
It's worse. It tried to displace a viable but poor system with one that was worse and incapable of doing what it claimed to do.
Kinser Wrote:I have The Art of the Deal, I actually bought a copy but that is hardly his only book. It was written 30 years ago and is all about business and business management. [Incidentally that is why I bought the book.] It is not about politics at all except where he exposes how inept many politicians he dealt with over the years were. Most of those politicans retired 20-10 years ago, so...I'm not following your logic (assuming you even have one).
Let's be clear. Trump is not a writer. He hires writers, and often forgets to pay them -- a habit he also has in his own business. Screwing people can be profitable, but it's not something to point to with pride.
Kinser Wrote:You know who else operated with bravado and was a very successful president? Andrew Jackson. It is not for no reason I have named Trump the "Jacksonian GC" in my own words. Do not be surprised should, you live to see it--and I'm likely too, if people in the future do not brag about being born in or coming up in the Age of Trump.
History may not repeat but it certainly rhymes.
I see no viable path to a second term and a narrowing path to completing this one. The blood's in the water and the other players have a stronger game. Trump is way out of his element, and there is simply too much sleaze for this to run the full course.
Intelligence is not knowledge and knowledge is not wisdom, but they all play well together.
Posts: 10,465
Threads: 197
Joined: May 2016
(03-29-2017, 03:27 PM)Kinser79 Wrote: (03-29-2017, 02:20 PM)Galen Wrote: (03-29-2017, 01:30 PM)Kinser79 Wrote: I feel the need to bring up several points to rebut this long screed.
Beechnut79 Wrote:The recent defeat of healthcare reform, rather sarcastically referred to as Trumpcare, went down to defeat last week. Who was reinforcing the need to see its defeat?
Actually among the politcially active it was primarily called Ryancare or Obamacare Lite. The need to defeat it came straight from the administration through reverse psychological methods. I don't expect the MSM commentariat to understand the psychology of GOP reps, nor do I expect the likes of Odin to understand it either. When the President's Chief strategist is openly telling Reps to vote for something--it is in their very nature to give him the middle finger.
Pretty much what I thought except that I think the real target is Ryan. Given Ryan's past behavior toward Trump it would be just like him to sink Ryan as Speaker. This also gives Trump the bonus of having the Dims still owning Obozocare as the system continues to collapse. This is what I have come to expect from Trump and is why his apparent mistakes seems to work out in the end.
I don't think he actually makes mistakes--or at least not many. I think he's playing a completely different game than the Establishment. Just like how he campaigned was completely different from campaigns that came before. Relying more on the Meme Team, the internet and the like as opposed to Tee-Vee and MSM.
Strategy? He's an effective demagogue as a campaigner. As a strategist as a political leader? Being President is more about creating allies than about defeating enemies. If anything it is the Establishment that has a deep strategy. America has lasted as a federal republic for 115 years before Donald Trump became President and tried to act as a dictator. That is 115 years of political heritage just in the current form, and a heritage that precedes that. It's a heritage with no use for despotism or dictatorship.
If by "Establishment" you mean Big Business and special interests not on President Trump's side, they have the potential allies in liberals. The "social justice warriors". The "tree huggers". The "union bosses". The intellectuals. Religious minorities. Intellectuals and intellectual poseurs.
Quote:I have said in other threads that Trump had to get rid of Ryan (who is a dangerous snake), however, he has to do so without getting his hands dirty. So, get him to initiate a major proposal, attempt to force it through the House and then throw a wrench into the machine just as it's about to hit the floor so the whole bill blows up.
Donald Trump is not winning friends from the sorts of people who usually vote Democratic. He has nothing to offer and he has little cause for trust. The Establishment likes its machines working well. It does not want the sort of regime that either creates a pre-revolutionary situation that can lead to the overthrow of capitalism and it doesn't want an apocalyptic war that can destroy the assets that the Establishment needs for its profits and class privilege. A new serfdom might be optimal for a while for plutocratic elites, but fascism has a way of starting wars that leave industrial assets in rubble and puts asset-owners and executives at risk of dispossession if not imprisonment or execution.
Quote:Over all who ends up owning Obamacare? The (Democrats -- derogatory name modified to the conventional) . Who has egg all over his face? Ryan. Who ends up getting a new speaker eventually? Trump. Ryan wasted a lot of political capital on Ryancare, he can't afford too many more mistakes before the Republican Caucus decides it's time for someone else. I would suggest Louie Gohmert.
Donald Trump has put the Republican majority in the House at risk, and he has little to show for it. The next Speaker of the House could be a Democrat -- perhaps as early as January 2019.
Things are not going according to plan for President Trump -- if he had a plan. The failure is coming at a time in most Presidencies in which the President appeals to the base and tries to extend his support. Even Dubya did that. President Trump had a golden opportunity to achieve his agenda with the aid of an obedient Party in the majority in both Houses of Congress and Democrats seemingly irrelevant. He does not know how the Presidency works. He has done little more than do exactly what President Obama would not have done.
If I am to replace a manager, then the first thing I will want to know is what the previous manager did right. I might hone that some as necessary to fit my style, but I am not going to change what doesn't have to be changed. Even Dick Cheney has given up on Trump.
By 2020 Americans will have an idea of what sort of President they want. It won't have to look like Barack Obama, but that person had better have much the same virtues. Caution, respect for precedent and protocol, not making everything personal, knowledge of one's intellectual limits, and enough humility with which to know when to ask an expert. Most likely a sharp legal mind, as attorneys are intellectual generalists (unlike Donald Trump, whose intellectual talents other than telling enough people exactly what they want to hear somehow escape me). Above all, not being a malignant narcissist or outright sociopath. Even the cautious take risks, and they are the ones that one wants managing risks. When they have to make decisive choices, the cautious are the ones to get the best results.
