(11-28-2016, 08:04 AM)Odin Wrote:

(11-28-2016, 07:03 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: Hmm.  Trump is now claiming to have won the popular vote, or he would have if not for voter fraud.

I'm used to politicians stretching truth during the campaign, though Trump seems to have taken it to new levels.  There has been a need for fact checkers.  As a president elect / president does he think he can govern through the same style of blatant lies he used during the campaign?  Can he be "leader of the free world" when he has utterly destroyed his credibility?

Autocratic governments from fascist to communist to Baathist tried to do it, but found it necessary to convert the media into propaganda organs to make it work.  Trump can't even control Faux.

I'm starting to become legitimately terrified of a Trump-lead Department of Justice giving a blind eye to Republican controlled states doing a shameless purge of black and Latino voters using lies like this as justification. They know demographic trends are against them so their strategy seems to be simply to make sure only white people vote.

(11-28-2016, 09:41 AM)Warren Dew Wrote: Trump never had any credibility with you the left,  anyway.  The right recognizes that states like California, with no enforceable requirement for proof of citizenship in the registration or voting process, likely have many illegal immigrants voting, possibly in the millions given the ruling Democratic party's interest in having illegal aliens vote.  The center also recognizes that Trump's claim here is far more credible than the claims on the left about mass hacking of voting machines by the Russian government.

(11-28-2016, 09:41 AM)Warren Dew Wrote:

(11-28-2016, 07:03 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: Hmm.  Trump is now claiming to have won the popular vote, or he would have if not for voter fraud.

I'm used to politicians stretching truth during the campaign, though Trump seems to have taken it to new levels.  There has been a need for fact checkers.  As a president elect / president does he think he can govern through the same style of blatant lies he used during the campaign?  Can he be "leader of the free world" when he has utterly destroyed his credibility?

Trump never had any credibility with you the left,  anyway.  The right recognizes that states like California, with no enforceable requirement for proof of citizenship in the registration or voting process, likely have many illegal immigrants voting, possibly in the millions given the ruling Democratic party's interest in having illegal aliens vote.  The center also recognizes that Trump's claim here is far more credible than the claims on the left about mass hacking of voting machines by the Russian government.

(11-27-2016, 06:37 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote:

(11-27-2016, 08:00 AM)pbrower2 Wrote: [url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demagogue#cite_note-LarsonDefn-4][/url]
 That sounds familiar. I expect that as unpleasant as it is for me to hear or see Donald Trump already, it will only get worse. Obama is getting boring, but at least he doesn't intrude on every aspect of life. I wonder whether life will shut down so that we can hear the speeches of the Great and Glorious Leader. After all, his pronouncements are more profound than Turandot or the Seventh Symphony of Anton Bruckner, works that only un-American people can appreciate. Think at the level of the writing of the National Inquirer if you want to be a real member of the American People.

No. I am a rootless cosmopolitan in contrast to you, Classic X'er. I outgrew the mass low culture when I was a teenager. To be sure, mass culture (think of Mark Twain, Big Band music, George Gershwin, ragtime, the three great ballets associated with Tchaikovsky, maybe some animated films that anyone can watch and enjoy... Shakespeare and Mozart, of course, in their times) can have an omnibus appeal which suggests genuine mastery in achievement. I don't have a problem with folk culture; it has its validity through its purity. If some American wants to write some structured music with some widespread appeal, then maybe he might want to start by taking a good listening to some old-fashioned fiddling and banjo playing so that his works can have some melodic coherence and some national character. Bach's Art of Fugue and Beethoven's late quartets are incredibly rich, but they are decidedly not for everyone.

I may not be an intellectual (I only play one on the Web). That play looks as if it could become very dangerous very fast in America, where survival may soon depend on how satisfied one can be with a 'dumb' culture. I'm guessing that Donald Trump's America will be one in which one works and is expected to accept either religion or mass low culture (most people will be far poorer, so forget consumerism as America rushes headlong into the social realities of the Gilded Age; forget anything 'intellectual, for thought will be understood as the highest form of treachery).  I expect to thoroughly hate life in Trump's America. I am not sure that I can survive it. I am beginning to regret that I took care of myself as I did instead of chain-smoking, drinking myself into cirrhosis, or having reckless sex.

