Mitt Romney's Dilemma
Mitt Romney may soon be faced with a dilemma. If Donald Trump offers him the job of secretary of State, should Mitt take it? Normally this wouldn't even be an open question, much less a dilemma. The position is one of the most prestigious in the federal government, and any career politician would jump at the chance to fill it, in normal times. But this is Donald Trump's administration we're talking about, which will complicate Romney's choice (to put it mildly).
Mitt Romney was one of the most vocal -- and most scathing -- critics of Donald Trump during the campaign. He wasn't afraid to say exactly what he thought of Trump, in no uncertain terms. Romney let it be known that he thought Trump was patently unqualified to lead the country, and he warned his fellow Republicans not to vote for such a charlatan. The voters didn't listen, of course, but it's pretty obvious what Romney thinks about Trump -- and his election to the presidency has likely not changed Mitt's opinion much at all. So to accept the job would mean working for the same man Romney was warning America about, not too long ago. Maybe Mitt could grow a beard and just give up shaving, so he wouldn't have to face himself in the mirror every morning.
Secretary of State would be a perfect end to Romney's career -- if he were serving someone like Jeb Bush or Marco Rubio, that is. Romney has always seen himself as a statesman, so it'd be a perfect fit. He wouldn't be in charge of anything to do with the economy, so his past career as a plutocrat wouldn't even be an issue. But being in charge of foreign policy for an average Republican president isn't what's being offered. Instead, Romney would be Trump's face to the world -- and that comes with a whole lot of potential downsides.
Will Trump be surrounded with sober-minded people who will constrain his worst knee-jerk impulses? Or will he be tweeting freely about what he thinks of other countries, perhaps precipitating international incidents by doing so? No one, at this point, can tell. But the possibility certainly exists. Which would leave Romney the job of continually cleaning up avoidable messes. Or worse.
How would Donald Trump take America to war? That's also a very real possibility. If this comes to pass, his secretary of State will be the one who has to try to get allies to stand with us. If the reasons for going to war are seen as illegitimate (or vindictive, or petulant, or irrational, or whatever...), then that's going to be a very hard sell. Trump may bear the blame for such a war, but the secretary of State will likely bear the blame if we wind up waging such a war unilaterally. The job will require a lot more reassurances and hand-holding than normal, that much (at least) seems certain.
So why would Romney even consider setting himself up in the rather unenviable position of attempting to explain Donald Trump's thinking to world leaders? Romney obviously doesn't have a shred of respect for Trump, but he'd be responsible for trying to build respect for Trump among the world's leaders. That's a pretty duplicitous position to put yourself in, to say the least.
Perhaps Romney could delude himself into thinking he'll be able to control Trump, or at least steer him away from his worst impulses. If that's the case, then Romney could convince himself that taking the job would be the highest form of public service -- saving Trump from himself for the betterment of the country and the world. That's a noble way to put it, but you could see Romney thinking along those lines. After all, if Romney is offered the job and doesn't take it, Trump could easily name some hothead instead -- which could lead to even more sticky situations. Romney could see himself saving America from such a fate, I suppose.
One of the scarier things I've heard about Trump came from a former contestant on his reality television show. Trump, according to one of his former apprentices, makes up his mind on any given subject depending on the person he last talked to about it. This is scary indeed, since it suggests an incredibly high degree of suggestibility and an incredibly shallow method of decision-making. But the more you watch Trump, the more accurate this portrayal seems. When Trump talks to someone in favor of torture, then he's all for it. But then after he talks to a Marine general who thinks it's ineffective, Trump suddenly isn't such a big fan of it after all. If this really is who Trump is, then the obvious conclusion is that you would want a level-headed individual to be the last guy Trump talks to before making momentous decisions. Secretary of State Romney might just be a sobering influence on Trump after all, in this scenario.
Whoever takes the job, they're going to have to navigate a minefield on a daily basis, that much seems certain. If anything blows up, the secretary of State will be in the middle of it all. If Trump has some spectacular failures on the world stage, that is going to reflect on whomever's job it is to explain Trump to the rest of the planet. Meaning it would be a very risky job to take for anyone who values their political career and public opinion (as Romney certainly does).
Of course all of this is assuming that Romney is even in the running, and not just a massive feint by Trump to soothe the public's fears. He may wind up choosing someone else for the job, in the end. But if Trump does offer the job to Mitt Romney, then Romney will have a big decision to make. Should he risk his own reputation on the chance that he can constrain Trump and guide him to sober foreign policy decisions? Or is the possibility of Trump setting off some world crisis by an off-the-cuff decision just too high to even consider attaching your name to his administration? Romney would always have the option of just stepping down, should Trump do something completely unforgivable. He could then say "I tried -- but failed -- to talk Trump out of it," and leave with at least some of his reputation intact.
If Trump does offer Mitt Romney the job, Romney's going to have to ask himself some very tough questions, though. Can he follow the leadership of a man he has absolutely no respect for? Can he wake up every morning and go into work knowing full well that Trump is the least qualified person to sit in the Oval Office, or will this be too much for Romney's own self-respect to bear? Does he feel he owes it to America to try to constrain Trump by serving, or is that just too much to ask? These are not normally questions any cabinet officer would have to ponder, but they are very pertinent questions Romney is going to have to answer when deciding whether to serve President Trump or not.
-- Chris Weigant
Cross-posted at The Huffington Post
Follow Chris on Twitter: @ChrisWeigant
Program Note
Have a happy Thanksgiving everyone! New columns will return next Monday...
:-)
-CW
Enjoy your holiday and some much deserved time off!
Happy Thanksgiving All.
I hope Romney takes it if offered. Everybody knows he will be taking one for the country, and if Trump goes completely off the rails, Romney resigning will be a message to everybody that the wheels are really coming off and Trump will face a barrage of criticism from all sides that might scare him off from doing something really out there.
Plus Trump needs a few more sensible appointments. Haley was as good as we could hope for the UN, but with "Mad Dog" lining up as Sec Def, a sane Sec State will be all the more important.
http://money.cnn.com/2016/11/23/news/economy/tpp-trump-america-china-russia/index.html
Why do we have to be so stupid? I know we want to protect American jobs, but for Pete's sake, do we have to shoot ourselves in the foot at the same time?
CW,
Your entire commentary rests on one unproven conclusion...
That Romney meant everything he said about Trump prior to the election..
If Romney DIDN'T really mean any of it, then there isn't any issue...
Obama said many MANY more things about Trump and many were a lot worse than what Romney said. Yet Obama has also stated that he is willing to work with Trump...
Everything before Trump's election was nothing but campaign hyperbole..
Romney will accept the SecState position. You can bet on that...
Or is the possibility of Trump setting off some world crisis by an off-the-cuff decision just too high to even consider attaching your name to his administration?
Or Trump could be the best POTUS since Reagan and Romney makes Trump even better...
"We can't discard a possibility, just because we don't happen to like it."
-Martin Sheen, FINAL COUNTDOWN
:D
Happy Turkey Day to all Weigantians..
I am somewhat dreading our family get together. I think we have a couple who are anti-Trump and it's going to be like walking a mine field blindfolded today.. :D
But it's family. Whataaya gonna do?? :D
I am also constrained to point out that Trump is doing EXACTLY what a good leader does..
Surround himself with people who disagree with him..
Obama's fatal flaw as POTUS was that, for the most part, he surrounded himself with people who thought EXACTLY like he did... No one was there to tell the Emperor that there were no fancy livery, that he was buck-assed nekkid..
When I was a platoon leader, my second was always someone who disagreed with me on practically everything...
That is the only way for a good leader to ensure he is getting sound advice and not just being led along by a bunch of yes-men...
Trump is checking all the right leadership boxes so far....
Another person Trump should consider bringing on..
https://ca.news.yahoo.com/petraeus-indicates-serve-trump-asked-bbc-interview-074714883.html
General Petraeus.. He deserves to come in from the cold...
And, since the Left fell all over itself to claim that Clinton's crimes and Petraeus's crimes were different, there is no chance of any accusations of hypocrisy.. :D
Michale wrote:
"I am also constrained to point out that Trump is doing EXACTLY what a good leader does..
Surround himself with people who disagree with him."
BUT YOU ARE assuming that HE disagrees with those people. From where I sit, it looks like just the opposite to me. That he is surrounding himself with people whose ideas HE MOSTLY agrees with, or have consistently been the most loyal to him during his campaign, for the most part, regardless of their views. In other words, yes men and lobbyists.
<I.BUT YOU ARE assuming that HE disagrees with those people.
Considering how diametrically opposed some of the ones we know about are, yea... It's a safe bet that Trump disagrees with at least SOME of his choices..
That he is surrounding himself with people whose ideas HE MOSTLY agrees with, or have consistently been the most loyal to him during his campaign, for the most part, regardless of their views.
Are you kidding??
Nikki Halley??? Mitt Romney??? Reice Prebius???
Those people were NEVER on Trump's side, even AFTER he won the GOP nomination..
If Loyalty is the only factor, more than half of his chosen cabinet wouldn't even be there...
Those people were NEVER on Trump's side, even AFTER he won the GOP nomination..
Well, except for RNC BS... But you can't say he was ever enthusiastic about it..
Many of Trump's selections are definitely NOT on the Loyalty List....
There is a third possibility Michale. It could be that Trump just wants to fill the positions with anybody willing to do the job so he can get back to running his own business.
Remember the offer he made to Kasich - Kasich was to run internal and foreign affairs - and Donald was going to make America great again.
There is a third possibility Michale. It could be that Trump just wants to fill the positions with anybody willing to do the job so he can get back to running his own business.
Agreed.. It's a possibility... But is there any factual evidence to support the possibility??
That's kinda important...
If that IS Trump's plan then shouldn't ya'all be happy about it?? :D
It's a possibility... But is there any factual evidence to support the possibility??
Only what Kasich related back in July:
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/report-donald-trump-offered-john-kasich-chance-to-be-the-most-powerful-vp-in-history/
"He needs an experienced person to do the part of the job he doesn't want to do. He sees himself more as the chairman of the board, than even the CEO, let alone the COO," Manafort said."
Only what Kasich related back in July:
A lot's happened since then.. :D
I have a feeling Trump is going to treat this as any business... Pick the best people for the respective agencies and departments, gather all the input and then make a decision..
But if he IS hands-off, I would think that it would make the Left happy..
Then all the Left has to worry about is normal partisan agenda clashes and not Trump starting WWWIII :D
Damn, I was looking forward to blaming Trump for WWIII ;)
One too many 'W's :D
THat would be the least of our worries :)
But if he IS hands-off, I would think that it would make the Left happy..
Depends who he hands things off to. I really don't like Sessions, I find his worldview to be nasty and hateful.
Damn, I was looking forward to blaming Trump for WWIII ;)
heh..
Have a great Thanksgiving, Neil. Hope you and yours have the best holiday....
You too Michale. All the best. Any picks for the football games - looks like the Lions game is going to be a squeaker?
Not really.. Don't really follow the teams.. Except when maybe the Jags are playing, but even then it's too painful.. :D heh
This year's Global Wealth Report is out from Credit Suisse - always an excellent read:
https://www.credit-suisse.com/za/en/about-us/research/research-institute/global-wealth-report.html
And, since the Left fell all over itself to claim that Clinton's crimes and Petraeus's crimes were different, there is no chance of any accusations of hypocrisy.. :D
Sure why not, nothing says GOP is the law and order party like appointing a person to a cabinet position who is no longer eligible to hold a security clearance.
Educated people swung towards Clinton, even in poorer areas. Worth a read. Trump won with the "feelies".
http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/education-not-income-predicted-who-would-vote-for-trump/
One Key Stat From Global Wealth Report:
USA:
Average wealth/person: $344,692
Median wealth/person: $44,977
Canada:
Average wealth/person: $270,179
Median wealth/person: $96,664
This difference holds across many other countries. We are near the top in average wealth and way down the table in median wealth.
And we are getting huge tax cuts for the most wealthy.
Look at it this way, if you have a family of 4 your "share" of the wealth should be about $1.3M but in fact it is more likely to be $0.2M.
Sure why not, nothing says GOP is the law and order party like appointing a person to a cabinet position who is no longer eligible to hold a security clearance.
But I thought you Lefties were all about forgiveness and redemption?? :D
'Sides, Trump is President. A simple pardon and the whole thing disappears...
Good information on General Mad Dog Mattis...
http://amgreatness.com/2016/11/22/mattis-for-defense/
The reality, however, is that politics is not and will never be a public policy seminar. People have identities, and people are mobilized politically around those identities. There is no other way to do politics than to do identity politics.
http://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2016/11/23/13685988/democrats-identity-politics
And THIS is why Hillary Clinton lost..
Because the Democratic Party thinks that a black person will vote as a black person and a hispanic person will vote as a hispanic person and a woman will vote as a woman..
It's is simple INCONCEIVABLE to the Democratic Party that they will all vote as AMERICANS each with their own unique set of problems and values that have absolutely NOTHING to do with their race or their gender..
This is EXACTLY why Democrats, as a Party, have lost so much politically since 2009...
They simply do not GET the concept that the problem is not their messaging... The problem IS the message....
Until the Democratic Party wakes up and joins the American people, the losses since 2009 will continue to rack up...
As I see it, the only hope the Democratic Party has is that what is represented in comment #30 above represents a small SMALL fraction of the Democratic Party..