He's a good businessman? I could have done every bit as well as he did had I been in his position, inheriting highly-desirable rental properties in a place with a permanent shortage of desirable rental properties. I would have extended my investments in real estate to Boston and northern Virginia and not dabbled in steak, vodka, or some "university for winners". Any college that has my name on it would likely be well-endowed and appear as such only after I am dead... like Stanford, Colgate, Carnegie-Mellon, Vanderbilt, or Rice. Maybe I would establish it in a place with a paucity of good colleges -- like West Virginia. That would be a university that creates real winners -- people who make the world a better place as engineers, scientists, physicians, and entrepreneurs... maybe teachers, clergy, and shop stewards.
Any mediocrity can exploit shortages. I doubt that he really counts as a job-creator.
The ideal subject of totalitarian rule is not the convinced Nazi or the dedicated Communist but instead the people for whom the distinction between fact and fiction, true and false, no longer exists -- Hannah Arendt.
Posts: 1,499
Threads: 16
Joined: May 2016
(04-01-2017, 10:09 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: (04-01-2017, 12:37 PM)David Horn Wrote: I only found two, and The Art of the Deal is the biggie. That's the one that cites his management style -- in his own words.
Except, of course, he didn't even write it, and he didn't even pay his ghostwriter.
I'm going to demand citation for that.
Posts: 1,499
Threads: 16
Joined: May 2016
(04-02-2017, 11:55 AM)David Horn Wrote: This thread has more stripes than a zebra, so this is my last pass.
I think your first pass should have been your last pass as it seems to me that you really have no idea what you're talking about.
Quote:First, the European welfare sates are not falling. They are suffering from excessive immigration, and the various nationalists are running on that. None of them wants to kill their welfare state
Correct and incorrect at the same time. Europe is suffering from excessive immigration, immigration that was caused by two reasons (having a welfare state) and having a demographic winter at the same time. Weflare states are based on tranfering funds from productive members of socieity and giving them to nonproductive members of society. Historically this has been the elderly, the ill and children.
However, as demographic winter approaches we see that there will be few productive members of society from which to draw the funds--the natural solution sought for by globalist types is immigration. Never mind that immigration undermines the very monocultural basis on which a welfare state depends.
In short one can either have a welfare state or one can have open borders, and cannot have both at the same time.
Quote:Healthcare is not a commercial product. It's more like police, fire and military protection. I assume you aren't interested in having each of us buy our own security ... not at that level, at least.
You couldn't be more wrong on this. An individual's health is not a social good like not allowing a whole block to burn down in a city because someone didn't pay their fire company premium, or protection from foreign states, or the prevention of and prosecution of those who violate laws.
As such not only are drugs themselves commercial products but also the services of doctors and nurses are personal services--much like going to a barber. It should be noted that those services are not needed by the healthy, much like the bald do not require hair cuts.
Quote:You are talking apples and jackhammers here. They aren't even in the same family. Take homeowners insurance. It's fully predicated on the idea that the fire department will respond to fires and the police to criminal acts ... all paid with tax dollars.
Not even close to a comparison to apples and jackhammers. Apples and bananas is possible--a particularly slothful and ignorant person may choose to not go to the doctor to treat a condition, but if someone's house is on fire, even should he not be around to call the local fire department, his neighbors certainly will if for no other reason than to protect their own property.
The fact remains we are still comparing fruits.
Quote:Here we agree. We need the employer-based heath insurance system to end.
Indeed, and while we're at it we don't need to try things that won't work for our country either. Unlike when the European Welfare States were created (I'm going to include non-European Anglophone countries like Canada, Australia and New Zealand here too) the US does not have now, an never has had a single ethnic and cultural entity.
I am however to throwing the doors open to allow the States to experiment as they please as to a solution. Quite frankly I don't think a one size fits all strategy is going to work here.
Quote:Healthcare is not a product. Period.
Incorrect. Healthcare is a product, while it could be argued that health itself is not. Provision of health care services is precisely that provision of services. Ergo a product.
I'm not going to bother with the rest of your paragraph but simply state again, if the free market can provide 20 different kinds of bread in unlimited quantities then it is also perfectly capable left to its own devices to provide all manner of health care options. Options that will appeal to every demographic.
Quote:Trump has talents, of a type, but they are ill suited to the job he has now. He is an adolescent with money and power. But if success impresses you, you may wish to consider Michael Bloomberg who started with less and made much more. He knows the Donald personally, and his opinion of him is not flattering. On the healthcare bill, Bloomberg said, 'The TrumpCare bill failed because of two traits that have plagued the Trump presidency since he took office: incompetence and broken promises. In my life, I have never seen an administration as incompetent as the one occupying the White House today.'
I don't have a very high opinion of Bloomberg and I lived in NYC for part of his tenure as Mayor. I didn't think anyone could make me long for the days of Giuliani but he did.
Bloomberg's statements as to incompetence about Trump feeds back into my previous link to Scott Adam's blog. As I stated previously calling a political enemy incompetent is politics as usual and derails the entire "Trump is literally Hitler, zOMG" narrative. It takes the sting out of the oposition without costing Trump much of anything. It also weakened Paul Ryan who is a major threat to the President's agenda.
Quote:It's worse. It tried to displace a viable but poor system with one that was worse and incapable of doing what it claimed to do.
You do realize that Ryancare was exactly like Obamacare minus the egregious mandates and fines, and without the medicaid expansion money right?
One could argue it was making a bad system worse, but if Ryancare wouldn't work, then Obamacare also wouldn't work (indeed isn't working).
Quote:He hires writers, and often forgets to pay them -- a habit he also has in his own business.
Citation needed.
