Trump Trainwreck - Ongoing diary of betrayal and evil

[Ragnarök_62]

(12-25-2016, 01:49 AM)taramarie Wrote: That link is correct however his delivery of actual facts needs improvement.

Bob Butler Wrote:You seem to be under the ridiculous delusion that the US is a civilized country occupied by mature human beings.  Maybe some day you can get over it.

Well, Mr. playwrite often brings up :

sciencedaily Wrote:The amygdala -- the two almond-shaped areas hugging the center of the brain near the front -- tends to become active when people dig in their heels about a political belief.

You see, for us sciencey folks, that's the human reptile brain.

When people's amygdalae are active, then reasoning with them is just like reasoning with:




That's why this thread has a bunch of snake brains hissing at each other   I really think Dan ought to make a snake pit repository for threads such as this one. 

[Eric the Green]

This thread is about the trainwreck and betrayal that is Trump and his new administration. If those who don't realize that Trump is a trainwreck, want to disagree, this is an open forum. But talk about the behavior and language of fellow posters, is totally irrelevant.

[Bob Butler 54]

(12-25-2016, 04:16 AM)taramarie Wrote:

(12-25-2016, 04:08 AM)Eric the Green Wrote: This thread is about the trainwreck and betrayal that is Trump and his new administration. If those who don't realize that Trump is a trainwreck, want to disagree, this is an open forum. But talk about the behavior and language of fellow posters, is totally irrelevant.

It is not irrelevant when personal attacks are against the supposed rules. Not to mention that it tends to prevent further discussion of the subject you speak of when people are being attacked. You yourself have even mentioned this in the past.

When there are strong world view clashes, extreme partisans of one ilk tend to view those of another other ilk as stupid, evil, insane, authoritarian, Republican or otherwise incapable of rational thought.  Such perceptions result in a need to attack, and the attacks rapidly become personal.  The rules are supposed to keep it from being personal.  Human nature seems to be in conflict with the rules.  Remaining civil and open to ideas is really hard if one is unable or unwilling to strive to understand and respect the other guy.

I try to avoid mentioning other posters by name.  I try to focus on issues rather than other posters.  This seems to help some.

It doesn't help that a lot of signs seem to me to indicate that Trump really will be a train wreck.  Sometimes, though, what he does seems to work somewhat.  

As an example, a few days back Trump announced a desire to cancel the F 35 program and build more 1980s era F 18s.  I posted that continuing to use very dated technology would present problems trying to maintain the air superiority that we're accustomed to having.  It's tempting to accent such an opinion on military equipment with a judgment on Trump's knowledge and temperament.  The day after Trump's tweet, though, came a promise from Lockheed to cut the price on the F 35.  I'm not sure I trust Lockheed's promises any more than I do Trump's, but that's the style of government we're going to be seeing, apparently.

Government by tweet?  Does it only work if the victim thinks the Tweeter in Chief really will follow through on his threats?  Is there more going on than an off the wall threat drawing an empty promise?

I feel more comfortable with the more polished and dignified traditional approach of the establishment politicians.  On the other hand, I quite understand the frustration with the establishment business as usual.  I'm trying to keep an open mind.  At the same time, a vision of a train flying full speed off a cliff makes me nervous.

[Cynic Hero '86]

Xers and Millies are tired of boomer imposed human rights/UN tyranny.

[Warren Dew]

(12-25-2016, 03:35 PM)taramarie Wrote: I am not getting into a discussion about that man America voted in. I am interested in addressing it should be discussed in a civil manner. People say that Trump throws his toys when angry. The Scots even showed this in a caricature of him. He is not the only one. Better to fight in a different way.

taramarie, the last post I saw from you on Trump made fun of his orange hair, if I recall correctly.  Now, I think making fun of him is probably within the rules, since he's probably not a member of this board, but if you want to facilitate civil discussion, that might not be the best way to do it.

[Warren Dew]

(12-25-2016, 09:22 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: As an example, a few days back Trump announced a desire to cancel the F 35 program and build more 1980s era F 18s.  I posted that continuing to use very dated technology would present problems trying to maintain the air superiority that we're accustomed to having.  It's tempting to accent such an opinion on military equipment with a judgment on Trump's knowledge and temperament.  The day after Trump's tweet, though, came a promise from Lockheed to cut the price on the F 35.  I'm not sure I trust Lockheed's promises any more than I do Trump's, but that's the style of government we're going to be seeing, apparently.