If it represents more than a third, the Party is in real big trouble...
Sure why not, nothing says GOP is the law and order party like appointing a person to a cabinet position who is no longer eligible to hold a security clearance.
If Clinton can hold a security clearance, there ain't NO LOGICAL or RATIONAL reason for Petreaus's not to be restored...
They simply do not GET the concept that the problem is not their messaging... The problem IS the message....
Cut the hysterical Michale. Hillary easily won the popular vote, and the country cycles from left to right. It is unusual to have the same party in power for more than 2 terms, plus gerrymandering is making incumbents almost lifelong appointees.
Now all the frustration that the establishment will be directed at Trump and the Republicans. They have no excuses and can't hide behind Obama any longer.
I''ll repeat Warren Buffet's old financial services saying: "Only when the tide goes out do you discover who's been swimming naked."
Let's see if the Republicans can govern.
Michale: how do you feel about Trump's tax cuts for the rich and the above numbers for average vs. median net worth in America?
Source Table 4.2: http://publications.credit-suisse.com/tasks/render/file/index.cfm?fileid=AD6F2B43-B17B-345E-E20A1A254A3E24A5
Have a look at table 4.2, look at the numbers for Italy, New Zealand, or the United Kingdom as well.
Ever felt you were being ripped off and lied to at the same time?
I wish I could edit my posts for grammar.
Sorry - Table 2-4 in http://publications.credit-suisse.com/tasks/render/file/index.cfm?fileid=AD6F2B43-B17B-345E-E20A1A254A3E24A5
And go to the last sub-table for 2016
Starts at p96
Cut the hysterical Michale.
I am not talking JUST about the 2016 POTUS election..
How do you explain how Democrats have lost SO MANY political positions up and down the line since 2009??
Hillary easily won the popular vote, and the country cycles from left to right.
And yet, tens of millions of two-time Obama voters voted for Trump...
Apparently THAT has a lot more relevance than the irrelevant popular vote...
Identity politics is a loser for the Democratic Party..
If they want to continue losing, by all means.. They should continue to hang their hats on identity politics...
Now all the frustration that the establishment will be directed at Trump and the Republicans. They have no excuses and can't hide behind Obama any longer.
Agreed.. And, *IF* it happens, Trump and the GOP will pay the price..
Let's see if the Republicans can govern.
Which is what I said in the immediate aftermath of Trump's decisive win..
Towhit.. The people giveth and the people taketh away...
Michale: how do you feel about Trump's tax cuts for the rich and the above numbers for average vs. median net worth in America?
I'll tell you how I feel about it *IF* it happens..
Just a heads up going forward...
I am not going to pay much attention to what Trump SAYS... Although that shouldn't prevent you from asking what I think.. :D
I am going to pay LESS attention to what the Left says Trump says...
The most attention will be paid to what Trump actually does...
The most attention will be paid to what Trump actually does...
Fair enough.
Forgetting Trump, because he at least is completely blameless for the huge disparity in this country.
The fact is that about 90% of the country has an individual net worth less that $350,000 (i.e. a family of 2 would have a new worth of $700,000, and a family of 4 abut $1.35M).
There are similar ratios for net income.
Couple this with the breakdown of communities, especially in rural areas.
What do you think should be done?
Here is my remedy:
1. Repatriate the trillions of offshore profits with a 20% one year amnesty followed by a windfall 40% the next year for companies that don't take advantage of the amnesty
2. Make two year community colleges free
3. Raise taxes on the rich significantly - 40% over $250,000, close the carried interest loophole and make the "Paris Hilton" tax 25% of all estates over $5M (with exemptions of multi-generational farms).
4. Raise the minimum wage to $15, index link it.
5. Remove the pensions plans for all national elected figures and also their healthcare. Give them $500/month to cover their healthcare insurance costs
6. Limit mortgage debt relief to $500,000 with an adjustment for high home price areas of up to 80% of the cost of the median home price.
That should make a significant dent in the imbalance we have.
I like 1 and 2...
I am in favor of revamping the tax code completely and go with a nearly flat tax...
The problem there is, like my Power From Subspace device, it puts a buttload of people out of work...
4, I am in favor of giving people incentives to work harder, not giving them a raise for the same amount of work.. I know we disagree, but some jobs just ain't worth $15p/h.... Living wage is communism...
5 sounds good to me...
6 is a bit over my head, economics wise..
I am in favor of revamping the tax code completely and go with a nearly flat tax...
We need call a bit more detail - where will the flat tax start?
$0
$50,000
$250,000?
How much will it be?
10%
20%
30%
I really don't like the flat tax idea because, while it will be good for me, it significantly shifts the tax burden onto the middle classes. You can't keep them out of it without having almost a 50% flat tax on over $250,000 unless you don't care about adding trillions onto the national debt.
I really don't like the flat tax idea because, while it will be good for me, it significantly shifts the tax burden onto the middle classes. You can't keep them out of it without having almost a 50% flat tax on over $250,000 unless you don't care about adding trillions onto the national debt.
This is why I don't like economics debates..
I am WAY out of my league... :D
4, I am in favor of giving people incentives to work harder, not giving them a raise for the same amount of work.. I know we disagree, but some jobs just ain't worth $15p/h.... Living wage is communism...
I think we are moving to a world where automation and robots eliminate most jobs anyway, we will either need a universal basic income or have a lot of people basically starving. In the interim, $15/hour will act as a platform where people expect to be paid more than $15/hour for non-entry level jobs. A rising tide and all that.
I think we are moving to a world where automation and robots eliminate most jobs anyway, we will either need a universal basic income or have a lot of people basically starving.
When that time comes and we're still kicking it, I'll be happy to revisit the issue...
In the interim, $15/hour will act as a platform where people expect to be paid more than $15/hour for non-entry level jobs. A rising tide and all that.
True... But a rising tide that rises TOO fast is called a tsunami...
And the destruction caused far outweighs ANY benefits...
True... But a rising tide that rises TOO fast is called a tsunami...
And the destruction caused far outweighs ANY benefits...
The minimum wage was, in real terms, about $11/hour in 1968 when the GDP was, in real terms, $4.5T.
Today the GDP is over $16.3T. Is we were to apply the increase in today's wealth to 1968 we should be around $33/hour.
So $15 doesn't seem so much to me.
True... But a rising tide that rises TOO fast is called a tsunami...
And the destruction caused far outweighs ANY benefits...
The minimum wage was, in real terms, about $11/hour in 1968 when the GDP was, in real terms, $4.5T.
Today the GDP is over $16.3T. Is we were to apply the increase in today's wealth to 1968 we should be around $33/hour.
So $15 doesn't seem so much to me.
If Clinton can hold a security clearance, there ain't NO LOGICAL or RATIONAL reason for Petreaus's not to be restored...
If Clinton could hold a clearance you would have a point but she can't so you don't.
If Clinton could hold a clearance you would have a point but she can't so you don't.
Actually she does...
As a former SecState, her security clearance is intact as far as I know...
So $15 doesn't seem so much to me.
Apparently, it does to the business owners who would have to pay it... :D
I don't have a dog in that hunt as I don't pay any employees.... Except the girl who sweeps my floors.. But i pay her in laptops and TVs.. :D
Top 0.1% of America holds same wealth as bottom 90%
http://ritholtz.com/2016/11/top-0-1-holds-amount-wealth-bottom-90/
I still don't understand why facts like these don't get people asking questions about how we are taxing the rich. Why did so many people vote for a party that insists it is going to lower taxes on the most wealthy and eliminate estate taxes?
I know the Democrats are not much better, but at least they have people like Elizabeth Warren trying to do something for the 90%.
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/25/us/politics/donald-trump-kt-mcfarland.html
Best.... Pick.... Ever......
Well, almost.. :D
Mattis, Patraeus are better picks, but still...
Also note that the top 9.9% excluding the top 0.1% have been fairly level at 55% of the wealth.
This means that:
1. The top 0.1% are the only group seeing increases in wealth
2. The rest of the top 10% are growing in pace with the economy
3. The bottom 90% are giving money so the top 0.1% can get richer
Paris Hilton says thanks to all the Firefighters, Cops, Teachers, etc. Any the Lawyers, Doctors are saying "I'm all right Jack".
Bewildering.
I know the Democrats are not much better, but at least they have people like Elizabeth Warren trying to do something for the 90%.
I think that's the problem..
People like Warren and Sanders talk the talk... But nothing ever changes..
So, either they are incompetent or are in on it...
It hardly matters now if he picks McFarland or a magic eight ball stuck on "Invade", given his other choices.
People like Warren and Sanders talk the talk... But nothing ever changes..
Republican House, Republican Senate. You want your boss to get another raise at your expense, just keep saying "But, but, email server."
I know - Trump will make all the difference. We'll give him a chance, but he seems to be lining up with the "trickle down" crowd at the moment at lease.
So, either they are incompetent or are in on it...
That may sound unduly harsh...
But, it's been 8 years... SOMETHING should have gotten better...
But, it's been 8 years... SOMETHING should have gotten better...
For the most part they are as venal as each other, but Elizabeth Warren did get us the CFPB, even though the price was that she was not allowed to head it up.
There are parts of Dodd-Frank that make sense as well.
But for 6 years we have had a lackluster Democratic Party and a virulently anti-Middle class Republican Party.
Now we have the same Republican Party, but Trump. I content he will line up with the "trickle down" crowd and things will get worse. You claim he is a whole new type of politician who will shake things up. I hope you are right, but I'm cynical. Particularly because of Trump's track record in business.
Actually she does...
As a former SecState, her security clearance is intact as far as I know...
Not unless she is working on an active project...Unless of course the normal rules don't apply. If one were to apply the rules that us normals have to follow she technically should of had her clearance stripped once it was determined she handled classified data in a negligent fashion.
Republican House, Republican Senate
Democrats had the House AND the Senate...
GOP obstructionism only explains so much...
Not unless she is working on an active project...Unless of course the normal rules don't apply.
That's kinda my point..
If the "normal" rules applied to Clinton, she would have been prosecuted..
No one else prosecuted for what Clinton did ever got a pass for "intent"... Because "intent" is not a requirement of the statute...
If one were to apply the rules that us normals have to follow she technically should of had her clearance stripped once it was determined she handled classified data in a negligent fashion.
I really need to FINISH a comment before I reply... :D
Agreed... :D
Here's a fable for you, the roots of which come from an old edition of Harlan Ellison's Dangerous Visions:
A Robot walks into a bar, looking to ask for directions. At the bar are several older men. As the Robot enters the room, one of the men says, "hey, I thought we didn't let his kind in here."
And then: "We got no jobs here for you to take, Robot." And then, "You ain't purdy enough to be a sex robot. Hey, you want some Robot sex? Lemme go out an' git my tire iron."
Some of the men get off their bar stools and the Robot backs up. It isn't programmed to react to threats, but it understands that its presence in this area isn't wanted. It attempts to negotiate: "I only seek directions to the nearest battery station. Then I shall leave."
One of the men says, "How about halfway up your metal ass, wire brain? How about you and your kind just turn yourselves off so that we can git our jobs back, huh?"
At this point the Robot turns to leave, and one of the men blocks his way and pushes his chest into the Robot. "Let it go, Dan", says the Bartender, and the man snarls as he steps aside.
The Robot returns to his vehicle, relieved, although a sense of physical danger is not supposed to be in its programming. Before it leaves, it thinks of the first principle taught to all Robots: "A Robot's only purpose is to make life easier for Humanity."
Here's a good opinion piece in the Times today by Paul Krugman about the changing economic landscape that the Trump folks are going to be fighting on, and if their campaign rhetoric is to be believed, against. Those heavy manufacturing jobs and mining jobs aren't coming back. Mining jobs are mostly history, being replaced already by remotely-controlled machines and mountaintop removal. And they know it: this study, which shows that 96% of all jobs in the mining industry can be replaced by automation was found on "mining.com".
The question is (paraphrasing Krugman), when Trump lies (or more precisely, bellows assertions) about being able to bring their jobs back, and they apparently know that it isn't true, why do they vote for him anyway?
Sorry, forgot to include the link to the Krugman Op-Ed:
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/25/opinion/the-populism-perplex.html
Those heavy manufacturing jobs and mining jobs aren't coming back.
Ya'all keep saying that....
Yet you offer nothing in the way of concrete factual support
There is absolutely NO REASON to think that these jobs won't come back, save the wishful thinking of the Left Wingery asking, in fact BEGGING, to be relevant once again....
And they know it: this study, which shows that 96% of all jobs in the mining industry can be replaced by automation was found on "mining.com".
"And if m' grandmother had wheels, she'de be a wagon..."
-Scotty
:D
There is a big... a HUGE difference.... between "can be" and "will be"....
and they apparently know that it isn't true, why do they vote for him anyway?
Obviously, what "they" know and what the Left THINKS it "knows" are two very different things...
The Left, in toto, has been fantastically wrong about everything Trump at every turn..
Why should we believe that they will, all of the sudden, start predicting things accurately???
It's a fair question.....
If the "normal" rules applied to Clinton, she would have been prosecuted..
And therein lies the rub...What Patreaus did was to some extent (according to the facts publicly presented in both cases ) worse than what Clinton did and as a result of his very light punishment ( if you can call it that) prosecuting Clinton became that much more difficult...