Quote:I see no viable path to a second term and a narrowing path to completing this one. The blood's in the water and the other players have a stronger game. Trump is way out of his element, and there is simply too much sleaze for this to run the full course.
That is is wishful thinking, if anything Trump's hand is getting stronger by the day (of course that is coming from a systems thinking view point rather than a goal thinking view point--I refer you again to Scott Adam's blog). As for the President being sleazy--I thought being sleazy was a prerequisite for running for office. I mean HRC is many things, but not-sleazy isn't one of them.
Posts: 1,499
Threads: 16
Joined: May 2016
PBR Wrote:If anything it is the Establishment that has a deep strategy.
Let us suppose that the Establishment does have a strategy--though the evidence for such a strategy is lacking--where has their leadership taken us? Into the worst economic period since the Great Depression, which has lasted about as long with no end in sight. A country that has gone from the top economy to one that is rapidly down grading, and an aging empire that is relying on the fact that it has a huge military and a reserve currency to back itself up.
Indeed all it takes to constitute a threat to the Establishment is to hint at selling oil in anything execept Dollars: Iraq, and Libya. And two countries are already doing both and the US can't and won't do a damn thing about it: Iran and Russia. Why? Russia we know is nuclear armed and I'd venture to guess Iran is as well--but even if they aren't they are allied with Russia.
In short the only tactic left for the establishment is thermonuclear war with Russia. So unless you desire extinction for the species something else is required.
PBR Wrote:America has lasted as a federal republic for 115 years before Donald Trump became President and tried to act as a dictator.
For a dictator he sure seems ineffective if every other person who isn't screaming "Putin, Putin, Putin, and Muh Russia" is also claiming he's a dictator. A decent dictator would have shipped you off to the gulags by now. Hell, Hitler was a complete amateur and he had Dachau set up in months.
Is it just possible that Trump is not a dictator but just a President with a strong will--the Republic has had such presidents before, they come around when they are needed.
Quote:Donald Trump is not winning friends from the sorts of people who usually vote Democratic. He has nothing to offer and he has little cause for trust.
Uh...the election itself says differently. The man broke the Blue Wall for the first time in DECADES! Is he going to get the ideologue leftists in the Dim-ocratic party? Probably not, but those people weren't going to ever vote for him anyway so they are irrelevant.
Quote:It does not want the sort of regime that either creates a pre-revolutionary situation that can lead to the overthrow of capitalism and it doesn't want an apocalyptic war that can destroy the assets that the Establishment needs for its profits and class privilege.
Let us assume that this statement is correct. How then do you explain HRC, a woman whose been in Washington since at least 1992 (and arguably before then), who has high connections with the DNC (among others) and who was saber rattling Russia was the darling of the Establishment politicians and establishment economic interests.
I can think of nothing more likely to create a pre-revolutionary situation than to have elected her (a sentiment that the vast majority of the majority of states agreed with), and it is almost certain that when her policies began to fail and fail big that she would attempt to distract the public with an apocalyptic war. It is almost like the left is a death cult seeing their own annihilation.
Quote:A new serfdom might be optimal for a while for plutocratic elites, but fascism has a way of starting wars that leave industrial assets in rubble and puts asset-owners and executives at risk of dispossession if not imprisonment or execution.
Agreed. Which is why most people in most states went with Trump. We knew what we'd get with HRC. Zombie Fascism that would Zombie walk us straight into a nuclear exchange with either Russia or Iran. And I'm convinced that Iran already has nuclear weapons.
Quote:Donald Trump has put the Republican majority in the House at risk, and he has little to show for it. The next Speaker of the House could be a Democrat -- perhaps as early as January 2019.
Unlikely. The Dim-ocrats selected Nasty Pelosi as their leader. The only person at risk in the House are Rinos--and I'll gladly sacrifice them. Besides who better to bully then Dim-ocrats. Offer a Health Care proposal and dare them to say no.
Let us just suppose for a second that the Dims take the House. They won't have it long--their ideology is in retreat everywhere. Which is why it is they who are calling for censorship, and it is they who are calling for greater authoritarianism.
Quote:Things are not going according to plan for President Trump -- if he had a plan.
First this would require you to actually understand the plan. I don't think you do.
Second this would require plans to actually go according to plan--which they never do.
Helmuth von Moltke Wrote:No battle plan survives contact with the enemy.
PBR Wrote:By 2020 Americans will have an idea of what sort of President they want.
I agree, which is why if the Dims have a snowball's chance in hell of even getting close to the Presidency in that cycle they need to select someone who isn't an establishment politican. Sanders is too old, and the Dim-ocrat bench is narrow. I doubt that they will pull themselves together before 2024 as they are now doubling down on the very polices which got them booted out of office to start with--and of course the Zeds are coming up too and they are as right as Xers are. Which is not surprising considering all their lives the nannying an pearl clutching has been coming from the left.
Do I have to refer you to Milo again? Yes I get that he's a Brit--but he has his finger on America's pulse in a way you don't. Probably because he goes outside.
I won't bother with the rest of your rambling as it is mostly typical whining from you.
Posts: 10,465
Threads: 197
Joined: May 2016
04-04-2017, 11:49 AM
(This post was last modified: 04-04-2017, 11:52 AM by pbrower2a.)
(04-04-2017, 10:26 AM)Kinser79 Wrote: PBR Wrote:If anything it is the Establishment that has a deep strategy.
Let us suppose that the Establishment does have a strategy--though the evidence for such a strategy is lacking--where has their leadership taken us? Into the worst economic period since the Great Depression, which has lasted about as long with no end in sight. A country that has gone from the top economy to one that is rapidly down grading, and an aging empire that is relying on the fact that it has a huge military and a reserve currency to back itself up.