Government by tweet?  Does it only work if the victim thinks the Tweeter in Chief really will follow through on his threats?  Is there more going on than an off the wall threat drawing an empty promise?

What you describe may be how the mainstream media paints the situation, and the optics on that are certainly great for Trump:  he tweets about the F-35's excessive costs, and suddenly Lockheed surrenders on price.  And Lockheed comes across as being reasonable too;  it's a win win as far as Trump and Lockheed are concerned.

But yet, there is more to it, and most likely Trump or his advisors were aware of a few levels more detail before the first tweet went out.

First off, the F 18 in question is not the original Hornet, but the Super Hornet, which is late 1990s technology before upgrades.  It's less than two decades into its life cycle; it may not be bleeding edge like the F-35 is, but it's definitely not dated.

Second, the F-35 is generally acknowledged to be inferior to the F22 as an air superiority fighter, despite the F22 also being 1990s technology.  The F-35 is a compromise design for multiple roles, and those compromises make it less capable than its level of technology might indicate.

Third, there have already been rumblings from the Navy about preferring an F-18 with new active stealth technology over the F-35, which while it has forward quarter passive stealth capability, is also way more expensive and has inferior dogfighting performance.

So the F-18 as an alternative was not something that popped out of the hat because of Trump's tweet; it was something that was already being pushed for in some quarters of the military.  Trump was simply doing good due diligence by insisting on looking at it and not just going with the F-35 by default.

But there's more to it than that as well.  The astronomical development costs for the F-35 - over $300 billion, more than half of the total annual military budget for all four services - have already been spent.  Lockheed already has that money, so they aren't at risk for a lot even if the program gets cancelled.  And since they've basically completed development, they're in a good position to squeeze down on costs; third party estimates are that they could cut unit costs by about 7% by the next order.  All they have to do is deliver those savings, which are likely easily achievable, and they come out smelling like a rose - and are in a better position to make more export sales to boot.

Trump  is no doubt doing the taxpayer a favor by preventing Lockheed from robbing us blind, for example keeping that 7% cost savings for themselves.  However, there isn't the level of magic here that the news reports suggest.  It's just a matter of ensuring that the government doesn't get overcharged by making sure the government follows good business practices and pays attention to where its money is going.

[Warren Dew]

(12-25-2016, 04:44 PM)taramarie Wrote:

(12-25-2016, 04:36 PM)Warren Dew Wrote:

(12-25-2016, 03:35 PM)taramarie Wrote: I am not getting into a discussion about that man America voted in. I am interested in addressing it should be discussed in a civil manner. People say that Trump throws his toys when angry. The Scots even showed this in a caricature of him. He is not the only one. Better to fight in a different way.

taramarie, the last post I saw from you on Trump made fun of his orange hair, if I recall correctly.  Now, I think making fun of him is probably within the rules, since he's probably not a member of this board, but if you want to facilitate civil discussion, that might not be the best way to do it.

Wow that was a long time ago. May want to keep up with my latest posts. I have done a lot of self reflecting since then.

Fair enough.

[TnT]

Something I'm thinking about ... from the perspective of actually running an enterprise. I did so during one part of my career.

I discovered that even as the main man, the boss, the head honcho ... I could say anything I wanted to, but actually making something happen is a whole different thing. Managing, administrating, course-correcting, trouble-shooting, these are all things that have to be done, or one's enterprise simply vacillates, turns slowly in the water, nothing much happening.

Is Trump a good hands-on manager/administrator? I'm skeptical about that. I think his business model was that of the Mafia. Which is: borrow someone else's money, build something, strip out the cash over a period of time, bankrupt it and let the assets go back to whomever lent the money in the first place. Interestingly, the original lender can often come out pretty good as does the "entrepreneur." It's the little/middle guys that get screwed, and nobody gives a shit about them. There's always new little guys lined up in desperation thinking they can make a buck off this big guy.

Are Trump's appointees good hands-on managers/administrators? The military guys probably are. The rest of them? Not so much.