All that I expect to live for during the Trump Presidency is resisting it by participating in demonstrations and protests... and outlasting it. Maybe I will have some wisdom to impart. Education? it's back to the liberal arts, and expand it to at least K-14 as a norm so that youth can learn how to judge what is offered as information. We need to ensure that those who graduate from college and become leaders and creators have some values that allow one to make humane choices instead of thinking of sex, bureaucratic power, and material indulgence. We need to recognize that if one is alienated from the detritus of mas low culture that a high culture (no, not LSD!) has much to offer. Politics? Shore up the existing Constitution to remove the seams that allow ruthless people to consolidate dictatorial power or replace it with something still workable. Economics? Probably tax the super-rich heavily to support an economy in which people can work and still live comfortably (volunteering, creative activity not for swift gain, imparting culture to youth even if one is not a formal teacher) without having an obvious employer. If we are stuck with robotic production that cuts into the need for a paid workforce, then maybe those who profit from the robot workforce can share the bounties with us -- let they be unable to sell what those robots produce to people too destitute to buy the stuff.

We cannot put the technological genie back in the lamp. We will be unable to go back to the electronics of even twenty years ago. We cannot undo the wealth of information (and disinformation) on the Internet. We simply are handling it badly, and Donald Trump is a symptom of people who can fall for anything in a culture that offers everything and no means of sorting it out.

You're a rootless wannabe cosmopolitan stuck some where in rural America. I'm a rooted suburbanite (I have no desire to live anywhere else) who is a good old country boy at heart. I love being in the outdoors. I love to hunt and fish. I like and I'm able to relate to most of the regular country folks. I'm not one to impose or bother or interrupt someone's life. So, I not the one who knocks on a farmers door to ask if we can hunt on their land. However, I'm the one who the farmer ends of talking to and getting to know and makes his decision on whether or not he/she allows us to hunt his/her land. Values, understanding the values people who own land that you'd like an opportunity to hunt. The farmer didn't see a cosmopolitan decked out in fancy hunting clothes, a city slicker attitude, who has soft hands who wasn't all that interested in listening to him/her or their rules who didn't seem to value or appreciate anything they owned. The farmer saw a man whose clothes were obviously worn who didn't have a city slicker attitude, who had an attitude more like them, whose hands were a bit rough, who listened to them with respect, who'd ask questions relating to the rules associated with the use of their property who showed interest in them and an appreciation for their land and for them as people as well. Could you learn a valuable thing or two from me ? Probably. Bob doesn't mean all that much to me. Bob's academic degree doesn't mean that much to me. Bob's negative view and opinions of me doesn't mean that much to me. I'm not here to cozy up and snuggle with Bob to gain his support or friendship. I'm not here to impress people like yourself or Bob with uppity liberal talk and uppity liberal values associated with uppity liberal who live in blue bubbles. Intellectual play grounds don't accomplish very much but interesting to screw around in while nothing important is needed to be done.

(11-28-2016, 12:19 PM)gabrielle Wrote:

(11-28-2016, 09:41 AM)Warren Dew Wrote:

(11-28-2016, 07:03 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: Hmm.  Trump is now claiming to have won the popular vote, or he would have if not for voter fraud.

I'm used to politicians stretching truth during the campaign, though Trump seems to have taken it to new levels.  There has been a need for fact checkers.  As a president elect / president does he think he can govern through the same style of blatant lies he used during the campaign?  Can he be "leader of the free world" when he has utterly destroyed his credibility?

Trump never had any credibility with you the left,  anyway.  The right recognizes that states like California, with no enforceable requirement for proof of citizenship in the registration or voting process, likely have many illegal immigrants voting, possibly in the millions given the ruling Democratic party's interest in having illegal aliens vote.  The center also recognizes that Trump's claim here is far more credible than the claims on the left about mass hacking of voting machines by the Russian government.