Indeed all it takes to constitute a threat to the Establishment is to hint at selling oil in anything execept Dollars: Iraq, and Libya. And two countries are already doing both and the US can't and won't do a damn thing about it: Iran and Russia. Why? Russia we know is nuclear armed and I'd venture to guess Iran is as well--but even if they aren't they are allied with Russia.
In short the only tactic left for the establishment is thermonuclear war with Russia. So unless you desire extinction for the species something else is required.
Or waiting out Putin.
Your citations of me are in blue, so that I can prevent some confusion between my old stuff and my newer contributions. .
Quote:PBR Wrote:America has lasted as a federal republic for 230 years (sorry about the typo) before Donald Trump became President and tried to act as a dictator.
For a dictator he sure seems ineffective if every other person who isn't screaming "Putin, Putin, Putin, and Muh Russia" is also claiming he's a dictator. A decent dictator would have shipped you off to the gulags by now. Hell, Hitler was a complete amateur and he had Dachau set up in months.
Is it just possible that Trump is not a dictator but just a President with a strong will--the Republic has had such presidents before, they come around when they are needed.
Someone seeking dictatorial power and questing it ineptly? Nothing new. Maybe he does not even understand that his style of rule is dictatorial and has no clue that a majority of Americans now hold his style of government contemptible and unacceptable. He could be out of touch with reality as a solipsistic man-child.
Quote:Quote:Donald Trump is not winning friends from the sorts of people who usually vote Democratic. He has nothing to offer and he has little cause for trust.
Uh...the election itself says differently. The man broke the Blue Wall for the first time in DECADES! Is he going to get the ideologue leftists in the (Democratic) party? Probably not, but those people weren't going to ever vote for him anyway so they are irrelevant.
Winning the Presidential election without winning the popular vote has happened before (2000). Disclosures are emerging that suggest that the Trump campaign hacked or exploited the hacking of Democratic party files to find weaknesses in support and exploited those potential weaknesses with targeted propaganda -- fake news. Yes, he was able to exploit economic distress that appeared years ago and for which there is no easy solution.
Like other demagogues from Robespierre to Lenin to Hitler to Peron, Trump offers a vision of an easy solution (just remove the scapegoats) and no practical means of achieving his goals. We are catching on to him, and when his solution becomes something like "Suffer for my holy greed, you contemptible peons" we resist.
Quote:Quote:(The Establishment) does not want the sort of regime that either creates a pre-revolutionary situation that can lead to the overthrow of capitalism and it doesn't want an apocalyptic war that can destroy the assets that the Establishment needs for its profits and class privilege.
Let us assume that this statement is correct. How then do you explain HRC, a woman whose been in Washington since at least 1992 (and arguably before then), who has high connections with the DNC (among others) and who was saber rattling Russia was the darling of the Establishment politicians and establishment economic interests.
Donald Trump has taken great strides down the fascist road. He is a big-government right-winger, which is less than optimal for the usual desires of economic elites like the Koch family. But maybe he can offer a more profitable America? One with far-cheaper labor and plenty of profits from sweetheart deals that bleed the little guy and military contracts for wars for profits?
Plenty of nations have or can have nuclear weapons and the missiles with which to deliver them to American cities. The most obvious targets will be our industrial base and our communication-transportation network. The Establishment owns or depends upon such. Its mansions and some of its favorite institutions (like colleges, opera houses, symphony halls, and art museums) would also be obliterated should a country like Japan get and use nukes. Don't fool yourself: people are going to kill Americans rather than walk into the holds of slave ships.
Is the Establishment fully admirable? No -- but it is not stupid and reckless. It wants to survive so that it can enjoy its class privilege.
Quote:I can think of nothing more likely to create a pre-revolutionary situation than to have elected her (a sentiment that the vast majority of the majority of states agreed with), and it is almost certain that when her policies began to fail and fail big that she would attempt to distract the public with an apocalyptic war. It is almost like the left is a death cult seeing their own annihilation.
We will never know what President Hillary Clinton would be like. We know what Donald Trump is like to the extent that we know him as a liar, a bigot, an extremist, and a crony-capitalist. I expect even worse as time passes and we see more. Yes, every despot or would-be despot is different, and the American people make any attempt at dictatorial rule more awkward than it might be in countries in which a few people own or control all the assets -- like Russia or China.
I am no leftist. I believe in checks and balances. I distrust extremism of any kind in economics or religion. I believe that the standards of ethical conduct have changed little except to become more universal in protection of people. I am quite conservative on drugs, sex, and educational content. Donald trump is no conservative even if he uses conservatives now just as he exploited the concerns of people in economic distress (for whom he intends to make life much harder without any compensation).
He is a mirror image of the late Salvador Allende. Should he be overthrown in a military coup as was Allende for eccentric and extremist economic ideas, then the Establishment will have found the military, law enforcement, and intelligence services useful. Maybe we end up with a Pinochet. Should this be the result of Donald Trump, then we will be able to damn him...while we live miserable lives.
Quote:Quote:A new serfdom might be optimal for a while for plutocratic elites, but fascism has a way of starting wars that leave industrial assets in rubble and puts asset-owners and executives at risk of dispossession if not imprisonment or execution.
Agreed. Which is why most people in most states went with Trump. We knew what we'd get with HRC. Zombie Fascism that would Zombie walk us straight into a nuclear exchange with either Russia or Iran. And I'm convinced that Iran already has nuclear weapons.
The UK, France, and India have nuclear weapons, too. I can think of plenty of other countries which could develop nukes very fast if they saw America as the Evil Empire that it could well become. Japan has the resources; it can get yellowcake; it has an excellent scientific and engineering community. The country dislikes nukes, and for good reason -- but it threatened to get them if North Korea developed a nuclear arsenal.
In any event nothing could break NATO and the SALT treaties more effectively than the USA as an Evil Empire.