"Heck-of-a job, there, Brownie!" How much are those guys going to be able to get done, good or bad?

The downside is that Ryan and the boys might be able to send competent folks from the hangers-on around lobbyists, etc. to the government's departments to actually get things done, or un-done as the case may be.

[Eric the Green]

NRDC (Natural Resources Defense Council)
says:

President-elect Donald Trump says he'll withdraw from Paris climate agreement, approve the Keystone XL pipeline, and open up coal and oil drilling everywhere. All in his first 100 days.

Friends of the Earth says:

Donald Trump is a grave threat to our environment and everything we stand for. He’ll gut the Clean Power Plan, “cancel” the Paris climate accords, and hand over control of our key government agencies to Big Oil.

We’ve never faced anything like this before. We need your help to fight back!

At Friends of the Earth, we have a plan to stop Trump. But your donation will drive it forward.

1. We’ll start by exposing and defeating Trump’s appointees. Donald Trump has brought in climate deniers and Big Oil cronies like Scott Pruitt, Rex Tillerson and Rick Perry to run his government. So we’ll shine a light on their shady corporate pasts and push Congress to reject them. And if they make it through Congress, we will expose and watchdog their every move.

2. Once Trump’s in office, we’ll take him to Court. Trump wants to undo President Obama’s climate legacy. But he still has to follow the law. So we’ll use the courts to tie up his attempts to undo our progress.

3. Meanwhile, we’ll block bad legislation. Republicans have control of both the House and Senate. But Democrats still have the power of the filibuster. So we’ll push them to use it to stop dangerous bills from reaching Trump’s desk. We’ll be knocking on their doors to ensure that they stand up for what’s right.

But we can do more than just play defense. There are ways we can win even with anti-environmental extremists controlling our government.

1. We’ll push corporations to do the right thing for the planet. As a consumer, you have a lot of power to shift the market away from destructive products. Friends of the Earth members like you have gotten garden retail giants Home Depot and Lowe’s to remove bee-killing pesticides from their shelves. You’ve convinced Subway and In-and-Out Burger to stop sourcing meats that have been treated with antibiotics. You drove grocery stores to stop selling GMO salmon. And that’s all in the last two years. Now, we’ll build on this strategy to win lasting victories for the environment.

2. We’ll take the fight outside Washington. We can still make progress in states like California and New York. And when environmental laws pass in one state, others often follow. So we’ll work at the state level to advance protections for our planet.

3. We’ll unite with our international community. As a member of Friends of the Earth, you’re a part of a global environmental community based in 74 countries. With this international force behind us, we can reduce Trump’s ability to back out of international agreements like the Paris Climate Agreement.

Help fuel the fight to protect the planet: Give $15 or more and your gift will be matched -- up to $350,000!

We’ve faced hostile administrations before -- sixteen years ago, under President Bush. And before that, under President Reagan. But together we used these same tactics to successfully block attacks on the environment.

Trump presents unprecedented threats to our planet, but with your support we can prevent the worst.

[Eric the Green]

Those who choose to pay attention, can learn the truth in this video. Those who do not learn from history, are condemned to repeat it. We just condemned ourselves, AGAIN. Fools.

[Warren Dew]

(12-26-2016, 03:00 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: NRDC (Natural Resources Defense Council)
says:

President-elect Donald Trump says he'll withdraw from Paris climate agreement, approve the Keystone XL pipeline, and open up coal and oil drilling everywhere. All in his first 100 days.

Friends of the Earth says:

Donald Trump is a grave threat to our environment and everything we stand for. He’ll gut the Clean Power Plan, “cancel” the Paris climate accords, and hand over control of our key government agencies to Big Oil.

We’ve never faced anything like this before. We need your help to fight back!

At Friends of the Earth, we have a plan to stop Trump. But your donation will drive it forward.

1. We’ll start by exposing and defeating Trump’s appointees. Donald Trump has brought in climate deniers and Big Oil cronies like Scott Pruitt, Rex Tillerson and Rick Perry to run his government. So we’ll shine a light on their shady corporate pasts and push Congress to reject them. And if they make it through Congress, we will expose and watchdog their every move.