If normal rules were also applied to Patreaus he should have been reduced in rank, had his retirement severely penalized, his discharge status changed and a fairly lengthy prison sentence, as well as being convicted of a felony.
Since the rules were bent for one elite, they had to be bent for another...
The question is (paraphrasing Krugman), when Trump lies (or more precisely, bellows assertions) about being able to bring their jobs back, and they apparently know that it isn't true, why do they vote for him anyway?
But who wants to be foretold the weather? It is bad enough when it comes, without our having the misery of knowing about it beforehand. The prophet we like is the old man who, on the particularly gloomy-looking morning of some day when we particularly want it to be fine, looks round the horizon with a particularly knowing eye, and says:
“Oh no, sir, I think it will clear up all right. It will break all right enough, sir.”
“Ah, he knows”, we say, as we wish him good-morning, and start off; “wonderful how these old fellows can tell!”
And we feel an affection for that man which is not at all lessened by the circumstances of its NOT clearing up, but continuing to rain steadily all day.
“Ah, well,” we feel, “he did his best.”
For the man that prophesies us bad weather, on the contrary, we entertain only bitter and revengeful thoughts.
- Jerome K. Jerome, Three Men in a Boat
If you don't want to read "Three Men in a Boat", you can read some of the favorite quotes. This is a British classic that few people have heard of over here (even my wife who has an Eng. Lit. degree).
https://www.goodreads.com/work/quotes/4476508-three-men-in-a-boat
There is absolutely NO REASON to think that these jobs won't come back, save the wishful thinking of the Left Wingery..
Geez, I thought the Right were all believers in the free market, and Market Forces & all that. Tell me, then, Mr. Smith, what happens to jobs when cheaper, simpler, mechanical means to do those jobs are available? Even if Trump was to somehow pass a bill that said that Mining Companies couldn't use automated processes, the cost of taking coal out of the earth would then be to high to be competitive.
The Left, in toto, has been fantastically wrong about everything Trump at every turn. Why should we believe that they will, all of the sudden, start predicting things accurately?
The Left (and most of the establishment - i.e., educated - Right) have been right about Trump all along. He really is an ignorant boor. What all of the educated folks who voted against Trump in both parties have been wrong about is the capacity of the undereducated Right to vote against its own self-interest, and to be essentially deaf and blind in relation to the depth of Trump's incompetence. I keep getting lectured by Trump supporters about how he'll get the 'best people' to do the job for him, and then see him picking folks like Ben Carson, who has himself warned against putting him into a responsible position, Steve Bannon, who's irresponsibility as an editor should have barred him from holding any position of power, and Sen. Jeff Sessions, who still thinks that Marijuana is a weed sent by the devil to devour young minds. So far that's the brain trust Trump wants us to believe will make America Great Again, when it actually looks alot more like "Revenge of the Turds".
As for Petraeus, I don't think he could be confirmed, given his history of handing classified information to his mistress for pillow reading.
As for Petraeus, I don't think he could be confirmed, given his history of handing classified information to his mistress for pillow reading.
I hope he does. Then we get to replay all the hysterical nonsense about what Clinton didn't do (as the FBI proved, despite all their partisan attempts to try) about Petraeus.
It will be great fun. Michale is already in extreme reverse gear fanboy mode.
Those heavy manufacturing jobs and mining jobs aren't coming back.
Ya'all keep saying that....
Yet you offer nothing in the way of concrete factual support
Michale:
If you study the Chinese economy you'll see that they are overproducing in the major heavy industries, despite an attempt from Beijing to cut back production.
http://www.bbc.com/news/business-36099043
Steel is a good proxy for other heavy industries. Simply put, China can't cut production because they will create the same rustbelts that we have, except they don't have the escape of electing somebody that makes them feel good like Trump or Sanders who will tell them it is all going to come back.
The real problem here is India. They have no way of building a lower middle class via heavy industry - China has over invested, other countries are complaining about the lack of non-graduate jobs already, and their relatively open borders won't allow them to protect home grown companies, even if they could (which they can't).
We are moving to "Headquarters Economy" where only the ownership and support jobs are somewhat safe.
Michale wrote:
"Republican House, Republican Senate
Democrats had the House AND the Senate...
GOP obstructionism only explains so much..."
Democrats ONLY had the House and the Senate during the first two years of Obama's first term, OVER SIX years ago.
And in the Senate, you need MORE THAN majority control, you need SIXTY, 60, votes, to be able to get ANYTHING done over the other party's objection, UNLESS you do away with the filibuster entirely for everything. As the Republicans will also find out come January.
So actually GOP obstructionism actually explains just about ALL of it. As will Democratic obstructionism starting in January.
When it comes to manufacturing jobs, Trump is basically King Canute without the irony.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King_Canute_and_the_waves
So actually GOP obstructionism actually explains just about ALL of it. As will Democratic obstructionism starting in January.
I think the Republican's, citing the Democratic removal of the filibuster for federal judge appointments, will do away with the filibuster altogether,
Frankly I think this will be a good thing. With the exception of Supreme Court appointments, most decisions will have a limited lifespan. Like a parliamentary system, we will then have the possibility of seeing "the full monty" from whichever side gains power over all three of the House, Senate, and Presidency.
If Britain is anything to go by, the parties will overreach and be tempered by the next in power. Thus the finger pointing will have to stop. We will know exactly who is to blame for the state of the country.
http://www.economist.com/news/special-report/21710630-industry-already-suffering-upheaval-part-it-still-denial-tricky?fsrc=scn/fb/te/bl/ed/atrickytimeforoilproducers
An interesting read. As the glut in oil increases, but the demand for renewable energy grows, especially in countries with no fossil fuel reserves, the only viable reserves will be the cheapest - most likely the middle east basins.
As these reserves are locked out of major oil companies, they will have to follow two paths:
1. Technology to cut the price of e.g. fracking from the non-middle east reserves
2. Becoming renewable energy powerhouses
The key aspect to watch is long term investment. Any major project that is expected to break even in more than a decade will become increasingly difficult to fund. Thus a vicious cycle will develop, and the investment in renewables will become far less risky than trying to develop e.g. the Arctic reserves.
Watch for BP, Exxon, etc. to start branding themselves as energy companies rather than oil companies if the investment spigot starts to dry up.
If Britain is anything to go by, the parties will overreach and be tempered by the next in power. Thus the finger pointing will have to stop. We will know exactly who is to blame for the state of the country.
You've got a point, neilm, particularly if they do away with the filibuster. So, who will they blame when things go sideways, if the Democrats have been cut completely out? Trump. That's what this is - they're setting this guy up to take the blame for four to eight years of corporate pillaging. Couldn't happen to a nicer Stooge. I hope that we haven't started too many wars by then.
Watch for BP, Exxon, etc. to start branding themselves as energy companies rather than oil companies if the investment spigot starts to dry up.
http://cdn.slidesharecdn.com/ss_thumbnails/bp-in-canada384-thumbnail-4.jpg?cb=1281079902
Already happening. :)
Geez, I thought the Right were all believers in the free market, and Market Forces & all that. Tell me, then, Mr. Smith, what happens to jobs when cheaper, simpler, mechanical means to do those jobs are available?
What happens when this new horse-less carriage replaces the horse??
Answer: We'll deal with it when it happens.
It has been generally agreed here in Weigantia that the kind of jobs-disruptive automation you are describing is at LEAST a decade out, 2 years after Trump leaves office..
Plenty of those jobs are going to come back prior to that and even MORE jobs because it's going to required these kinds of experts to design the automation that will eventually take those jobs...
The Left (and most of the establishment - i.e., educated - Right) have been right about Trump all along. He really is an ignorant boor.
That's an opinion that, by definition, cannot be "right" or "wrong"..
And it's spin to say that the Left has been "right" about Trump all along.
That's like saying the Left has said that Trump is going to wake up every morning so the "the Left has been right about Trump all along.."
The Left has been WRONG about Trump since the first day he declared his candidacy... This is spin-less fact...
As for Petraeus, I don't think he could be confirmed, given his history of handing classified information to his mistress for pillow reading.
And Hillary should never have been running for President due to her careless way of dealing with classified material.. But that didn't bother you at the time..
Democrats ONLY had the House and the Senate during the first two years of Obama's first term, OVER SIX years ago.
And what did they accomplish with it??
Train Wreck Care....
That's it...
Holding the Democrats blameless doesn't help any claims of "independent thinking"...
So actually GOP obstructionism actually explains just about ALL of it.
So, when Democrats are completely in power, EVERY THING is the fault of the Republicans...
And when Republicans are completely in power, EVERY THING is the fault of the Republicans...
And you don't see the inherent illogic of such a position???
As will Democratic obstructionism starting in January.
And you'll be PERFECTLY ok with obstructionism then, right?? :D
When it comes to manufacturing jobs, Trump is basically King Canute without the irony.
Time will tell...
Trump may do exactly what he has claimed he will do with regards to jobs..
What then?? :D
As will Democratic obstructionism starting in January.
And you'll be PERFECTLY ok with obstructionism then, right?? :D
Obstructionism is great!!!
But *ONLY* when it supports yer Party agenda.. :D
Does that sum it up??
As will Democratic obstructionism starting in January.
So, what you are saying is that Democrats will oppose and obstruct everything President Trump does so as to ensure that Trump is a one-term president... Right?? :D
Of COURSE that is what Democrats will do.
That's the job of the minority Party..
I would expect nothing less...
But *ONLY* when it supports yer Party agenda..
When the party agenda happens to coincide with my personal set of beliefs, you betcha. The Republican Party has gone from crusading to dogmatic to obstructive to nihilistic in just the last four Presidential terms. Who knows, they may reach practical if they try, but I'm not holding my breath. I'd settle for 'rational', right now. I can find no reason to support 95% of what they say.
There are things that we could agree on, like infrastructure, but the first proposal out of the gate from the right last week was a hefty tax break for contractors instead of, say, actually building something, so we'll still have to find a beat that we can all dance to.
In the meantime, I'll encourage Democrats to resist whatever I deem wrongheaded, foolhardy, foolish, unwise or unfair. The founders of this country would expect nothing less of me. It's my patriotic duty.
I would expect nothing less...
No. I will be as pissed with the Democrats as I am with the Republicans if they adopt a scorched earth policy because Trump is President. By all means stop him e.g. wasting money on a stupid wall, or giving us another troglodyte like Scalia on the Supreme Court, but if he proposes, e.g. a plan to curtail prescription opioid abuse that is well thought out and effective I expect them to get on board, even if it is branded with a f'n brass Trump logo.
Don't assume everybody loves their party more than their country, even if we have just witnessed 8 years of this from people I brand as traitors.
The Left has been WRONG about Trump since the first day he declared his candidacy... This is spin-less fact...
All that the left has been wrong about is the number of marks in America. I personally didn't think so many people would fall for an obvious con man and crook.
When the party agenda happens to coincide with my personal set of beliefs, you betcha.
The problem arises when your personal set of beliefs are solely and completely based on your Party agenda..
Tunnelvision is the usual result..
In the meantime, I'll encourage Democrats to resist whatever I deem wrongheaded, foolhardy, foolish, unwise or unfair. The founders of this country would expect nothing less of me. It's my patriotic duty.
The problem, again, is that EVERYTHING the GOP does is "wrongheaded, foolhardy, foolish, unwise or unfair"....
It's a self-fullfilling...
GOP:
"You ALWAYS disagree with us"
Balthasar:
"That's because you are ALWAYS wrong.."
THAT is the problem..
You will disagree with everything the GOP stands for because the GOP is always wrong..
How is that any different than the mentality of a Righty...
"I will always disagree with everything the Democratic Party stands for because the Democratic Party is always wrong"
No difference.. Just change the Party designations and it's the EXACT same mentality..
All that the left has been wrong about is the number of marks in America. I personally didn't think so many people would fall for an obvious con man and crook.
And there again, is the EXACT same attitude that Balthasar has..
"*I* am right and the tens of millions of Americans who voted for Obama in 2008 and 2012 but voted for Trump in 2016 are wrong.."
And people accuse ME of arrogance.. :D
You cannot possibly conceive that those 10s of millions of Americans are right and you are wrong.. :D
Trump may do exactly what he has claimed he will do with regards to jobs..
What then?? :D
Then I'll happily call him a success. But here is how I judge people who make promises: do they have a viable plan to fulfill them. Trump wriggled out of his "I'll finish ISIS in 100 days with my secret plan" promise by saying that you don't tell the enemy what you are going to do. But what is his excuse for not having a plan to reverse the 40 years of capitalism that has laid waste to the rustbelt?
No plan, no credibility, unless you are in the market for the Brooklyn Bridge.
Where is the plan? Did I miss it?
Michale [85] - you're problem with this premise is that you project your worldview onto everybody else. Not everybody thinks like you do, thus not everybody who disagrees with you is the mirror image of you - swapping D for R, or left for right.
You cannot possibly conceive that those 10s of millions of Americans are right and you are wrong.. :D
I can. But where is the plan? What are the policies?
You cannot possibly conceive that those 10s of millions of Americans are right and you are wrong.. :D
It isn't 10's of millions who switched. It is hundreds of thousands at most. Also, most voted against DC because they felt ignored and forgotten.
Looks like Fidel took the Trump victory badly.