Quote:Quote:Donald Trump has put the Republican majority in the House at risk, and he has little to show for it. The next Speaker of the House could be a Democrat -- perhaps as early as January 2019.
Unlikely. The (Democrats) selected Nasty Pelosi as their leader. The only person at risk in the House are Rinos--and I'll gladly sacrifice them. Besides who better to bully then (Democrats). Offer a Health Care proposal and dare them to say no.
Are you sure that she will be Speaker of the House? The time of the Silent influence is practically over. Besides, the difference between a Republican majority and a Democratic majority will be be Democratic politicians, many of them part of the Millennial generation. The Democratic leadership will need to appeal to them. The Millennial generation is a Civic generation, and it will have concerns typical of a Civic generation. Maybe the Speaker that the Democrats choose in 2019 should they get a House majority will be a Boomer or a member of Generation X -- someone who can relate to the concerns of Millennial adults.
Offer a good health-care proposal or even some cost-constraining reforms, and maybe we will have something better than Obamacare -- something more inclusive. Medicare at 50 or on offer to people with pre-existing conditions? That might make it easier for older workers to stay employed because one of the usual reasons for age discrimination is the cost of healthcare for older workesr of modest skills.
Quote:Let us just suppose for a second that the (Democrats) take the House. They won't have it long--their ideology is in retreat everywhere. Which is why it is they who are calling for censorship, and it is they who are calling for greater authoritarianism.
Nope. They are more flexible. Crony capitalism, the Trump way, is extremely inflexible and has only force and fraud (on occasion I like to lift phrases from libertarians) to make its exactions effective.
Quote:Quote:Things are not going according to plan for President Trump -- if he had a plan.
First this would require you to actually understand the plan. I don't think you do.
Second this would require plans to actually go according to plan--which they never do.
It is hard to understand a plan that does not exist. One might as well try to discuss mythical creatures or oxymora. If one is an atheist one has little use for theology except to prove the non-existence of the Gods upon which theists depend.
Quote:Helmuth von Moltke Wrote:No battle plan survives contact with the enemy.
PBR Wrote:By 2020 Americans will have an idea of what sort of President they want.
I agree, which is why if the (Democrats) have a snowball's chance in hell of even getting close to the Presidency in that cycle they need to select someone who isn't an establishment politican. Sanders is too old, and the (Democratic) bench is narrow. I doubt that they will pull themselves together before 2024 as they are now doubling down on the very polices which got them booted out of office to start with--and of course the Zeds are coming up too and they are as right as Xers are. Which is not surprising considering all their lives the nannying an pearl clutching has been coming from the left.
The major-league team that went 74-88 last year might have dealt off such fading stars as it has for players of promise from teams that don't have roles for them and has both a right-hand and a left-hand pitcher in AA ball who have nothing to prove in the minors, some 20-year-old kid who hit .265 with 19 home runs (he has plenty of upside), and some slick-fielding sluggers in the minors who have been incinerating minor-league pitching and have better chances of being long-term players than the 32-year-old fellow who hit .265 with 19 home runs and who can't cover ground as the younger guys can.
I am a Detroit Tiger fan. I remember 2003, when I remember hearing jokes about a team compared to the 1962 Mets like:
"A child was asked in a divorce case who he wanted to stay with.
'The Detroit Tigers -- they can't beat anyone!' "
Or -- "Do you know who has the greatest collection of Detroit Tigers' paraphernalia? Waste Management Corporation!"
Within three years they got to the World Series.
Quote:Do I have to refer you to Milo again? Yes I get that he's a Brit--but he has his finger on America's pulse in a way you don't. Probably because he goes outside.
I won't bother with the rest of your rambling as it is mostly typical whining from you.
I expect much from the Millennial Generation. Their teamwork and sense of fair play will shatter the gridlock that even an authoritarian leader with a stooge Congress can't solve. Maybe it's a good thing that he is so inept. Competent performance of evil? That's what mobsters do.
Play ball!
The ideal subject of totalitarian rule is not the convinced Nazi or the dedicated Communist but instead the people for whom the distinction between fact and fiction, true and false, no longer exists -- Hannah Arendt.
Posts: 683
Threads: 41
Joined: May 2016
(04-04-2017, 11:49 AM)pbrower2a Wrote: (04-04-2017, 10:26 AM)Kinser79 Wrote: PBR Wrote:If anything it is the Establishment that has a deep strategy.
Let us suppose that the Establishment does have a strategy--though the evidence for such a strategy is lacking--where has their leadership taken us? Into the worst economic period since the Great Depression, which has lasted about as long with no end in sight. A country that has gone from the top economy to one that is rapidly down grading, and an aging empire that is relying on the fact that it has a huge military and a reserve currency to back itself up.
Indeed all it takes to constitute a threat to the Establishment is to hint at selling oil in anything execept Dollars: Iraq, and Libya. And two countries are already doing both and the US can't and won't do a damn thing about it: Iran and Russia. Why? Russia we know is nuclear armed and I'd venture to guess Iran is as well--but even if they aren't they are allied with Russia.
In short the only tactic left for the establishment is thermonuclear war with Russia. So unless you desire extinction for the species something else is required.
Or waiting out Putin.
Your citations of me are in blue, so that I can prevent some confusion between my old stuff and my newer contributions. .
Quote:PBR Wrote:America has lasted as a federal republic for 230 years (sorry about the typo) before Donald Trump became President and tried to act as a dictator.
For a dictator he sure seems ineffective if every other person who isn't screaming "Putin, Putin, Putin, and Muh Russia" is also claiming he's a dictator. A decent dictator would have shipped you off to the gulags by now. Hell, Hitler was a complete amateur and he had Dachau set up in months.