2. Once Trump’s in office, we’ll take him to Court. Trump wants to undo President Obama’s climate legacy. But he still has to follow the law. So we’ll use the courts to tie up his attempts to undo our progress.

3. Meanwhile, we’ll block bad legislation. Republicans have control of both the House and Senate. But Democrats still have the power of the filibuster. So we’ll push them to use it to stop dangerous bills from reaching Trump’s desk. We’ll be knocking on their doors to ensure that they stand up for what’s right.

But we can do more than just play defense. There are ways we can win even with anti-environmental extremists controlling our government.

1. We’ll push corporations to do the right thing for the planet. As a consumer, you have a lot of power to shift the market away from destructive products. Friends of the Earth members like you have gotten garden retail giants Home Depot and Lowe’s to remove bee-killing pesticides from their shelves. You’ve convinced Subway and In-and-Out Burger to stop sourcing meats that have been treated with antibiotics. You drove grocery stores to stop selling GMO salmon. And that’s all in the last two years. Now, we’ll build on this strategy to win lasting victories for the environment.

2. We’ll take the fight outside Washington. We can still make progress in states like California and New York. And when environmental laws pass in one state, others often follow. So we’ll work at the state level to advance protections for our planet.

3. We’ll unite with our international community. As a member of Friends of the Earth, you’re a part of a global environmental community based in 74 countries. With this international force behind us, we can reduce Trump’s ability to back out of international agreements like the Paris Climate Agreement.

Help fuel the fight to protect the planet: Give $15 or more and your gift will be matched -- up to $350,000!

We’ve faced hostile administrations before -- sixteen years ago, under President Bush. And before that, under President Reagan. But together we used these same tactics to successfully block attacks on the environment.

Trump presents unprecedented threats to our planet, but with your support we can prevent the worst.

This is the same NRDC that opposed the Washington State initiative to impose a carbon tax.  Actual friends of the environment they are not.  Like most supposed "green" groups these days, they are more about lining their own pockets.

[Eric the Green]

(12-26-2016, 06:13 PM)Warren Dew Wrote:

(12-26-2016, 03:00 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: NRDC (Natural Resources Defense Council)
says:

President-elect Donald Trump says he'll withdraw from Paris climate agreement, approve the Keystone XL pipeline, and open up coal and oil drilling everywhere. All in his first 100 days.

Friends of the Earth says:

Donald Trump is a grave threat to our environment and everything we stand for. He’ll gut the Clean Power Plan, “cancel” the Paris climate accords, and hand over control of our key government agencies to Big Oil.

We’ve never faced anything like this before. We need your help to fight back!

At Friends of the Earth, we have a plan to stop Trump. But your donation will drive it forward.

1. We’ll start by exposing and defeating Trump’s appointees. Donald Trump has brought in climate deniers and Big Oil cronies like Scott Pruitt, Rex Tillerson and Rick Perry to run his government. So we’ll shine a light on their shady corporate pasts and push Congress to reject them. And if they make it through Congress, we will expose and watchdog their every move.

2. Once Trump’s in office, we’ll take him to Court. Trump wants to undo President Obama’s climate legacy. But he still has to follow the law. So we’ll use the courts to tie up his attempts to undo our progress.

3. Meanwhile, we’ll block bad legislation. Republicans have control of both the House and Senate. But Democrats still have the power of the filibuster. So we’ll push them to use it to stop dangerous bills from reaching Trump’s desk. We’ll be knocking on their doors to ensure that they stand up for what’s right.

But we can do more than just play defense. There are ways we can win even with anti-environmental extremists controlling our government.

1. We’ll push corporations to do the right thing for the planet. As a consumer, you have a lot of power to shift the market away from destructive products. Friends of the Earth members like you have gotten garden retail giants Home Depot and Lowe’s to remove bee-killing pesticides from their shelves. You’ve convinced Subway and In-and-Out Burger to stop sourcing meats that have been treated with antibiotics. You drove grocery stores to stop selling GMO salmon. And that’s all in the last two years. Now, we’ll build on this strategy to win lasting victories for the environment.

2. We’ll take the fight outside Washington. We can still make progress in states like California and New York. And when environmental laws pass in one state, others often follow. So we’ll work at the state level to advance protections for our planet.