You cannot possibly conceive that those 10s of millions of Americans are right and you are wrong.. :D
But I have faith that if Trump does do right by this country and the American people, ya'all will grudgingly concede such.. :D
Looks like Fidel took the Trump victory badly.
heh
It isn't 10's of millions who switched. It is hundreds of thousands at most.
ToMAYtoe, PoeTAAtoe....
Also, most voted against DC because they felt ignored and forgotten.
And they believed Trump will change that.
And he just might....
But I have faith that if Trump does do right by this country and the American people, ya'all will grudgingly concede such.. :D
Yet you natter on about "Train Wreck Care" despite 20 million people getting healthcare, Trump doing a 180 on "repealing it on Day 1 and replacing it with something better", the sudden realization by Republicans that those with pre-existing conditions need to be protected and rich people like having their under 26-year-old college students kept on their plan for free, etc.
Show me the plan for something better than Obamacare - since you think it a train wreck, it should be easy to come up with something better.
A plan. You know, those things that allow you to judge a potential leader by.
But you are right, there are many people who are rooting for America, not rooting against a President they don't like. They are called patriots.
I can. But where is the plan? What are the policies?
It's been less than a month since Trump was elected..
Give him some time... At LEAST until he is actually IS President... :D
It's been less than a month since Trump was elected..
Give him some time... At LEAST until he is actually IS President... :D
So you think it works:
1. Become President
2. Think up a plan to:
a/ replace Obamacare
b/ reverse 40 years of Capitalism in the rustbelt
c/ tell the dumb generals my secret plan to eliminate ISIS
3. Then American will be great again.
And you wonder why I'm skeptical?
Yet you natter on about "Train Wreck Care" despite 20 million people getting healthcare,
Yea... Healthcare that is crappy and they can ill afford..
But you are right.. That IS a plus for TrainWreckCare..
But compared to ALL the negatives.....
TrainWreckCare is a disaster with 1 somewhat dubious plus..
AFFORDABLE Care Act.. Remember??
Trump doing a 180 on "repealing it on Day 1 and replacing it with something better",
He simply said he was going to retain the 2 bright spots of TWC... Which is a logical and rational response to reality.....
Obama said he was going to close Gitmo.. He gave up on doing so which was a logical and rational response to reality...
Show me the plan for something better than Obamacare - since you think it a train wreck, it should be easy to come up with something better.
There are a dozen plans offer'ed by Republicans that would be better than TWC.. Plans that actually ADDRESSED the problems of our health care system.. Problems that DEMOCRATS acknowledged as problems and said they would do something about. Tort Reform and Across State Lines Availability..
But Democrats ignored those problems because the people that own the souls of Democrats said NO...
But you are right, there are many people who are rooting for America, not rooting against a President they don't like.
There are?? Are they the hundreds that are rioting under the hashtag #NOTMYPRESIDENT??
The timeline is a bit fuzzy. According to a remarkably bullish report issued by Morgan Stanley in 2013, sometime between 2018 and 2022 cars will have “complete autonomous capability”; by 2026, “100% autonomous penetration” of the market will be achieved. A study by the market research firm IHS Automotive predicts that by 2050, nearly all vehicles will be self-driving; a University of Michigan study says 2030. Chris Urmson, who until recently was project manager of Google’s autonomous car division, is more circumspect.
Source: http://www.nybooks.com/articles/2016/11/24/driverless-intelligent-cars-road-ahead/
The problem here for car companies can be seen at a Thanksgiving conversation a few of us guys had (after a few beers). We all have more than two kids of driving age, and thus have fleets of 4-7 cars each. We all subscribed to the "Buy a good cheap car (e.g. a Honda Fit, Toyota truck, etc.) and get 250K from it over 25 years or so" school.
We all have independently decided that from now on we are leasing. We don't want to buy in to a 25 year commitment. Between electric cars and self-driving cars, the vehicles we will need in 10 years time will be radically different and so for the first time leasing is a better option than buying - we get to give the out-of-date car back to the dealer in 3-5 years time.
This is similar to the problem that oil companies will have trying to get investment money for fossil fuel projects that expect to come online in 10+ years time.
It is the long term investment money, be is buying instead of leasing a car, or investing in deep water or Arctic oil instead of wind, that will kill the existing companies. Watch the cost of money for large oil and car companies - when they are finding it more expensive to borrow, you can see a tipping point coming.
There are a dozen plans offer'ed by Republicans that would be better than TWC
Should be easy to point me to a few then. Which one does Trump endorse?
Should be easy to point me to a few then. Which one does Trump endorse?
The ones that address tort reform and across state lines availability...
If you want a researched answer, you'll probably have to wait til this evening..
The timeline is a bit fuzzy. According to a remarkably bullish report issued by Morgan Stanley in 2013, sometime between 2018 and 2022 cars will have “complete autonomous capability”; by 2026, “100% autonomous penetration” of the market will be achieved.
We will have flying cars by 2015
-BACK TO THE FUTURE, PART II
:D
Even if those predictions are accurate, which I highly doubt, it still won't be when Trump is in office...
Saying that automation will kill Trump's BRING BACK JOBS promise is nothing but wishful thinking...
Saying that automation will kill Trump's BRING BACK JOBS promise is nothing but wishful thinking...
Amend that to say:
Saying that automation will kill Trump's BRING BACK JOBS promise MAY BE nothing but wishful thinking...
My bust...
[39]
Michale -
And yet, tens of millions of two-time Obama voters voted for Trump...
How do you know that?
[41]
Michale -
4, I am in favor of giving people incentives to work harder, not giving them a raise for the same amount of work.. I know we disagree, but some jobs just ain't worth $15p/h.... Living wage is communism...
So you expect people to work full time while winding up homeless because they can't afford the rent and bills, then starving to death because they can't afford to feed themselves. A living wage is communism to your mind, but a death wage is free market patriotism and freedom. Right, got it.
The ones that address tort reform and across state lines availability...
I looked at the "state lines availability" a while ago - maybe I'm obtuse but I've yet to find an argument that it lowers costs.
What I find even more interesting is that tort reform is part of your Trump plan, given that Trump doesn't even mention it anywhere himself. Enacting tort reform is non-trivial, will have almost no impact on costs (fear of lawsuits is a bogeyman used to justify over prescription of treatment, not the cause), and will have no impact on the uninsured rate.
The key question will be the Medicaid expansion. This, more than anything else, has impacted the numbers of uninsured. Will Trump keep Obamacare's Medicaid expansion?
Even if those predictions are accurate, which I highly doubt, it still won't be when Trump is in office...
This was nothing to do with the earlier thread - my bad - I should have made that clear. I just thought it was interesting.
Mopshell,
And yet, tens of millions of two-time Obama voters voted for Trump...
How do you know that?
Because Trump won...
Trump could not have won if millions of Obama voters didn't vote for Trump..
This was nothing to do with the earlier thread - my bad - I should have made that clear. I just thought it was interesting.
My mistake...
I looked at the "state lines availability" a while ago - maybe I'm obtuse but I've yet to find an argument that it lowers costs.
Anything that increases competition lowers costs...
What I find even more interesting is that tort reform is part of your Trump plan, given that Trump doesn't even mention it anywhere himself
It's mentioned in the plans that Trump mentions...
Enacting tort reform is non-trivial, will have almost no impact on costs (fear of lawsuits is a bogeyman used to justify over prescription of treatment, not the cause), and will have no impact on the uninsured rate.
I disagree..
Fear of lawsuits is what drives malpractice insurance costs... MP insurance costs is a big part of doctor fees..
Lower the costs of malpractice insurance will lead to lower doctor fees...
Lower doctor fees will lead to more affordable health care...
So you expect people to work full time while winding up homeless because they can't afford the rent and bills, then starving to death because they can't afford to feed themselves.
If they are working and drawing a salary, the have enough $$$ to feed themselves...
Plus there are many MANY welfare programs that prevent people from starving to death..
If a person is working full time and drawing the current minimum wage and yet, STILL can't feed themselves.......
Well, the ONLY logical question is....
What are they doing with their income??
A living wage is communism to your mind, but a death wage is free market patriotism and freedom.
You are confusing EMPLOYMENT with WELFARE...
Why should an employer cover the welfare costs of the employees.
Why should patrons of that employer have to cover the welfare costs of the employees thru higher fees and prices??
If they are working and drawing a salary, they have enough $$$ to feed themselves...
Plus there are many MANY welfare programs that prevent people from starving to death..
You are confusing EMPLOYMENT with WELFARE...
If a person is working full time and drawing the current minimum wage and yet, STILL can't feed themselves..Well, the ONLY logical question is..
Why should patrons of that employer have to cover the welfare costs of the employees thru higher fees and prices?
Hey! I see you're in the Holiday spirit. The only things missing from that rant is the part about..
"Are there no work houses? Perhaps they should die and decrease the surplus population!"
..and you'd have a perfect Ebenezer Scrooge.
But then you'd have to be visited by three ghosts on Christmas eve. Let's see.. Paula, who would show you the generous spirit of past Christmases, then neilm, who would tell you what the numbers look like today, and then...Altohone, who would tell you what the future looks like if you don't change your ways...
Do you really want to face that now, or will you relent, and just admit that if Bob Cratchet works his heart out for you, the least you can do is pay him a wage that he can feed his family with, and be able to afford some minimal health insurance so that Tiny Tim (with his pre-existing condition) might have a fighting chance of not ending up in an ER on some cold winter's night..
Hey! I see you're in the Holiday spirit. The only things missing from that rant is the part about..
I am discussing the issue from a standpoint of logic....
If you want to switch to hysterical emotionalism, why didn't you say so?? :D
But then you'd have to be visited by three ghosts on Christmas eve. Let's see.. Paula, who would show you the generous spirit of past Christmases, then neilm, who would tell you what the numbers look like today, and then...Altohone, who would tell you what the future looks like if you don't change your ways...
Hay... As long as they bring beer, I'll meet with anyone.. :D
and just admit that if Bob Cratchet works his heart out for you, the least you can do is pay him a wage that he can feed his family with, and be able to afford some minimal health insurance so that Tiny Tim (with his pre-existing condition) might have a fighting chance of not ending up in an ER on some cold winter's night..
No.. Because that's welfare, not employment..
Why should an employer fund the welfare program??
That's what our taxes pay for...
Now, if you want to exclude employers who provide welfare for their employees from paying taxes, I am sure such a quid pro quo would be open for discussion.. :D
https://theintercept.com/2016/11/26/washington-post-disgracefully-promotes-a-mccarthyite-blacklist-from-a-new-hidden-and-very-shady-group/
Oh how the mighty have fallen....
The Leftist MSM is so desperate to cast doubt on Trumps unexpected win, they resort to blatant McCarthyism....
Sad....
Michale:
2012:
Obama: 65,915,795
Romney: 60,933,504
2016:
Hillary: 64,156,255
Trump: 62,238,425
At most 100,000's switched from Obama to Trump. Nowhere near 10's of millions.
Do you make things up like this yourself, or are you quoting from some bubble media site?
From the article that you just [115] linked to at "theintercept" (whoever that is):
"News sites that do not uncritically echo a pro-NATO perspective are accused of being mouthpieces for the Kremlin, even if only unwitting ones."
Wait a minute. "Pro-NATO?" Was there a moment when we became "anti-NATO"? After all, it's our club, and we're the perpetual president. The idea of us being anti-NATO is ludicrous.
What it does look like is the Right trying to mask or divert attention from the fact that the Kremlin did in fact meddle in our election on behalf of Trump, an effort that included spreading disinformation through a large number of outlets. Far more than should have been, in fact. Once upon a time, that fact would have drawn outrage, not apologists.
The proposition they endorse, vis a vis Russia, is the equivalent to dropping our gloves to our waist. Is that what Stallone would do? I can't believe that any self-respecting conservative would endorse this nonsense at all.
The Leftist MSM is so desperate to cast doubt on Trumps unexpected win, they resort to blatant McCarthyism....
So Michale you disagree that Russian sponsored players posted any fake news stories or participated in online discussions?
Just want you on the record for this one.
A living wage is communism to your mind, but a death wage is free market patriotism and freedom.
You are confusing EMPLOYMENT with WELFARE...
Why should an employer cover the welfare costs of the employees.
Why should patrons of that employer have to cover the welfare costs of the employees thru higher fees and prices??
The reason that employers should pay a living wage is that if they don't then the government has to pay the difference. This allows rapacious employers to pay as little as possible and rely on taxpayers to cover the rest of the salary and benefits for their employees. Frankly, I'm fed up paying taxes so the Walton family can get richer off of my dime. If they had to pay real wages then my taxes, or the deficit, or both could go down.
The reason that employers should pay a living wage is that if they don't then the government has to pay the difference.
Yea.. In the form of WELFARE...
Exactly...
This allows rapacious employers to pay as little as possible and rely on taxpayers to cover the rest of the salary and benefits for their employees.
This assumes that the employer is NOT paying a fair salary for the work involved..
Assumes facts not in evidence...
Frankly, I'm fed up paying taxes so the Walton family can get richer off of my dime.
Then fight to get families OFF welfare and back to work and fight to maximize punishments for welfare fraud and fight to prevent people who habitually use drugs from obtaining welfare..
Those items will massively reduce the taxpayer bill..
Looks like Hillary is going to sore-loser route....
:(
And here I thought we would have an ADULT end-of-election...
Is locking her up still an option???