Is it just possible that Trump is not a dictator but just a President with a strong will--the Republic has had such presidents before, they come around when they are needed.
Someone seeking dictatorial power and questing it ineptly? Nothing new. Maybe he does not even understand that his style of rule is dictatorial and has no clue that a majority of Americans now hold his style of government contemptible and unacceptable. He could be out of touch with reality as a solipsistic man-child.
Quote:Quote:Donald Trump is not winning friends from the sorts of people who usually vote Democratic. He has nothing to offer and he has little cause for trust.
Uh...the election itself says differently. The man broke the Blue Wall for the first time in DECADES! Is he going to get the ideologue leftists in the (Democratic) party? Probably not, but those people weren't going to ever vote for him anyway so they are irrelevant.
Winning the Presidential election without winning the popular vote has happened before (2000). Disclosures are emerging that suggest that the Trump campaign hacked or exploited the hacking of Democratic party files to find weaknesses in support and exploited those potential weaknesses with targeted propaganda -- fake news. Yes, he was able to exploit economic distress that appeared years ago and for which there is no easy solution.
Like other demagogues from Robespierre to Lenin to Hitler to Peron, Trump offers a vision of an easy solution (just remove the scapegoats) and no practical means of achieving his goals. We are catching on to him, and when his solution becomes something like "Suffer for my holy greed, you contemptible peons" we resist.
Quote:Quote:(The Establishment) does not want the sort of regime that either creates a pre-revolutionary situation that can lead to the overthrow of capitalism and it doesn't want an apocalyptic war that can destroy the assets that the Establishment needs for its profits and class privilege.
Let us assume that this statement is correct. How then do you explain HRC, a woman whose been in Washington since at least 1992 (and arguably before then), who has high connections with the DNC (among others) and who was saber rattling Russia was the darling of the Establishment politicians and establishment economic interests.
Donald Trump has taken great strides down the fascist road. He is a big-government right-winger, which is less than optimal for the usual desires of economic elites like the Koch family. But maybe he can offer a more profitable America? One with far-cheaper labor and plenty of profits from sweetheart deals that bleed the little guy and military contracts for wars for profits?
Plenty of nations have or can have nuclear weapons and the missiles with which to deliver them to American cities. The most obvious targets will be our industrial base and our communication-transportation network. The Establishment owns or depends upon such. Its mansions and some of its favorite institutions (like colleges, opera houses, symphony halls, and art museums) would also be obliterated should a country like Japan get and use nukes. Don't fool yourself: people are going to kill Americans rather than walk into the holds of slave ships.
Is the Establishment fully admirable? No -- but it is not stupid and reckless. It wants to survive so that it can enjoy its class privilege.
Quote:I can think of nothing more likely to create a pre-revolutionary situation than to have elected her (a sentiment that the vast majority of the majority of states agreed with), and it is almost certain that when her policies began to fail and fail big that she would attempt to distract the public with an apocalyptic war. It is almost like the left is a death cult seeing their own annihilation.
We will never know what President Hillary Clinton would be like. We know what Donald Trump is like to the extent that we know him as a liar, a bigot, an extremist, and a crony-capitalist. I expect even worse as time passes and we see more. Yes, every despot or would-be despot is different, and the American people make any attempt at dictatorial rule more awkward than it might be in countries in which a few people own or control all the assets -- like Russia or China.
I am no leftist. I believe in checks and balances. I distrust extremism of any kind in economics or religion. I believe that the standards of ethical conduct have changed little except to become more universal in protection of people. I am quite conservative on drugs, sex, and educational content. Donald trump is no conservative even if he uses conservatives now just as he exploited the concerns of people in economic distress (for whom he intends to make life much harder without any compensation).
He is a mirror image of the late Salvador Allende. Should he be overthrown in a military coup as was Allende for eccentric and extremist economic ideas, then the Establishment will have found the military, law enforcement, and intelligence services useful. Maybe we end up with a Pinochet. Should this be the result of Donald Trump, then we will be able to damn him...while we live miserable lives.
Quote:Quote:A new serfdom might be optimal for a while for plutocratic elites, but fascism has a way of starting wars that leave industrial assets in rubble and puts asset-owners and executives at risk of dispossession if not imprisonment or execution.
Agreed. Which is why most people in most states went with Trump. We knew what we'd get with HRC. Zombie Fascism that would Zombie walk us straight into a nuclear exchange with either Russia or Iran. And I'm convinced that Iran already has nuclear weapons.
The UK, France, and India have nuclear weapons, too. I can think of plenty of other countries which could develop nukes very fast if they saw America as the Evil Empire that it could well become. Japan has the resources; it can get yellowcake; it has an excellent scientific and engineering community. The country dislikes nukes, and for good reason -- but it threatened to get them if North Korea developed a nuclear arsenal.
In any event nothing could break NATO and the SALT treaties more effectively than the USA as an Evil Empire.
Quote:Quote:Donald Trump has put the Republican majority in the House at risk, and he has little to show for it. The next Speaker of the House could be a Democrat -- perhaps as early as January 2019.
Unlikely. The (Democrats) selected Nasty Pelosi as their leader. The only person at risk in the House are Rinos--and I'll gladly sacrifice them. Besides who better to bully then (Democrats). Offer a Health Care proposal and dare them to say no.
Are you sure that she will be Speaker of the House? The time of the Silent influence is practically over. Besides, the difference between a Republican majority and a Democratic majority will be be Democratic politicians, many of them part of the Millennial generation. The Democratic leadership will need to appeal to them. The Millennial generation is a Civic generation, and it will have concerns typical of a Civic generation. Maybe the Speaker that the Democrats choose in 2019 should they get a House majority will be a Boomer or a member of Generation X -- someone who can relate to the concerns of Millennial adults.