3. We’ll unite with our international community. As a member of Friends of the Earth, you’re a part of a global environmental community based in 74 countries. With this international force behind us, we can reduce Trump’s ability to back out of international agreements like the Paris Climate Agreement.

Help fuel the fight to protect the planet: Give $15 or more and your gift will be matched -- up to $350,000!

We’ve faced hostile administrations before -- sixteen years ago, under President Bush. And before that, under President Reagan. But together we used these same tactics to successfully block attacks on the environment.

Trump presents unprecedented threats to our planet, but with your support we can prevent the worst.

This is the same NRDC that opposed the Washington State initiative to impose a carbon tax.  Actual friends of the environment they are not.  Like most supposed "green" groups these days, they are more about lining their own pockets.

I am glad I support them. They do excellent work, and they don't line their pockets at all. You can judge them on the basis of one position they took. As I said before, I agree with you. Their points in this post stand, unimpeachable; challenging to folks like you who support the most anti-environmental candidate ever, from any country. And you must take responsibility for your support of this destructive, anti-life candidate and everything he does to our planet and country. It won't be pretty.

[Bob Butler 54]

(12-25-2016, 05:01 PM)Warren Dew Wrote:

(12-25-2016, 09:22 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: As an example, a few days back Trump announced a desire to cancel the F 35 program and build more 1980s era F 18s.  I posted that continuing to use very dated technology would present problems trying to maintain the air superiority that we're accustomed to having.  It's tempting to accent such an opinion on military equipment with a judgment on Trump's knowledge and temperament.  The day after Trump's tweet, though, came a promise from Lockheed to cut the price on the F 35.  I'm not sure I trust Lockheed's promises any more than I do Trump's, but that's the style of government we're going to be seeing, apparently.

Government by tweet?  Does it only work if the victim thinks the Tweeter in Chief really will follow through on his threats?  Is there more going on than an off the wall threat drawing an empty promise?

What you describe may be how the mainstream media paints the situation, and the optics on that are certainly great for Trump:  he tweets about the F-35's excessive costs, and suddenly Lockheed surrenders on price.  And Lockheed comes across as being reasonable too;  it's a win win as far as Trump and Lockheed are concerned.

But yet, there is more to it, and most likely Trump or his advisors were aware of a few levels more detail before the first tweet went out.

First off, the F 18 in question is not the original Hornet, but the Super Hornet, which is late 1990s technology before upgrades.  It's less than two decades into its life cycle; it may not be bleeding edge like the F-35 is, but it's definitely not dated.

Second, the F-35 is generally acknowledged to be inferior to the F22 as an air superiority fighter, despite the F22 also being 1990s technology.  The F-35 is a compromise design for multiple roles, and those compromises make it less capable than its level of technology might indicate.

Third, there have already been rumblings from the Navy about preferring an F-18 with new active stealth technology over the F-35, which while it has forward quarter passive stealth capability, is also way more expensive and has inferior dogfighting performance.

So the F-18 as an alternative was not something that popped out of the hat because of Trump's tweet; it was something that was already being pushed for in some quarters of the military.  Trump was simply doing good due diligence by insisting on looking at it and not just going with the F-35 by default.

But there's more to it than that as well.  The astronomical development costs for the F-35 - over $300 billion, more than half of the total annual military budget for all four services - have already been spent.  Lockheed already has that money, so they aren't at risk for a lot even if the program gets cancelled.  And since they've basically completed development, they're in a good position to squeeze down on costs; third party estimates are that they could cut unit costs by about 7% by the next order.  All they have to do is deliver those savings, which are likely easily achievable, and they come out smelling like a rose - and are in a better position to make more export sales to boot.

Trump  is no doubt doing the taxpayer a favor by preventing Lockheed from robbing us blind, for example keeping that 7% cost savings for themselves.  However, there isn't the level of magic here that the news reports suggest.  It's just a matter of ensuring that the government doesn't get overcharged by making sure the government follows good business practices and pays attention to where its money is going.

The F-18 E and F models are at best two decades obsolete, and are still just upgrades on the early F-18 models.  Two decades off state of the art, very conservatively.