Then fight to get families OFF welfare and back to work and fight to maximize punishments for welfare fraud and fight to prevent people who habitually use drugs from obtaining welfare..
Those items will massively reduce the taxpayer bill..
Welfare fraud is a small part of the problem, but the real money is in welfare supplementation of living wages. It is a bit like complaining that your defense gives up 10 points per game when your offense scores nothing. If you are the offense, you want the focus to be on the defense, but really the problem is elsewhere.
This type of bait and switch has been used to confuse uneducated voters by the right wing bubble for at least 25 years. I just don't get it. Why don't you just get a decent offense, so to speak.
Trust me, I'm virulently anti-union and I come from a background that looks with scorn at laziness, but I can also spot a bunch of rich whiners who can afford to own the media when I see it.
Wise up Michale, you claim to have $15 to your name. The average wealth per person in this country is $325K and 90% have less than that.
Read the damn Credit Suisse Global Wealth Report and the data book that backs it up (check above for links) and tell me things are equitable in this country.
Then fight to get families off welfare and back to work and fight to maximize punishments for welfare fraud and fight to prevent people who habitually use drugs from obtaining welfare..
Those items will massively reduce the taxpayer bill..
Welfare fraud is a small part of the problem, but the real money is in welfare supplementation of living wages. It is a bit like complaining that your defense gives up 10 points per game when your offense scores nothing. If you are the offense, you want the focus to be on the defense, but really the problem is elsewhere.
This type of bait and switch has been used to confuse uneducated voters by the right wing bubble for at least 25 years. I just don't get it. Why don't you just get a decent offense, so to speak.
Trust me, I'm virulently anti-union and I come from a background that looks with scorn at laziness, but I can also spot a bunch of rich whiners who can afford to own the media when I see it.
Wise up Michale, you claim to have $15 to your name. The average wealth per person in this country is $325K and 90% have less than that.
Read the Credit Suisse Global Wealth Report and the data book that backs it up (check above for links) and tell me things are equitable in this country.
Then fight to get families off welfare and back to work and fight to maximize punishments for welfare fraud and fight to prevent people who habitually use drugs from obtaining welfare..
Those items will massively reduce the taxpayer bill..
Welfare fraud is a small part of the problem, but the real money is in welfare supplementation of living wages. It is a bit like complaining that your defense gives up 10 points per game when your offense scores nothing. If you are the offense, you want the focus to be on the defense, but really the problem is elsewhere.
This type of bait and switch has been used to confuse voters by the right wing bubble for at least 25 years. I just don't get it. Why don't you just get a decent offense, so to speak.
Trust me, I'm virulently anti-union and I come from a background that looks with scorn at laziness, but I can also spot a bunch of rich whiners who can afford to own the media when I see it.
Wise up Michale, you claim to have $15 to your name. The average wealth per person in this country is $325K and 90% have less than that.
Read the Credit Suisse Global Wealth Report and the data book that backs it up (check above for links) and tell me things are equitable in this country.
http://www.kansascity.com/opinion/opn-columns-blogs/syndicated-columnists/article116731403.html
Trumpland vs. California. My money is on California. I feel sorry for the rest of the country. Plus the drought is easing. And Trump will depress investment in the rest of the country, making California even more attractive to the best and the brightest. Maybe we need a wall between Washington, Oregon, California and the rest of the country. We should make Trump to pay for it.
;)
[108]
Michale -
And yet, tens of millions of two-time Obama voters voted for Trump...
How do you know that?
Because Trump won...
Trump could not have won if millions of Obama voters didn't vote for Trump..
So this is just your assumption. You don't have any polls or surveys or any actual evidence to back it up.
Why did you not assume that most Obama voters stayed at home and that Trump inspired a whole bloc of brand new voters to register and come to the polls?
[111]
Michale -
If they are working and drawing a salary, the have enough $$$ to feed themselves...
Let's see if your "logic" stands up to scrutiny.
As we all know, Paul Ryan's budget includes abolishing the minimum wage. This means that companies like Walmart can introduce a $1-$2 an hour wage, commensurate with the skill levels of most positions (Walmart does not require skilled workers in any of their non-executive positions).
A person working a full 40-hour week will therefore earn between $40 and $80 a week. But what if they work an extra 20 hours on top of that? They'd then earn $60 - $120 a week.
But these would be gross figures, before taking out tax. What percentage do you think a flat tax will be? Let's estimate on the low side and say 20% flat tax for everyone.
So now the Walmart workers will be earning $32-$64 after tax for a 40-hour week; $48-$96 for a 60-hour week.
What is your average grocery bill for the two of you in a week? Subtract that and tell me what these people will have left over for rent, bills etc. because you are claiming that under the republicans, this will be enough to cover rent, transportation costs to and from the job, plus bills and food costs.
Plus there are many MANY welfare programs that prevent people from starving to death..
Paul Ryan has been upfront with the fact that the welfare net will be abolished in order to free up funds for other budget items. So there will be no food stamps (which Walmart employees currently rely on to make ends meet and Walmart, to give them their due, assists all new employers in applying for benefits like food stamps.)
So I'm assuming you must be talking about private welfare programs. As these private programs can barely cope with the number of needy now, I doubt that they'll cope with many tens of millions more workers who suddenly find themselves needing assistance when all government welfare programs cease.
If a person is working full time and drawing the current minimum wage
Let's pause there for a moment because I'm sure you must know that Paul Ryan and the tea partiers in particular are very strong proponents of abolishing the minimum wage and that it is baked into Ryan's budget. Trump will have no hesitation in signing this since he has articulated his position as "Our wages are too high."
You must have heard too that, when the minimum wage is abolished, Walmart (which has lobbied for this for many years now) intends leading the way by setting its wages commensurate with skill levels required in the job - no skills at all in most cases. Currently, at the minimum wage of $7.45 an hour, an employee lucky enough to work 40 hours (most only get 15-25 hours a week) earns $238 a week after taxes. Walmart says this is too much to pay someone who tidies a shelf, stands behind a counter or sweeps the floor so when the minimum wage is abolished, they will be adjusting their wage levels down to level they consider appropriate.
Therefore, arguing based on the current minimum wage is not representative in any way of what wages will be next year.
In order to be consistent with the new republican budget, due this coming January, it's redundant to include in your argument a minimum wage that will not exist from January 2017 onwards.
What are they doing with their income??
The relevant question some January will be: "What will they do with their income?"
You tell me what people can do on an income of $32-$64 working a full-time 40-hour week.
[112]
Michale -
Why should an employer cover the welfare costs of the employees.
Why should patrons of that employer have to cover the welfare costs of the employees thru higher fees and prices??
I never said they should. You assumed something I certainly did not mean.
A living wage is communism to your mind, but a death wage is free market patriotism and freedom.
You are confusing EMPLOYMENT with WELFARE...
No, Michale. A wage is what is paid to an employee. That is EMPLOYMENT not WELFARE. A living wage is one that provides a full-time employee with a wage they can live on without needing welfare of any kind.
A death wage, which you favor along with republicans, is a wage that cannot cover the most basic of necessities like shelter, clothing and food.
I guess the good news for the working poor will be that the new Secretary of Education is in favor of abolishing child labor laws so children can also be sent out to work to pay for themselves. That will not only lighten the burden on their parents but also have the advantage of giving them something constructive to do when Ms DeVos abolishes all public schooling and their parents can't afford private education.
What Mr Reich us saying is that how things are done locally can be done nationally with the same success....
So, using that logic.....
We have Chicago which has some of the strictest gun laws on the planet and yet has some of the highest violent crime and murder rates on the planet...
Then you have open carry states that have some of the lowest violent crime and murder rates on the planet..
So, using Reich logic, the entire country should become an open carry country..
Well, all right.. I can get behind that.. :D
OR MAYBE.......
Maybe what works in California is unique to California and cannot be applied in Kansas or Texas....
And, let's not fool ourselves.. California has some major MAJOR issues.... Why do you think there is a push to make Hollywood a ghost town tourist trap and do all serious filming and TV/Movie work out of Canada???
High Taxes.....
I could go on and on about the faults of California... Literal and figuratively... :D But the point is clear... When one cherry picks data, one can make just about any case they want to...
So this is just your assumption. You don't have any polls or surveys or any actual evidence to back it up.
There is plenty of empirical data that shows that..
But none of it is really needed....
How else could Trump have won??
Why did you not assume that most Obama voters stayed at home and that Trump inspired a whole bloc of brand new voters to register and come to the polls?
I am sure that is part and parcel to Trump's victory..
But only a part.. The internet is replete with reports of former Obama relaying that they voted for Obama last time but Trump this time.. And WHY they did it...
As we all know, Paul Ryan's budget includes abolishing the minimum wage.
It does???
'Bout time!!!! :D
This means that companies like Walmart can introduce a $1-$2 an hour wage, commensurate with the skill levels of most positions
Exactly.. You don't pay someone $15 p/h simply for doing the equivalent work of breathing...
But what happens to WalMart when they can't find anyone to work for such a low wage??
They have to offer a competitive wage or go out of business...
You tell me what people can do on an income of $32-$64 working a full-time 40-hour week.
Tell ya what.. When that actually happens, I can promise you a detailed plan on how to deal with it...
But I don't have to worry about coming up with a plan because that will never happen...
Welfare is not going to be abolished.. Min Wage is not going to be abolished. It's also not going to be raised to obscene heights either...
Employment is not welfare... The pay for a job should be solely and completely based on the parameters of the job, the skills/training required for the job and what the business itself can tolerate...
Too high a pay and the business goes bankrupt and everyone is out of a job.. Too low a pay and the business can't find good quality people and the business goes bankrupt and everyone is out of a job...
I never said they should. You assumed something I certainly did not mean.
You may not have meant to say it, but that IS what you are saying..
Basing pay on the needs of the employee rather than the needs of the business is not employment. It's welfare...
A living wage is one that provides a full-time employee with a wage they can live on without needing welfare of any kind.
But that is simply impossible to quantify...
Like I pointed out before, that would mean the pay for a job would vary wildly based on who has that position... A single mother of 4 would get a LOT more pay than a single guy living at home with his parents for the *EXACT* same work...
How fair is that???
Basically the concept you are floating is From each according to their abilities, to each according to their needs
And THAT is communism..
A business simply cannot be run that way and expect to stay in business...
I have no problem expanding welfare to cover the increases in COLA expenses..
But forcing small business to go OUT of business serves no useful purpose..
A death wage, which you favor along with republicans, is a wage that cannot cover the most basic of necessities like shelter, clothing and food.
If one job can't cover the expenses, then take two jobs.. Life isn't handed to people on a silver platter... I worked THREE jobs AND went to school...
It's a real simple concept.. Want more pay?? Work harder...
There is simply no way anyone can convince me that employment wages should be based on the NEEDS OF THE EMPLOYEE...
That's simply ridiculous...
When you enlist in the military, one concept is drilled into you..
The needs of the military is the very first priority...
The same concept applies in business..
If the needs of the business aren't Priority One, then the business goes under..
And then MORE people are jobless...
neilm wrote:
"I think the Republican's, citing the Democratic removal of the filibuster for federal judge appointments, will do away with the filibuster altogether."
Actually, it doesn't look like they will AT ALL.
Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) has already thoroughly rejected that approach. “That’s a horrible, terrible idea,” he said after an off-camera briefing with reporters in the Capitol.
Asked if he’d vote against the effort if it came to the Senate floor, he said he would “in a heartbeat.”
Just three Republican “no” votes would stop the measure from passing.
Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) may also have put a dagger in the scheme.
Asked by The Huffington Post about ending the filibuster, he was blunt.
“Are you kidding?” he said with some vehemence. “I’m one of the biggest advocates for the filibuster. It’s the only way to protect the minority, and we’ve been in the minority a lot more than we’ve been in the majority. It’s just a great, great protection for the minority.”
If the Left really wants to make it's mark, it's time to change focus..
The poor have plenty of safety nets.. The poor don't NEED any help..
It's the Middle Class that is getting squeezed and knocked around..
The poor are going to vote Democrat no matter what the Democratic Party does... Their votes are secure...
If the Democratic Party wants to ever have a majority or the White House ever again, they need to make inroads with the Middle Class...
The min wage issue has absolutely NOTHING to do with the Middle Class... It's a "feel good" issue that won't help the Democratic Party one iota when it comes to voters...
Michale wrote:
"Yea... Healthcare that is crappy and they can ill afford.."
ACTUALLY, it is NEITHER. As I have already TOLD YOU from my own personal experience. I GET OBAMACARE which covers all my needs for only 69 dollars a month. IT's GREAT, NOT crappy at all, and EASILY AFFORDABLE.
"He simply said he was going to retain the 2 bright spots of TWC... Which is a logical and rational response to reality....."
The TWO bright spots you mention are 1) the provision keeping young adults on their parent's plans until they are 26 and 2.) Keeping people like ME with pre-existing conditions from being denied coverage.
BUT what you FAIL to mention is that the ONLY things that keep these two things possible ARE, because of the cost to the insurance companies, which is why this grand bargain was struck in the first place.... are REQUIRING everyone to buy insurance thru a penalty if they don't, which by the way, WAS A REPUBLICAN HERITAGE FOUNDATION IDEA to begin with, and FEDERAL Government subsidies so people like me can actually AFFORD to BUY health insurance.