Offer a good health-care proposal or even some cost-constraining reforms, and maybe we will have something better than Obamacare -- something more inclusive. Medicare at 50 or on offer to people with pre-existing conditions? That might make it easier for older workers to stay employed because one of the usual reasons for age discrimination is the cost of healthcare for older workesr of modest skills.
Quote:Let us just suppose for a second that the (Democrats) take the House. They won't have it long--their ideology is in retreat everywhere. Which is why it is they who are calling for censorship, and it is they who are calling for greater authoritarianism.
Nope. They are more flexible. Crony capitalism, the Trump way, is extremely inflexible and has only force and fraud (on occasion I like to lift phrases from libertarians) to make its exactions effective.
Quote:Quote:Things are not going according to plan for President Trump -- if he had a plan.
First this would require you to actually understand the plan. I don't think you do.
Second this would require plans to actually go according to plan--which they never do.
It is hard to understand a plan that does not exist. One might as well try to discuss mythical creatures or oxymora. If one is an atheist one has little use for theology except to prove the non-existence of the Gods upon which theists depend.
Quote:Helmuth von Moltke Wrote:No battle plan survives contact with the enemy.
PBR Wrote:By 2020 Americans will have an idea of what sort of President they want.
I agree, which is why if the (Democrats) have a snowball's chance in hell of even getting close to the Presidency in that cycle they need to select someone who isn't an establishment politican. Sanders is too old, and the (Democratic) bench is narrow. I doubt that they will pull themselves together before 2024 as they are now doubling down on the very polices which got them booted out of office to start with--and of course the Zeds are coming up too and they are as right as Xers are. Which is not surprising considering all their lives the nannying an pearl clutching has been coming from the left.
The major-league team that went 74-88 last year might have dealt off such fading stars as it has for players of promise from teams that don't have roles for them and has both a right-hand and a left-hand pitcher in AA ball who have nothing to prove in the minors, some 20-year-old kid who hit .265 with 19 home runs (he has plenty of upside), and some slick-fielding sluggers in the minors who have been incinerating minor-league pitching and have better chances of being long-term players than the 32-year-old fellow who hit .265 with 19 home runs and who can't cover ground as the younger guys can.
I am a Detroit Tiger fan. I remember 2003, when I remember hearing jokes about a team compared to the 1962 Mets like:
"A child was asked in a divorce case who he wanted to stay with.
'The Detroit Tigers -- they can't beat anyone!' "
Or -- "Do you know who has the greatest collection of Detroit Tigers' paraphernalia? Waste Management Corporation!"
Within three years they got to the World Series.
Quote:Do I have to refer you to Milo again? Yes I get that he's a Brit--but he has his finger on America's pulse in a way you don't. Probably because he goes outside.
I won't bother with the rest of your rambling as it is mostly typical whining from you.
I expect much from the Millennial Generation. Their teamwork and sense of fair play will shatter the gridlock that even an authoritarian leader with a stooge Congress can't solve. Maybe it's a good thing that he is so inept. Competent performance of evil? That's what mobsters do.
Play ball!
Over on another forum I pointed out that this isn't the first time we have had a President who was great at what he did before yet very ill-suited for the office and, like Trump, put his friends into cabinet positions with disastrous results. U. S. Grant. A full century before Watergate the country was mired in government scandal due to the actions of many of his cabinet members although Grant was never implicated himself. One must wonder if he would have at least been pressured to resign if the media of his time had been as sophisticated as it is today. Remember, only newspapers and a handful of magazines existed at that time. Grant's administration hosted the biggest case of in-house corruption until Teapot Dome a half century later. He was a great military leader yet very ineffective as President and is usually ranked in the bottom five by most historians.
Posts: 1,499
Threads: 16
Joined: May 2016
PBR Wrote:Your citations of me are in blue, so that I can prevent some confusion between my old stuff and my newer contributions.
This would imply that you are actually contributing anything, which honestly you aren't. If we wanted to hear the daily talking points from the regressive left we'd just turn on the idiot box.
Quote:Someone seeking dictatorial power and questing it ineptly? Nothing new. Maybe he does not even understand that his style of rule is dictatorial and has no clue that a majority of Americans now hold his style of government contemptible and unacceptable. He could be out of touch with reality as a solipsistic man-child.
Or you could just be using a word without understanding what it means. It wouldn't be the first time...this year, this month or hell even today.
I know you're wedded to your "hurr Trump is literally Hitler" (which makes it ironic you call him a man-child since that is the type of argument I'd expect from a child--no scratch that I know children and they can and do make more mature arguments) meme. Unfortunately at the same time Trump is incompetent. So he is either a dictator, or he is incompetent. He can't be a dictator and incompetent in the US simply by virtue of the inertia inherent in the existing system.
Careful there PBR your cognitive dissonance is showing.
Quote:Winning the Presidential election without winning the popular vote has happened before
Is totally irrelevant. The president isn't elected by the popular vote, never has been elected by the popular vote, it is merely a coincidence that the popular vote often reflects the electoral college votes. Just like it is merely a coincidence that the World Series is often won by the team that made the most runs.
Quote:<snip>Muh Russia</snip>
There is no there there. But I do find it interesting that the DNC allowed their servers to be hacked by not adequately protecting them. I know you don't understand how hacking works--a cracker who wants to hide his tracks is going to use a proxy server through a third country. Russia happens to have lots of servers. That being said HRC was never going to be President anyway. Face it, your team lost, you had a horrible, corrupt candidate, who has the personality of a damp dish rag, for all appearances looks to be at death's door and is likely a criminal.
Quote:Like other demagogues from Robespierre to Lenin to Hitler to Peron, Trump offers a vision of an easy solution (just remove the scapegoats) and no practical means of achieving his goals. We are catching on to him, and when his solution becomes something like "Suffer for my holy greed, you contemptible peons" we resist.