Even if upgrading the F 18 was an option for the Navy, the F 18 is designed for big carriers, built heavy to take the shock of carrier landings.  The Air Force won't want it.  It won't replace the Marine's VTOL Harriers.  Cancelling the F 35 for the F 18 is so much bull.

Currently, the carriers are flying a mix of the original Hornet and the improved E and F models.  The current plan is to retire the originals and replace them with F 35s.  As the original hornets (and I believe the Harriers) are approaching the end of their airframe life, big changes to the current plans will be at best awkward.  As the Navy's (and everybody's) F 35s are arriving late, a few dozen more Super Hornets are being built to keep current carrier air wings up to full strength until the F 35s arrive, but what are your sources for the 'cancel the F 35' alternative?  Sounds like a Boing wet dream. 

Mind you, I'm still not thrilled by the 'one plane that does all jobs' approach.  If I had a do-over, I might want separate replacement developments for the Harrier, A 10, plus land and carrier based air superiority planes.  As you say, though, we have a big sunk cost and starting another development cycle would delay things enough to leave us flying stressed airframes.  We're stuck with what we've got, give or take a 7% discount.

But military questions aside, a lot of blue folk aren't going to begin to take government by tweet seriously.  Trump has used the approach to harass reporters who ask tough questions, abuse Miss Universe candidates whose changing room privacy was violated, and disparage Gold Star parents.  There is a vision of a stressed out insomniac passing time by pecking on his cell phone.  Red extreme partisans might be willing to assume more thought has gone into a midnight tweet than there is evidence of, but neither blue partisans nor the hypothetical independent reality based thinker is apt to.

[Eric the Green]

Our wonderful non-interventionist president elect speaks:



https://bignewsstories.com/trumpmilitary...nstmexico/

[Bob Butler 54]

(12-27-2016, 06:47 AM)Eric the Green Wrote: Our wonderful non-interventionist president elect speaks:



https://bignewsstories.com/trumpmilitary...nstmexico/

Now is the intent here similar to the F 35 tweet?  You threaten something big hoping for a concession from the party one is threatening?  If one threatens to invade Mexico, will they offer to pay for The Wall?  Is there supposedly some serious military people who have discussed this option, so we have to respect it somehow?

[Eric the Green]

We progressives will fight and demonstrate and write and organize against Drumpf, and Drumpf has promised at his rallies to crack down hard on us and have us carried out on stretchers, beaten up and jailed. It may not be pretty, and people are going to be hurt by Drumpf. Violence may occur on both sides.

This is the reality. The personal behavior here is not the problem, and it's wrong to focus or put energy into it in these posts. Those who do, are just as guilty themselves, if not more so; so it means nothing coming from them at all. The moderator can decide, for better or worse, and we can report what we don't like. That's fine. But what needs correcting is what America did on Nov.8, and for the last 37 years. Let's see THAT corrected, and THEN we can TALK more about respect and love and politeness. The opposition to Trump and the Republicans, if it's polite, will fail. It must be bold and unrelenting.

You can disagree, and claim some kind of moderate or "polite" approach is better, or support the GOP instead. That's a perfectly appropriate viewpoint to take, even if I disagree. It's not a personal issue. There are many points of view, and this is an open forum. I accept that there are other views besides my own. If there weren't, it would get boring here. It's virtually fruitless to spend time posting here, if one hopes to convince people to your view. I understand that too. But at least it's a repository for information that I and others find, and a practice field for writing about it.

[Classic-Xer]

(12-28-2016, 07:00 PM)taramarie Wrote: By the way, Eric if you can prove that it does work I can consider that too. I am interested in what strategy works best is all and I am trying to find it. I am merely observing you guys and seeing that conversation does not seem to go anywhere.

In my opinion, results work/speak the best. The problem with results is that results take time. Who has the time/patience to wait for results? Progressives don't have time, progressives have upcoming elections to win and their political powers to defend as much as possible. The conversations as you say may not seem to go anywhere but the conversations do eventually get results over time. I've seen results over a ten year period that you haven't seen. Eric already lost the war on all the fronts that really matter to most Americans. Eric won a few battles that didn't matter all that much as far as the greater scheme of things.