TAKE away the SUBSIDY and the MANDATE, and you LOSE the pre-existing condition and 26 year old options, because they then become UNSUPPORTED and NOT AFFORDABLE for the insurance companies, and the whole thing collapses like a HOUSE of CARDS. That is why the REPUBLICANS HAVE NO REPLACEMENT PLAN.
Michale wrote:
"Plus there are many MANY welfare programs that prevent people from starving to death.."
ACTUALLY, this is NOT ENTIRELY TRUE either. This is why, even though we have Food Stamps, we still also have food pantries, food banks, and churches giving out food. Because the government doesn't DO ENOUGH. What the government does provide, is still not enough to help people through the end of the month. If the government would simply fund SNAP benefits at an adequate level, you would not have the need for all these other additional resources.
This is ALSO ONLY TRUE for SOME PEOPLE. If you are FEMALE, and HAVE children, then yes, you do get GENEROUS welfare benefits. BUT, if you are a SINGLE male, for example, YOU DON'T. I know women with children who get 600 to 700 dollars a month for food. But I have a single male friend who is disabled and only gets 100 dollars a month for food. That lasts him maybe one and a half weeks. He should be getting at least four times that amount without having to rely on additional charity which may or may not be available in order to not starve the remainder of the month.
Also, by the way, whenever his disability check gets a slight increase, his food stamp allowance is CUT by a similar amount. So how is that FAIR or how does that HELP??? Many disabled veterans are in the same boat.
John[135]
Precisely.
Michale, this is easy stuff to understand. It's not rocket science, in other words.
There is no way on earth that Trump understands the healthcare system, number one. Or, number two, that he has any viable plan to repeal and replace Obamacare. This is quite obvious every single time he opens his mouth to talk about it.
http://nypost.com/2016/11/26/can-this-man-save-the-democrats/
When identity politics is job #1, Democrats lose elections...
It's that simple....
Here is an interesting piece in the New York Times about how a guy changed his mind about being a white nationalist.
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/26/opinion/sunday/why-i-left-white-nationalism.html?action=click&pgtype=Homepage&clickSource=story-heading&module=opinion-c-col-left-region®ion=opinion-c-col-left-region&WT.nav=opinion-c-col-left-region
Michale wrote:
"Then fight to get families OFF welfare and back to work and fight to maximize punishments for welfare fraud and fight to prevent people who habitually use drugs from obtaining welfare..
Those items will massively reduce the taxpayer bill.."
LIKE you are so fond of saying Michale, ASSUMES FACTS NOT IN EVIDENCE. RICK SCOTT already tried some of this in Florida, remember??? The number of drug users that he caught, by having everyone drug tested in order to get food stamps, was actually so LOW a number, that the testing actually COST MORE MONEY than it saved in terms of the number of benefits it reduced being paid out.
ACTUALLY, this is NOT ENTIRELY TRUE either. This is why, even though we have Food Stamps, we still also have food pantries, food banks, and churches giving out food. Because the government doesn't DO ENOUGH.
Actually, you prove my point is EXACTLY true...
I said that there are plenty of Welfare Programs.. I didn't specify solely government programs..
Churches, food pantries, all the things you list prove that what I said was dead on.. No one will starve to death unless they CHOOSE to starve to death..
Also, by the way, whenever his disability check gets a slight increase, his food stamp allowance is CUT by a similar amount. So how is that FAIR or how does that HELP??? Many disabled veterans are in the same boat.
Yer preaching to the choir on that point... My daughter gets SSI for our oldest grandson who has epilepsy.. But her food stamps are dinged... That makes absolutely no sense to me...
Michale wrote:
"The poor have plenty of safety nets.. The poor don't NEED any help.."
AGAIN, assumes facts not in evidence. AND, what little safety net there is, will be shredded if Paul Ryan gets his way.
What should happen, in fact, is to expand many of those same benefits, to the LOWER MIDDLE CLASS, like it is in Canada and Europe, something which has NOT YET been done here in the USA, instead of continuing to LOWER taxes on the SUPER WEALTHY who don't need yet MORE tax relief piled on top of what they have already been given.
Liz,
There is no way on earth that Trump understands the healthcare system, number one.
That didn't stop Obama from screwing it up so badly...
Or, number two, that he has any viable plan to repeal and replace Obamacare.
https://www.google.com/search?sourceid=chrome-psyapi2&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8&q=GOP%20plans%20to%20replace%20Obamacare&oq=GOP%20plans%20to%20replace%20Obamacare&aqs=chrome..69i57j0l2.6655j0j4
Take your pick..
There are a buttload of GOP plans to replace TrainWreckCare.. The best ones are the ones that actually address things that CAUSE the high cost of healthcare..
Ya know.. The things that Democrats SAID they would address but then reneged because they are bought and paid for by the lawyer and insurance company lobbyists...
LIKE you are so fond of saying Michale, ASSUMES FACTS NOT IN EVIDENCE. RICK SCOTT already tried some of this in Florida, remember??? The number of drug users that he caught, by having everyone drug tested in order to get food stamps, was actually so LOW a number, that the testing actually COST MORE MONEY than it saved in terms of the number of benefits it reduced being paid out.
Poor execution of the right idea.. :D
AGAIN, assumes facts not in evidence. AND, what little safety net there is, will be shredded if Paul Ryan gets his way.
Assumes facts not in evidence... :D
You and I both know that Republicans simply are not going to gut welfare.. President Trump won't let them..
What should happen, in fact, is to expand many of those same benefits, to the LOWER MIDDLE CLASS, like it is in Canada and Europe,
The US has responsibilities that Canada and Europe don't have, hence the US is not in a position to be a Canada or a Europe...
Take your pick
A google search link? Are you bloody kidding me, Michale!?
See, even you can't tell me why, in one or two simple sentences how the Republicans plan to replace and repeal.
Because, there is no such VIABLE plan.
John has provided us with the basics of what makes a healthcare system work. You need to do the same with regard to the Republicans' many plans if you want us to take you seriously in a discussion like this.
Are there problems with Obamacare? Absolutely, positively, unequivocally. Of course there would be with a system that doesn't go nearly far enough in addressing a very problematic US healthcare system.
The reality is that the only way you are going to have a healthcare system that works adequately for everyone is to go the single-payer route.
The US has responsibilities that Canada and Europe don't have, hence the US is not in a position to be a Canada or a Europe...
Oh, I can't wait for you to elaborate on that one, Michale!
Michale wrote:
"There are a buttload of GOP plans to replace TrainWreckCare.. The best ones are the ones that actually address things that CAUSE the high cost of healthcare.."
AND things like health care savings accounts like the Republicans propose, do NOTHING if you can't AFFORD to set money aside in savings to BEGIN WITH. Just like being able to buy a health insurance plan from Texas if you live in Florida, does NOTHING if you don't get a subsidy any longer from the government to be able to afford it IN THE FIRST PLACE. At least, not a plan that covers ANYTHING and that has a deductible so high as to make it VIRTUALLY MEANINGLESS anyway. And this is the BETTER REPUBLICAN plan you are touting??? REALLY???
OBAMACARE addresses the lack of access thru subsidies and Medicaid expansion. Those are the ONLY things that made any real difference. SOMETHING ALL the REPUBLICAN plans DON'T DO, and actually DO AWAY WITH.
I don't care how much the Republican plans might address future cost increases. They mean NOTHING if they don't HELP people PURCHASE health care insurance RIGHT NOW. Something they can't do unless they HAND PEOPLE A CHECK.
John,
Would you agree that the single-payer model is really the only workable solution to a very problematic healthcare system, with or without Obamacare?
See, even you can't tell me why, in one or two simple sentences how the Republicans plan to replace and repeal.
I already have... A plan that addresses Tort Reform and Across State Lines Availability...
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/powerpost/wp-content/uploads/sites/47/2016/06/ABetterWay-HealthCare-PolicyPaper.pdf
Because, there is no such VIABLE plan.
As compared to what?? TrainWreckCare???
That's a pretty low bar for viability, don'tcha think?? :D
Oh, I can't wait for you to elaborate on that one, Michale!
Two words.. Superpower....
HOw does a superpower have a sub-par healthcare system?
AND things like health care savings accounts like the Republicans propose, do NOTHING if you can't AFFORD to set money aside in savings to BEGIN WITH. Just like being able to buy a health insurance plan from Texas if you live in Florida, does NOTHING if you don't get a subsidy any longer from the government to be able to afford it IN THE FIRST PLACE.
But if the plan is low enough, due to market competition, you don't NEED subsidies... That's the beauty of it.. :D
OBAMACARE addresses the lack of access thru subsidies and Medicaid expansion.
And yet, TrainWreckCare is in a death spiral...
A healthcare program is no good if it's not viable...
I don't care how much the Republican plans might address future cost increases. They mean NOTHING if they don't HELP people PURCHASE health care insurance RIGHT NOW. Something they can't do unless they HAND PEOPLE A CHECK.
That's the claim..
Yet, it's a bona fide FACT that the Democrat's idea, IE TrainWreckCare... DOESN'T WORK....
HOw does a superpower have a sub-par healthcare system?
A Superpower has an extended set of responsibilities that precludes it from being a socialist "paradise" for healthcare...
Would you agree that the single-payer model is really the only workable solution to a very problematic healthcare system, with or without Obamacare?
Then have the Democratic Party fight for Single Payer.. Shut down the government if that's what it takes...
Elizabeth [148]: I agree with you, single payer is the best system. Big Deal. Fortunately:
TRUMP: “I am going to take care of everybody. I don't care if it costs me votes or not. Everybody's going to be taken care of much better than they're taken care of now.”
PELLEY: “The uninsured person is going to be taken care of. How? How?”
TRUMP: “They're going to be taken care of. I would make a deal with existing hospitals to take care of people. And, you know what, if this is probably—”
PELLEY: “Make a deal? Who pays for it?”
TRUMP: —the government's gonna pay for it.
And he has said the same thing four other times at least:
Source: http://ijr.com/2016/02/537107-5-times-donald-trump-praised-socialized-healthcare/
What do ya'all think about Hillary not accepting the election results and pushing for recounts???
I already have... A plan that addresses Tort Reform and Across State Lines Availability...
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/powerpost/wp-content/uploads/sites/47/2016/06/ABetterWay-HealthCare-PolicyPaper.pdf
Michale: Did you actually read this plan?
Firstly, do a search for tort reform. Oops, it isn't there. There is no part of the plan that identifies it.
This is a plan for well off people. I have this plan and it is fantastic. I can afford $29,000/year in out of pocket costs if I we need medical care or drugs (High Deductible part plus plus copays) and I have an HSA where I can park $6,600/year tax free to cover the deductible and more. My company offers an HMO, and regular plan and this plan. Because thank the gods, my family have no pre-existing conditions, this plan is the cheapest because I can afford the high deductible, and I get a $3,000+/year tax break from it.
I'm the person this plan is designed for. If I couldn't afford $29,000/year out of pocket, or anybody had a pre-existing condition I'd be much better off with the regular PPO, or if I was less well off, the HMO. This is a Paul Ryan plan for Paul Ryan's people. Most of the rest of the country, who can't afford $29,000/year if they have a medical emergency, would be hosed if this was the choice.
You gotta wise up about this one Michale.
What do ya'all think about Hillary not accepting the election results and pushing for recounts???
Asinine.
That's my word for it, too.
Most of the rest of the country, who can't afford $29,000/year if they have a medical emergency, would be hosed if this was the choice.
Oh, BTW, that is $29,000 PLUS the premiums, which for me are about $20,000/year. Fortunately my company covers 60% of that, and I get another $3,000 from the HSA tax break.
Paul Ryan's plan costs about $49,000/year per family if you need medical, about $17,000/year ($20,000-$3,000 HSA tax break) if you don't.
Neil,
Michale: Did you actually read this plan?
I just picked one at random to counter the claim that Republicans don't have any plans.
They do.. Ya'all might not like them, but they DO have plans..
TRUMP: “As far as single payer, it works in Canada. It works incredibly well in Scotland.
My family is from Scotland. Trump is right. Basically everybody is forced to pay insurance in the form of regular taxes, then the best healthcare that can be bought at reasonable prices is delivered to everybody. There are always whiners, but if you tried to take away the NHS there would be a revolution.
My sister is the top lobbyist for drug companies at the Scottish Parliament. Unlike here, the health system sits down with the drug companies and tells them the price they are willing to pay. If the drug companies don't like it, they can take a hike. Scotland can afford to do this because they know the drug companies see Scotland as basically free incremental revenue. The reason it is free is that the drug companies own Washington DC and make the U.S. consumer cover all the research and development costs, and take a healthy profit. Scotland gets a free ride, and would say thanks, but since we voted for Trump they just laugh at us. They hate Trump in Scotland because of the lies he told about his development projects over there.
What do ya'all think about Hillary not accepting the election results and pushing for recounts???
Asinine.
Liz: That's my word for it, too.
Agreed...
Well, ya'all are positively no fun... :D
They do.. Ya'all might not like them, but they DO have plans..
I have a plan to buy an island in the Caribbean and another in Hawaii. The plan also involves flying my personal rocket ship to the moon every weekend.
I have other plans too. I have lots of plans.
I just picked one at random to counter the claim that Republicans don't have any plans.
Comments like that imply that you think we are a bunch of idiots, Michale ...