If you didn't make regular typographical errors I'd have assumed by now that you are in fact a bot. Tell me how many times today have you posted this very same paragraph? No you are not catching on to anything.
But I have caught onto something:
Trade Deficit down, American Workers winning
In before Odin says something about my source---the numbers were also in yesterday's WSJ.
Quote:<snip> Muh Fascism</snip>
You keep using that word and I don't think you know what it means. I recommend at least reading the wiki...I've read the book itself.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Doctrine_of_Fascism
Lets put it simply: Trump is not fascist, and Trump Era America is not fascist either. Why? Because it does not conform to the very outline of what fascism is by the very people who created it in the last century. And this doesn't even get into the fact that fascism is an obsolete ideology just like Marxism-Leninism.
Quote:We will never know what President Hillary Clinton would be like.
Well lets see: The Neoliberals loved her, the NeoCons love her, she was the darling of both Wall Street and the globalist factions in both parties. I think we can expect exactly more of the same bullshit we've had since 1992 at least and probably before then.
It wasn't for no reason that the only other candidate that the Dems had who had more than a snow ball's chance in hell at being elected was an ancient open socialist from a suspect religious minority. It isn't also surprising to me at all that the Sanders crowd and the Trump crowd aren't all that dissimilar.
Internal polls from the campaign said that we picked up around 20% of Dems who were going to vote for Bernie had he been that party's candidate. Having worked the campaign myself and having talked to people (IE leaving the house) I think that that number was skewed by people not wanting to reveal to us that they were Sanders people. The moral of this story is that no one who was part of the establishment was going to win.
Quote:<snip>Muh Evil Empire America</snip>
The threat to world peace by the US was neutralized by not electing HRC. I know you never step back from your canned responses to ever think about a different opinion, or that others might have one--suffice it to say this is how you look to everyone else. The same also applies to Alphabet Soup too. You may need to click on it to to see it in its full glory. I don't feel like editing pictures for this forum. Too much work, too little reward.
And no you aren't an Aspie either PBR. First off to determine that you need more than to talk to some half-assed clerk for 10 minutes. I believe Odin explained the battery of tests he had to go through to get his diagnosis for a disorder that is no longer listed in the DSM. And it isn't listed for good reason--being an asshole isn't a disease.
Quote:Are you sure that she will be Speaker of the House?
In the unlikely event that the Dim-ocrats take the House in 2018 yes. The leadership in the Parties go by seniority so unless San Francisco elects a Republican for some bizarre reason, or she chooses to not run then she would be Speaker in that unlikely event. Also Pelosi is a War Baby cusper, and I judge her potential longevity on the basis of her over all health rather than her generation. She's a damn elected official not a coal miner.
Quote:<snip>Muh Millennial Generation</snip>
The Dim-ocrats will have to offer them something besides identity politics, screaming racist and (word)-phobic at the top of their lungs at anyone who might have a slightly different opinion to the party line. I think people are finding that Civic generations have little patience for it. The Zeds are already trending right--hard right at that. To be expected though, to be punk rock to be rebellious one has to be right wing these days. And yes they will be voting in 2018, probably 2020 for sure.
I know that there are some that claim that 9/11 was the cut off point of the 3T but they are both wrong and stupid--rather I would say that it is the cut off point for the Millennial Generation. Boomers, Xers and Millies all know where they were when it happened and what they were doing--even if they were in school. Zeds like my son have no frame of reference for a pre-9/11 world. So I don't care what EtI says I say the cut off point is some time around 1998-1999 for the Millies, 2002 at the latest.
Quote:Offer a good health-care proposal
I have. You it doesn't involve the state paying for it so you're not interested but here's my plan.
1. Repeal Obamacare cause it is a failure.
2. Medicare and Medicaide remain the same.
3. No more employer based health insurance.
4. Buy your own damn insurance plan (we can discuss details like pre-existing conditions and such like)
5. ?????
6. Free Enterprise and access to everyone who can pay premiums.
As for Trump's plan? Well I don't think you know how the separations of powers work--and since he isn't a dictator--writing laws is on the back of Congress.
Quote:Nope. They are more flexible. Crony capitalism, the Trump way, is extremely inflexible and has only force and fraud (on occasion I like to lift phrases from libertarians) to make its exactions effective.
Yeah they're "more flexible" which is why they coined the term fake news to describe those who don't listen to their offical MSM mouth pieces. : Where did you lift this line from? PravdaSalon?
Quote:It is hard to understand a plan that does not exist. One might as well try to discuss mythical creatures or oxymora. If one is an atheist one has little use for theology except to prove the non-existence of the Gods upon which theists depend.
If there is no plan then things naturally cannot go according to that plan or against that plan--seeing as it doesn't exist and all. So which is it PBR you have to make up your mind. Does Trump have a plan and it is failing, or does he not have a plan at all and things are just happening?
My contention is that there is a plan, and that while I see it as plain as day, and have described it repeatedly, and from where I sit everything is coming together exactly like it should. I strongly suggest reading Scott Adam's blog.
http://blog.dilbert.com/
You'll be amazed what a man trained in hypnotism has picked up on. The same things I picked up on and I only ran my African Psychic scam for a few years as a young man--and I didn't even go to school, I'm merely a somewhat talented actor.
Quote:<snip>sports bullshit</snip>
I use sport metaphors but honestly I don't follow sport or know much about it unless we're talking about Soccer (I almost called it football but I knew you'd misinterpret that. I couldn't give a tuppenny fuck about baseball. You might as well be using a metaphor from golf.
Granted I used the World Series but unless you're European (which you aren't) you understand the basics of such a major series of major league game even if one does not give a tuppenny fuck about said sport.
|