So, you're saying California does not require proof of citizenship to register to vote?  And proof of registration at the polls?

(11-28-2016, 01:02 PM)pbrower2a Wrote:

(11-28-2016, 12:19 PM)gabrielle Wrote:

(11-28-2016, 09:41 AM)Warren Dew Wrote:

(11-28-2016, 07:03 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: Hmm.  Trump is now claiming to have won the popular vote, or he would have if not for voter fraud.

I'm used to politicians stretching truth during the campaign, though Trump seems to have taken it to new levels.  There has been a need for fact checkers.  As a president elect / president does he think he can govern through the same style of blatant lies he used during the campaign?  Can he be "leader of the free world" when he has utterly destroyed his credibility?

Trump never had any credibility with you the left,  anyway.  The right recognizes that states like California, with no enforceable requirement for proof of citizenship in the registration or voting process, likely have many illegal immigrants voting, possibly in the millions given the ruling Democratic party's interest in having illegal aliens vote.  The center also recognizes that Trump's claim here is far more credible than the claims on the left about mass hacking of voting machines by the Russian government.

So, you're saying California does not require proof of citizenship to register to vote?  And proof of registration at the polls?

It's mostly an honor system. One states that one is a citizen of a certain age  and a resident of te community in which one expects to vote, false statements constituting perjury.

Most Americans do not have proof of citizenship. Few of us are naturalized citizens who might have scrapes with legal authorities that require proof of citizenship. We do not have internal passports.

The benefits for voting illegally are slight in contrast to the consequences. It is far more tempting to make false statements on an application for a loan. There is much more credit fraud than there is voting fraud.

(11-28-2016, 01:19 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: First time voters in CA are required to show ID.

(11-28-2016, 09:09 AM)Warren Dew Wrote:

(11-28-2016, 12:48 AM)Eric the Green Wrote:

(11-27-2016, 09:17 PM)Warren Dew Wrote: The discussion was about the debt, not the deficit.

However, it's to be noted that the highest deficit on your chart was in 2009, Obama's first year, due to his patronage, er, "stimulus" spending, and it went down mostly after the partial shutdown that the Tea Party folks forced.

Certainly, the Tea Party-demanded cuts and the sequestration cut the deficit, although Obama agreed to it and so had a hand in it. But if the stimulus was "patronage," it was that toward a lot of different folks to whom the Democratic Congress gave it, not just to people on welfare. And it did stimulate the economy. It worked.

I agree a lot of Obama's patronage definitely went to people not on welfare, in particular wealthy Obama donors such as the founders of Solyndra.

Quote:Far from stimulating the economy, that extra spending just delayed the recovery for far longer than would have happened had the recession been allowed to work itself out normally.  But I suspect we'll just have to agree to disagree on that, since the left clings to bankrupt demand side Keynesian economics to justify increasing the size of government.

Quote:

Quote:You referred to the deficit and said at the end of Obama's term it was twice what it was at the end of Bush's; no, it was about the same level.

I referred to the debt, not the deficit.  They are two different things.  The deficit has been reduced substantially through sequestration, as you referred to, but it has still been adding to the debt all along, such that the debt is twice as high now as it was when Obama took office.

(11-28-2016, 01:32 PM)Warren Dew Wrote:

(11-28-2016, 01:19 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: First time voters in CA are required to show ID.

They're only required to show ID if they didn't fill an identifying number on their registration form, which can be a driver's license number or the last four digits of their social security number, both of which are available to noncitizens.  If they fill in one of those, they never have to show ID.

(11-28-2016, 11:05 AM)David Horn Wrote:

(11-28-2016, 08:04 AM)Odin Wrote:

(11-28-2016, 07:03 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: Hmm.  Trump is now claiming to have won the popular vote, or he would have if not for voter fraud.