Well, ya'all are positively no fun... :D
You ain't seen nothing yet ...
I just picked one at random to counter the claim that Republicans don't have any plans.
Actually, the claim was that Trump doesn't have a plan, or if he does, it is a wildly articulated single payer plan.
My family is from Scotland. Trump is right. Basically everybody is forced to pay insurance in the form of regular taxes, then the best healthcare that can be bought at reasonable prices is delivered to everybody. There are always whiners, but if you tried to take away the NHS there would be a revolution.
But I am sure you would agree that Scotland is not the US..
What may work grandly there would be an unmitigated disaster here...
But I am sure you would agree that Scotland is not the US..
What may work grandly there would be an unmitigated disaster here...
C'mon fanboy, it was Trump that used Scotland as an example - did you not see the quote?
So Trump is wrong?
They do.. Ya'all might not like them, but they DO have plans..
I'm pretty much guaranteed to love any Republican plan from a financial perspective. But I have kids who won't be able to afford it when they turn 26 and I want them to have medical coverage to. Plus I like to think of myself as somebody who cares about the poor, and I've not seen a Republican plan yet that is good for them.
And on a larger note, it is not good for me personally if I'm surrounded by sick people who can't afford coverage. Or if people are going bankrupt out of the blue because they or a loved one gets an expensive condition.
I struggle to see where anybody wins from a repeal of Obamacare, unless, like Trump has frequently stated himself, it is to introduce a single payer scheme.
So Trump is wrong?
If Trump is saying that works in Scotland will work in the US....
Yes.. Trump is wrong...
Me: I want my own personal rocket ship to take me to the stars and back
Santa: Be reasonable Neil
Me: OK, I want Trump to be as good a President as Obama.
Santa: What color of rocket ship?
hehehehehehe
Now THAT was funny... :D
Trump surprised you about winning the GOP Nomination...
Trump surely surprised you about actually BECOMING President..
So, precedent IS well established that Trump COULD surprise you about being a better President than Obama..
Granted, that's a very low bar, but.... :D
Actually, the claim was that Trump doesn't have a plan, or if he does, it is a wildly articulated single payer plan.
Actually, the claim was both...
I have already debunked the "GOP HAS NO PLAN" claim..
I read that Trump favors one of the plans I listed in the Google link..
Once I find that article, I'll point out the plan...
http://www.tennessean.com/story/news/politics/2016/11/20/rep-phil-roe-wrote-blueprint-obamacare-repeal/94074994/
That wasn't it.. :^/
Take your time, Michale ... we are, quite obviously, a patient lot.
:-)
Roe's plan is light on detail and heavy on promises.
Frankly, if it increases the number of people covered, keeps costs down and forces insurance companies to cover pre-existing conditions, I'm for it.
As far as I can see, the government is on the hook for pre-existing conditions, so this looks like the insurance companies get to cover the profitable citizens and the government is on the hook for the expensive ones. Also, it assumes that everybody can afford to pay the premiums (tax breaks only work if you pay Federal income tax, which 45% of people (the poor and the very rich like Trump) don't pay.
This looks like it will either be a boondoggle for the insurance companies, or result in a lot of people losing their coverage, from what we can make out from the details provided.
This looks like it will either be a boondoggle for the insurance companies, or result in a lot of people losing their coverage, from what we can make out from the details provided.
In other words, no different than TrainWreckCare.. :D
Take your time, Michale ... we are, quite obviously, a patient lot.
:-)
Ya'all would HAVE to be, considering ya have been dealing with me for over a decade.. :D
In other words, no different than TrainWreckCare.. :D
Insurance companies hate Obamacare - why do you think they feed disinformation into the right wing bubble?
Here is a rule of thumb that has help up for decades: if insurance companies are feeding obvious nonsense into the Fox News bubble, it probably means their feet are being help to the fire. If they are on board with a plan it probably stinks for the poor and those with pre-existing conditions.
help -> held
Phil Roe's Healthcare Plan:
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/414808/conservative-alternative-obamacare
Basically it is the same as the Ryan plan you posted earlier. It is the only one I've seen. The key provisions are:
1. Eliminate state boundaries - this is unlikely to have any impact on costs, but why not, it can't hurt in any way I can determine, unless it allows large "confusopolies" to develop, such as we have with cable companies.
2. Tax breaks for everybody - this only applies to the small subset of people who pay enough Federal taxes and who don't get their healthcare through their job for this to have an impact. It will also need to be funded, or will increase the National Debt - needless to say there is nothing in the plan explaining how this will be offset. Little or no impact for 90%+ of people.
3. Small business pools - why not just add this to Obamacare? It might have some impact, but as usual the impact isn't detailed, so who knows.
4. Transparency - we already have transparency - all you have to do is look at your insurance claims, or even better, use the insurance companies tools that allow you to compare costs between hospitals and doctors. But there are a few problems that make this sound a lot better than it is:
i/ If you are in an emergency situation, you don't have time to pick your doctor or hospital
ii/ Understanding costs up front are devilishly difficult. A hospital visit for even a simple procedure will result in charges from the hospital, the doctors (often many), incidentals, different levels of co-payment, in or out of plan, etc. I just went through this with one of my kids who was assigned an anaesthesiologist who was out of plan even though the hospital and the primary doctors were in the plan. It was a royal pain to get the cost covered.
iii/ Doctors and hospitals don't make it easy to see the costs up front, for obvious reasons. The first question they ask is who your insurance company is, because they have different contracts with each, sometimes different prices for different plans with the same company.
5. HSAs - these are bandied about as some sort of miracle cure. I've had one for years and it is great for saving on taxes, but that it about it. If you can't adequately fund your pension, you probably can't adequately fund an HSA.
I confidently predict a repeal of Obamacare will increase costs and decrease the number of people covered. It will also cost the government more as the people thrown off of their plans will not get preventative care (a $5 to $1 savings) and will resort to ER where hospitals really rack up the profits at the government's expense. Insurance companies will get to drop unprofitable patients unless they are forced to (they are businesses after all).
Comments getting caught in the nanny filter again CW. That is two today and for the life of me I can't figure out why.
Unless you are letting Michale program it again ;)
Comments getting caught in the nanny filter again CW. That is two today and for the life of me I can't figure out why.
Any URLs???
Unless you are letting Michale program it again ;)
heh
Only one URL. Both were longwinded, as is my character when I get on my high horse about something.
Suffice to say they would have destroyed all your arguments and you would have rushed to WI to help Hillary in the recount ;)
What do ya'all think about Hillary not accepting the election results and pushing for recounts???
Asinine.
CONSPIRACY THEORY:
http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2016/11/the_democrats_real_strategy_in_launching_recounts.html
Comments??? :D
Only one URL. Both were longwinded, as is my character when I get on my high horse about something.
use tinyurl.com to shorten the URL... 9 times out of 10, that bypasses the NNL filter...
Suffice to say they would have destroyed all your arguments and you would have rushed to WI to help Hillary in the recount ;)
Now I just GOTTA see this!!! :D
I think it is an attempt to delegitimize Trump. He can hardly object, having been the major protagonist in the birther conspiracy.
It is probably just the start of a series of attacks against him. His unwillingness to separate his business from official duties will open him up to a lot more.
Plus he seems determined to piss the press off. That isn't going to help.
He is an easy and very unsympathetic target. This isn't likely to be a fun time for him.
He is an easy and very unsympathetic target. This isn't likely to be a fun time for him.
Probably not.. But I am willing to bet that Trump has a thicker skin then most people think....
I personally believe that Trump's thin-skin'ed persona is just that. A persona cultivated to accomplish a specific mission...
"Ogres are like onions.. They have layers..."
"What about cake!! Cake has layers!! Everybody loves cake!"
-SHREK
:D
I think it is an attempt to delegitimize Trump.
Something VERY similar to saying, "our intent is to make the president a one-term president", don'tcha think??? :D
Something VERY similar to saying, "our intent is to make the president a one-term president", don'tcha think??? :D
Yes. But is this the policy of the Democratic leadership - Pelosi/Schumer? Do they intend to block every piece of legislation, regardless of it's value to the U.S.?
I personally believe that Trump's thin-skin'ed persona is just that. A persona cultivated to accomplish a specific mission...
I don't. I think he is a child man. Almost everybody who has dealt with him over decades has said the same thing.
TRUMP TWEET:
In addition to winning the Electoral College in a landslide, I won the popular vote if you deduct the millions of people who voted illegally
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/802972944532209664
Trump must demand a recount! If the Democratic criminal element are allowed to get away with this then who knows what they will do in future elections. Trump owes it to himself and his voters to demand a thorough investigation of every vote cast.
In addition to winning the Electoral College in a landslide, I won the popular vote if you deduct the millions of people who voted illegally
This man has real problems. He just can't take not getting everything his way. Sad!
Your All American iPhone:
https://www.technologyreview.com/s/601491/the-all-american-iphone/
Yes. But is this the policy of the Democratic leadership - Pelosi/Schumer? Do they intend to block every piece of legislation, regardless of it's value to the U.S.?
Betcha they will... :D
I don't. I think he is a child man. Almost everybody who has dealt with him over decades has said the same thing.
ANd yet, he has still been so successful...
And funny thing about "almost everybody" saying that...
It only comes out *AFTER* Trump runs for President...
Just like Palin. Palin was THE best governor in the entire country, lauded by Republicans and Democrats alike..
Right up until she was selected as GOP VP...
THEN she became the spawn of Lucifer..
Funny how that ALWAYS is that way, eh? :D
That's why I don't put too much stock in those claims. Because it's obvious that they are nothing but partisan motivated..
That's why I don't put too much stock in those claims. Because it's obvious that they are nothing but partisan motivated..
Same thing about the George Zimmerman accusations..
Same thing about the accusations against Trump for sexual harassment and assault etc etc..
We only hear about all the alleged bad stuff AFTER something happens that the Left doesn't like..
You notice ALL the "victims" of Trump assaults have completely disappeared...
There's no real facts to any of it..
It's all nothing but a partisan agenda at work...
The National Association of Police Organizations is among those urging Mr. Trump to support legislation on a national level that would make the murder or attempted murder of a police officer a federal crime.
“At one level it would send a powerful message that this president is saying this Justice Department is different — they stand up for the men and women of law enforcement,” Mr. Johnson said. “Given the current climate and the tacit support by the administration of these violent protests, that would be a powerful change.”
-http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/nov/27/police-hopeful-donald-trump-will-usher-in-new-era-/
Now THAT is what I would like to see....
http://www.bostonglobe.com/opinion/editorials/2016/11/27/choose-not-offended-and-you-should-too/EAd9cQM6maMkDmu8itj0NN/story.html#comments
"There can be no offense where none is taken."
-Sarek Of Vulcan
TRUMP TWEET:
In addition to winning the Electoral College in a landslide, I won the popular vote if you deduct the millions of people who voted illegally
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/802972944532209664
Trump must demand a recount! If the Democratic criminal element are allowed to get away with this then who knows what they will do in future elections. Trump owes it to himself and his voters to demand a thorough investigation of every vote cast.
Trump's claim of illegal voters, while credible*, is as assinine as Hillary's & Stein's demand for a recount...
*'credible' defined as 'wouldn't surprise me'...
Just like Palin. Palin was THE best governor in the entire country, lauded by Republicans and Democrats alike..
Yeah, not so much. Please list quotes from senior politicians "lauding" Palin.
Crickets.
The National Association of Police Organizations is among those urging Mr. Trump to support legislation on a national level that would make the murder or attempted murder of a police officer a federal crime.
Michale, you specifically said, when I urged this exact point, that I was missing the special circumstances of targeting.
You really need to be consistent.
I have to admit.. I kinda enjoyed the last couple weeks of Clinton-free news...
Ah well.. All good things must come to an end... :D
Michale, you specifically said, when I urged this exact point, that I was missing the special circumstances of targeting.
You really need to be consistent.
Not sure what you mean??
Mike Pence, leading by example in not being offended:
Mike Pence not Being Offended by P#$$y Grabbing:
“As a husband and father, I was offended by the words and actions described by Donald Trump in the eleven-year-old video released yesterday. I do not condone his remarks and cannot defend them,” Pence said in a statement.
Mike Pence not being offended by claims of voter suppression:
“That’s offensive to me, that kind of language. It’s not our operation,” Pence denied.
Mike Pence not being offended by LGBT Community:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_Freedom_Restoration_Act_(Indiana)
Fish. Barrel. Shotgun.
Regardless of my views on the death penalty, if we are going to have an enhanced sentence for cop killing, the method of killing is unimportant to me. Ambush, heat of the moment, attempt to prompt Blue suicide - I'd make the enhanced penalty apply to all.
But yet, you agree with Hate Crime laws which amount to the same thing...
Enhanced charges due to the specifics of the crime, ie SPECIAL CIRCUMSTANCES
For me, it's simple.. If a scumbag is robbing a bank and shoots a cop in the commission of a robbery, the cop is no less dead, true...
But when a cop is targeted, ambushed and executed, that is an attack on society as a whole... It demonstrates an intent to attack society not found in the heat of the moment attacks on LEOs...
As such, I believe it warrants the Special Circumstances designation that would make an automatic death penalty warranted...
http://www.chrisweigant.com/2016/11/18/ftp416/#comment-88956
Yeah, not so much. Please list quotes from senior politicians "lauding" Palin.