[Classic-Xer]

(12-29-2016, 01:43 AM)taramarie Wrote:

(12-29-2016, 01:32 AM)Classic-Xer Wrote:

(12-29-2016, 12:20 AM)taramarie Wrote:

(12-28-2016, 11:59 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote:

(12-28-2016, 07:00 PM)taramarie Wrote: By the way, Eric if you can prove that it does work I can consider that too. I am interested in what strategy works best is all and I am trying to find it. I am merely observing you guys and seeing that conversation does not seem to go anywhere.

In my opinion, results work/speak the best. The problem with results  is that results take time. Who has the time/patience to wait for results? Progressives don't have time, progressives have upcoming elections to win and their political powers to defend as much as possible. The conversations as you say may not seem to go anywhere but the conversations do eventually get results over time. I've seen results over a ten year period that you haven't seen. Eric already lost the war on all the fronts that really matter to most Americans. Eric won a few battles that didn't matter all that much as far as the greater scheme of things.

I am curious about this. Could you give a few examples?

The only way I see that works is teaching to the young.

I have the ability to compare what it was like to post ten years ago to what it's like to post today. I'm familiar with the environments and the changes that have occurred in the environment over a ten year span. Honey, posting today is nothing like it was ten years ago. Mind control was more popular on the left ten years ago.

What's different between us? We have an obvious age difference. We have an obvious cultural difference. We have biological differences and income differences and different priorities as well. We probably have to many differences to overcome and be able to relate to one another and view each other as equals.

Oh wow really? I thought it was extreme now in comparison to what i experience in my own country. That is interesting. I wonder what caused that change.
Well yes we have differences, but it is not like I do not view you as someone who is not my equal. I cannot say the same for others who are disrespectful to me. Which does not usually include you. I measure people on how they treat me. Not in our differences. And that is the honest truth.

The 4T was much more extreme ten years ago. American politics is still about the same as it was ten years ago.

[Classic-Xer]

(12-29-2016, 03:10 AM)taramarie Wrote:

(12-29-2016, 02:45 AM)Classic-Xer Wrote:

(12-29-2016, 01:43 AM)taramarie Wrote:

(12-29-2016, 01:32 AM)Classic-Xer Wrote:

(12-29-2016, 12:20 AM)taramarie Wrote: I am curious about this. Could you give a few examples?

The only way I see that works is teaching to the young.

I have the ability to compare what it was like to post ten years ago to what it's like to post today. I'm familiar with the environments and the changes that have occurred in the environment over a ten year span. Honey, posting today is nothing like it was ten years ago. Mind control was more popular on the left ten years ago.

What's different between us? We have an obvious age difference. We have an obvious cultural difference. We have biological differences and income differences and different priorities as well. We probably have to many differences to overcome and be able to relate to one another and view each other as equals.

Oh wow really? I thought it was extreme now in comparison to what i experience in my own country. That is interesting. I wonder what caused that change.
Well yes we have differences, but it is not like I do not view you as someone who is not my equal. I cannot say the same for others who are disrespectful to me. Which does not usually include you. I measure people on how they treat me. Not in our differences. And that is the honest truth.

The 4T was much more extreme ten years ago. American politics is still about the same as it was ten years ago.

Wow. That is interesting. You are right about the culture. My reaction when I started to hear more about what went on over there and also chatting to Americans was sort of like whoa! In comparison it is far more aggressive, far more extreme. It has left an impression on me. Americans have told me it is nothing like how it appears online though. People become emboldened and passionate about their thoughts rather than what they show in public apparently. I guess being online is a way to vent out with "seemingly" no consequences....they think. I thought that the 4T was becoming more extreme. Especially after this last election.

Politics has to be more aggressive in the United States than New Zealand for obvious reasons. We are a lot more involved in everything than New Zealand. As I've mentioned before, I live in a smaller US state that's larger than your entire country. But, I would view Minnesota and New Zealand as being equal in level as far as its position in the world. Minnesota has some say but not as much say as a state like California or New York. Does your country have limousine liberals, movie stars, comedians and musicians playing an active role in its politics? Politics that eliminate jobs, gives preference to certain illegal aliens and dishes out policies as if they're free. If I was king, I would separate this group, give this group what it wants and tax it to death.

[Eric the Green]