I'm used to politicians stretching truth during the campaign, though Trump seems to have taken it to new levels.  There has been a need for fact checkers.  As a president elect / president does he think he can govern through the same style of blatant lies he used during the campaign?  Can he be "leader of the free world" when he has utterly destroyed his credibility?

Autocratic governments from fascist to communist to Baathist tried to do it, but found it necessary to convert the media into propaganda organs to make it work.  Trump can't even control Faux.

I'm starting to become legitimately terrified of a Trump-lead Department of Justice giving a blind eye to Republican controlled states doing a shameless purge of black and Latino voters using lies like this as justification. They know demographic trends are against them so their strategy seems to be simply to make sure only white people vote.

This is the only real reason for a recount.  If there is voter fraud, I suspect the ones raising the issue more than the ones being charged.

(11-28-2016, 09:41 AM)Warren Dew Wrote:

(11-28-2016, 07:03 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: Hmm.  Trump is now claiming to have won the popular vote, or he would have if not for voter fraud.

I'm used to politicians stretching truth during the campaign, though Trump seems to have taken it to new levels.  There has been a need for fact checkers.  As a president elect / president does he think he can govern through the same style of blatant lies he used during the campaign?  Can he be "leader of the free world" when he has utterly destroyed his credibility?

Trump never had any credibility with you the left,  anyway.  The right recognizes that states like California, with no enforceable requirement for proof of citizenship in the registration or voting process, likely have many illegal immigrants voting, possibly in the millions given the ruling Democratic party's interest in having illegal aliens vote.  The center also recognizes that Trump's claim here is far more credible than the claims on the left about mass hacking of voting machines by the Russian government.

(11-28-2016, 12:19 PM)gabrielle Wrote:

(11-28-2016, 09:41 AM)Warren Dew Wrote:

(11-28-2016, 07:03 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: Hmm.  Trump is now claiming to have won the popular vote, or he would have if not for voter fraud.

I'm used to politicians stretching truth during the campaign, though Trump seems to have taken it to new levels.  There has been a need for fact checkers.  As a president elect / president does he think he can govern through the same style of blatant lies he used during the campaign?  Can he be "leader of the free world" when he has utterly destroyed his credibility?

Trump never had any credibility with you the left,  anyway.  The right recognizes that states like California, with no enforceable requirement for proof of citizenship in the registration or voting process, likely have many illegal immigrants voting, possibly in the millions given the ruling Democratic party's interest in having illegal aliens vote.  The center also recognizes that Trump's claim here is far more credible than the claims on the left about mass hacking of voting machines by the Russian government.

So, you're saying California does not require proof of citizenship to register to vote?  And proof of registration at the polls?

Quote:Qualifications
To register to vote in California, you must be:

• A United States citizen,
  
• A resident of California,
  
• 18 years of age or older on Election Day,
  
• Not currently imprisoned or on parole for the conviction of a felony (for more information on the rights of people who have been incarcerated, please see the Secretary of State's Voting Rights for Californians with Criminal Convictions or Detained in Jail or Prison), and
  
• Not currently found to be mentally incompetent by a court of law (for more information, please see Voting Rights: Persons Subject to Conservatorship).
  

(11-28-2016, 04:18 PM)X_4AD_84 Wrote:

(11-28-2016, 04:06 PM)Odin Wrote:

(11-28-2016, 12:19 PM)gabrielle Wrote:

(11-28-2016, 09:41 AM)Warren Dew Wrote:

(11-28-2016, 07:03 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: Hmm.  Trump is now claiming to have won the popular vote, or he would have if not for voter fraud.

I'm used to politicians stretching truth during the campaign, though Trump seems to have taken it to new levels.  There has been a need for fact checkers.  As a president elect / president does he think he can govern through the same style of blatant lies he used during the campaign?  Can he be "leader of the free world" when he has utterly destroyed his credibility?

Trump never had any credibility with you the left,  anyway.  The right recognizes that states like California, with no enforceable requirement for proof of citizenship in the registration or voting process, likely have many illegal immigrants voting, possibly in the millions given the ruling Democratic party's interest in having illegal aliens vote.  The center also recognizes that Trump's claim here is far more credible than the claims on the left about mass hacking of voting machines by the Russian government.

So, you're saying California does not require proof of citizenship to register to vote?  And proof of registration at the polls?

He's regurgitating the latest official White Supremacist talking points from Breitbart.

Real world CA (and no doubt Eric's had similar observations at his polls). My wife is an absentee voter. One year, instead of sending in her absentee ballot she wanted to go w/ me to vote in person. She brought her absentee ballot. At the polling station she had to surrender the absentee ballot and they scanned it in and destroyed it. She was not allowed to vote normally - she had to vote provisional. Process from there would have been, they check the provisional ballot against the absentee data base to ensure that the surrendered absentee ballot was really hers.

(11-27-2016, 11:36 PM)dpbrower2a Wrote:

(11-27-2016, 03:22 AM)Classic-Xer Wrote:

(11-27-2016, 01:50 AM)pbrower2a Wrote: 2. The Pyrrhic victory for the Republicans is in having control of the Presidency, both Houses of Congress, and the vast majority of State legislators at an inauspicious time for holding them -- the most dangerous time of a Crisis Era -- while being ill-prepared for a Crisis.  An economic downturn is always possible after a seven-hear recovery when the leadership casts off the leadership that  made it possible. A rise of demagogues in other countries ensures that the steady hand that one might associate with a Sarkozy or an Obama will no longer be the norm, which means that international relations will be much shakier. 

The Republican victory wasn't achieved by accepting staggering losses. You made a bad choice and underestimated my intelligence. Are you sure you want to continue mess with a heating and air guy who has no reservations or moral qualms about making a teacher like you look like an idiot who has never taught? Wise up!

You are extremely wise, I assume, about heating and cooling units, including their installation and maintenance. I am not sure that you are as brilliant at making a cogent argument. You make logical errors that would get bad marks in Freshman Composition. I see those often in your writing.

You have your political and cultural values and I have mine. Neither of us can prove ours. Like it or not, Marxists like Lukacs, Gramsci, and Marcuse have made some convincing arguments on issues of their day when the Marxist component is subdued. See Bertrand Russell (he is one of the easiest philosophers to read) to get an idea of someone with much the same assumptions as I have. No, I am not Bertrand Russell, but he has surely influenced me.

The ideological 'truth' that you have as the core of your political thinking can neither be proved or disproved. For most people their ideological biases come from upbringing and experiences, including the time in which they live, ethnicity, religion, class, educational level, and political environment. Just imagine how different one's idea of the optimum of social order is if one is Japanese or American, whether one grew up in a shtetl or a few yards away as an Ukrainian peasant (see Fiddler on the Roof  to get a good idea of the difference), or if one is a poor or rich Brazilian. Or for that matter, whether your parents neglected and abused you (Charles Manson) or gave you all the security possible in a warm and loving household (Martin Luther King). Charles Manson did have his cranky philosophy, one must admit.

By Pyrrhic victory  in the literal, military sense I mean a victory that allows the winner to achieve an objective only to have the cost so severe that the winner can never win again. Think of some desperate late offensives that the Nazis had in Belgium and Hungary that won back some territory but cost troops that Nazi Germany could not afford to expend at the stage.

In a less literal sense, a Pyrrhic victory is one that puts the winner in a position for a catastrophic series of events. In business it would be like winning the bidding war for a desired acquisition only to find that what one got has hidden toxic waste sites. The Republican Party could be in big trouble with Donald Trump as President, especially if the economy tanks on his watch or he inspires domestic discord. By a Pyrrhic victory I imply the situation in which the winner discovers too late that the prize is toxic.

Within four years the model of a good President will be Barack Obama, someone cautious, coachable, scandal-free, without conflicts of interest, able to keep quiet when he must, and who can generally make wise decisions. You know well how I assess Donald Trump. He is about as unlike Barack Obama as he can be. Ronald Reagan? Many people voting in 2020 will know him only from news footage, being born as late as 2002 -- after Reagan died.