Crickets.
If I could figure out how to GOOGLE by date, showing you would be easy..
I had read many articles in 2008 about how Palin was the nation's top governor in approval ratings, how she was applauded by Democrats for taking on entrenched Republican corruption..
But all of that came to an end, once Palin was nominated for GOP VP....
Just as we never heard anything bad about Trump (beyond the tabloids) until Trump ran for President.. Then all of the bad things came out of the woodwork... Only to disappear again once Trump won the election..
That's why it's hard to take any accusations from the Left seriously..
Cause the facts clearly show that they are based on a partisan agenda...
Re #207...
And that is inconsistent with comment #199 exactly how??
Mike Pence, leading by example in not being offended:
This isn’t a column about politics, but during the recent “Hamilton” kerfuffle, Vice President-elect Mike Pence provided a pitch-perfect demonstration of how not to take offense. He didn’t bristle or fume when he was booed by audience members and pointedly addressed by the cast during the curtain call. “I wasn’t offended,” he said afterward. He praised the “great, great show” and the “incredibly talented” cast, and made clear that actor Brandon Dixon’s impassioned statement from the stage didn’t trouble him.
“I nudged my kids,” Pence told Fox News, “and reminded them, ‘That’s what freedom sounds like.’?”
:D
But all of that came to an end, once Palin was nominated for GOP VP....
Your memory might not be perfect, remember "Troopergate", which was before she was picked as VP and saw her ratings drop dramatically?
Mike Pence has made a career out of being offended, so not being offended once is like Jeffrey Dalmer not eating somebody.
And that is inconsistent with comment #199 exactly how??
Me: All cop killings should be treated equally.
Michale: No, special circumstances for targeted killings
NAPO: Make any murder of police office federal crime
Put your detective hat on and see if you can spot the difference.
Your memory might not be perfect, remember "Troopergate", which was before she was picked as VP and saw her ratings drop dramatically?
Yes, no one is perfect... :D
Yet, those with a '-D' after their names get a pass.. :D
Me: All cop killings should be treated equally.
Michale: No, special circumstances for targeted killings
NAPO: Make any murder of police office federal crime
Put your detective hat on and see if you can spot the difference.
Ahhh.. I see..
I was talking about the "federal crime".. I am still working on getting Trump to make ambushing a cop automatic death penalty...
Mike Pence has made a career out of being offended,
All politicians make a career out of being offended...
But it's the Left Wingery who has elevated being offended to an art form..
Microaggressions??? Safe Spaces??
Ring any bells?? :D
Yet, those with a '-D' after their names get a pass.. :D
No, just like those with a -R after their name aren't all minor deities ;)
All politicians make a career out of being offended...
Yup.
No, just like those with a -R after their name aren't all minor deities ;)
Agreed... :D
Paris (AFP) - President-elect Donald Trump's big-spending plan and tax cuts are expected to help double the US economic growth rate by 2018, the OECD said Monday.
The US economy will grow by 2.3 percent in 2017 and 3.0 percent in 2018, said the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development, revising its earlier forecast.
That compares to gross domestic product growth of 1.5 percent this year, according to the OECD.
https://www.yahoo.com/news/trump-election-points-us-growth-boost-oecd-105313461.html
Not even in office and Trump is already making America great again!! :D heh
Paris (AFP) - President-elect Donald Trump's big-spending plan and tax cuts are expected to help double the US economic growth rate by 2018, the OECD said Monday.
Where is the money going to come from? When Obama proposed an infrastructure bill the Republicans blocked it because they claimed it was unfunded. What is the difference now? A -R after the name in the White House?
Where is the money going to come from? When Obama proposed an infrastructure bill the Republicans blocked it because they claimed it was unfunded. What is the difference now? A -R after the name in the White House?
For the Republicans in Congress??
Probably...
For me?? Because it's Trump!! :D
Michale,
I'm a little confused about something and you are the perfect one to help me understand ...
President-elect Trump is criticizing the Stein camp for requesting recounts of the vote in three states. But, he also said that he would have won the popular vote if millions of people hadn't voted illegally.
Why isn't he demanding recounts if he really believes there was massive voter fraud?
Oh, wait ...
Predata is a big data analytics startup that uses big data and predicted Brexit, attacking on oil facilities in North Africa, Putin's military provocations and large currency moves this year. They analyzed why their model called a tight Clinton win. The key point was they underestimated the data from alt-right racists websites, tweets, online stories, etc.
They have adjusted their model to accept higher racist voting patterns from the "seamier, populist corners of the Internet."
Why isn't he demanding recounts if he really believes there was massive voter fraud?
It seems the word "asinine" is becoming increasingly useful across the political spectrum.
I'm a little confused about something and you are the perfect one to help me understand ...
President-elect Trump is criticizing the Stein camp for requesting recounts of the vote in three states. But, he also said that he would have won the popular vote if millions of people hadn't voted illegally.
Why isn't he demanding recounts if he really believes there was massive voter fraud?
Oh that's easy...
For the same reason that Camp Clinton wouldn't have called for a recount if THEY had won.. :D
It seems the word "asinine" is becoming increasingly useful across the political spectrum.
No doubt :D
The key point was they underestimated the data from alt-right racists websites, tweets, online stories, etc.
Which just feeds the Left Wingery nonsense that it was the "racist" vote that gave Trump the White House..
It's funny because those "racist" voters went for Obama in 2008 and 2012... :D
Let me ask ya'all something..
If Hillary had won and (O)BLM fanatics held rallies and celebrated her win by beating up white people....
Would the Left have held Hillary responsible??
Nope, they wouldn't...
Trump has resoundingly denounced the "alt right" (funny how the Left has to make up new names for the same old bigoted shit) as deplorable...
What more does the Left want??
No, no, no Michale, you missed the point ...
It's the contradiction in what Trump is saying ...
On the one hand, he is criticizing the recount efforts and, on the other hand, he is saying that there was massive fraud.
If he thinks there is massive fraud, then he should welcome a recount that will, presumably, prove that he won the popular vote.
Am I right or am I right ... to be confused?
In short...
Can we agree that Trump is not responsible for the actions and statements of the "alt right" scumbags any more than Hillary would be responsible for the actions and statements of the (O)BLM scumbags...
It's funny because those "racist" voters went for Obama in 2008 and 2012... :D
This is not holding up to scrutiny. The racism was directed at Latinos, not blacks. Also the numbers of switch voters is not proven, simply and assumption by the Trump campaign.
"alt right" (funny how the Left has to make up new names for the same old bigoted shit
The "alt-right" was a self selected name, as "white supremacists" or "racists" was deemed unpalatable for some reason. Don't start the whole "climate change" vs. "global warming" nonsense again with the "alt-right".
https://www.skepticalscience.com/climate-change-global-warming.htm
This is not holding up to scrutiny. The racism was directed at Latinos,
As has been well-established, there was no racism..
There was bigotry towards ILLEGAL immigrants, but that is a bigotry that is readily understandable and a bigotry I share...
The "alt-right" was a self selected name, as "white supremacists" or "racists" was deemed unpalatable for some reason.
Cite??
Because the first time we have heard it, it came from Camp Clinton...
If he thinks there is massive fraud, then he should welcome a recount that will, presumably, prove that he won the popular vote.
Probably because Trump feels that getting on with the business of the country is more important than figuring out who won the Vanity Vote...
I happen to agree with that sentiment..
Don't start the whole "climate change" vs. "global warming" nonsense again with the "alt-right".
What nonsense?? I just love to point out how the Left just loves their marketing and focus groups.. :D
Also the numbers of switch voters is not proven, simply and assumption by the Trump campaign.
Facts show the numbers of switch voters...
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2016/live-updates/general-election/real-time-updates-on-the-2016-election-voting-and-race-results/map-the-obama-voters-who-helped-trump-win/
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/11/16/us/politics/the-two-americas-of-2016.html?mc=aud_dev&mcid=fb-nytimes&mccr=NovHighMC&mcdt=2016-11&subid=NovHighMC&ad-keywords=AudDevGate
THAT says it all about the election of Trump.. :D
“Millions of Obama voters voted for Trump (six states who twice went for Obama switched to Trump). Did they suddenly become racists in the past four years? The blame-the-racists (the fools, the yokels) narrative generates a clear demarcation between good (us) and evil (them), but it does violence to the truth. It also obscures an important root of racism—anger displaced away from an oppressive system and its elites and onto other victims of that system. Finally, it employs the same dehumanization of the other that is the essence of racism and the precondition for war. Such is the cost of preserving a dying story. That is one reason why paroxysms of violence so often accompany a culture-defining story’s demise.”
http://charleseisenstein.net/
Genesis of the term alt (alternative) right was in 2010 when Richard Spencer started the "Alternative Right" magazine.
Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alternative_Right
Probably because Trump feels that getting on with the business of the country is more important than figuring out who won the Vanity Vote...
That would be a little more convincing if he wasn't running his mouth off about how he won except for the imaginary illegal votes :)
That would be a little more convincing if he wasn't running his mouth off about how he won except for the imaginary illegal votes :)
Yea, I know.. I had to raise my watch cuz my BS was getting to high.. :D
Genesis of the term alt (alternative) right was in 2010 when Richard Spencer started the "Alternative Right" magazine.
Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alternative_Right
But as far as Weigantia is concerned, it started with Camp Clinton...
But as far as Weigantia is concerned, it started with Camp Clinton...
What I mean by that is that the first mention of "Alt Right" to denote "irredeemable deplorables" here in Weigantia came from Camp Clinton.
[225]
Michale -
Why isn't he demanding recounts if he really believes there was massive voter fraud?
Oh that's easy...
For the same reason that Camp Clinton wouldn't have called for a recount if THEY had won.. :D
You're assuming facts not in evidence, Michale. Stop with the fantasizing and stick to the known facts.
FACT: Trump claimed he would have won the popular vote if it hadn't been stolen from him by "millions of people who voted illegally."
FACT: He is not demanding a recount to prove he's right.
FACT: He is not supporting Stein's recount
Why is he not demanding a recount and supporting the partial recount by Stein if he honestly believes he is right?
Suspect Identified in Ohio State Attack as Abdul Razaq Ali Artan
http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/suspect-dead-after-ohio-state-university-car-knife-attack-n689076
Yea... Let's bring in all the refugees that we possibly can..
What could POSSIBLY go wrong?? :^/
Michale,
These are isolated incidents and not a reason to suspend the entry of refugees.
In fact, I would argue that it is a good time to talk about the US letting in far more refugees than it has thus far from the Middle East and North Africa.
These are isolated incidents and not a reason to suspend the entry of refugees.
I disagree.. That's EXACTLY the reason to suspend entry of refugees.. Until such time as they can be determined to be not a threat to Americans..
In fact, I would argue that it is a good time to talk about the US letting in far more refugees than it has thus far from the Middle East and North Africa.
Yea, like I said.. What could go wrong??
Oh, besides dead Americans, I mean.. :^/
We can ask the families of those attacked how THEY feel about it, eh??
Why is he not demanding a recount and supporting the partial recount by Stein if he honestly believes he is right?
Who cares about the Vanity Vote???
It won't change anything..
Sure, Trump can mouth off about it all he wants.. That doesn't cost anything or waste any time...
Why won't Democrats support a recount in the North Carolina Governor race??
They are trying to shut down the recount there...
The VERY first priority of government is to protect it's citizens...
How can anyone reconcile this NUMERO UNO priority with allowing refugees, refugees that are a PROVEN threat to Americans, entry into this country?
Iranian vessel points weapon at U.S. helicopter: officials
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-iran-helicopter-idUSKBN13N27C
Sink the first couple.. Word will spread...
How can anyone reconcile this NUMERO UNO priority with allowing refugees, refugees that are a PROVEN threat to Americans, entry into this country?
How can anyone reconcile this NUMERO UNO priority with allowing anybody to buy a high powered armaments and have no checks on sanity or intent?
Sink the first couple.. Word will spread...
Why do you think they are provoking us Michale? What do you think they want us to do?
Why do you think they are provoking us Michale? What do you think they want us to do?
We are doing EXACTLY what they want us to do...
Stand by impotently and take it, thereby showing the world that the US can be pushed around and threatened and absolutely NOTHING will happen..
Basically, Iran is bullying the US and the world is laughing...
Bloody the bully's nose (IE sink a couple) and the threats and pushing around stops...
How can anyone reconcile this NUMERO UNO priority with allowing anybody to buy a high powered armaments and have no checks on sanity or intent?
2nd Amendment...
Maybe you have heard of it...
Stand by impotently and take it, thereby showing the world that the US can be pushed around and threatened and absolutely NOTHING will happen..
Basically, Iran is bullying the US and the world is laughing...
Which will cease after 20 Jan 2017.. Because President Trump's and SecDef Mattis' military simply won't stand for it...
Weapons lock demonstrates clear intent...
2nd Amendment...
Maybe you have heard of it...
Which is second. NUMERO UNO is first. So your guns are more important than somebody's kids lives?
Democrats don’t see a need to change policy – just the way they sell it
Read more here: http://www.mcclatchydc.com/news/politics-government/congress/article117525968.html#storylink=cpy
Yep.... Just as I predicted...
There is nothing wrong with our message.. The American people LOVE our message.. It's just our messaging that's the problem..
-The Democratic Party
Well, I tried to help...
The Dems just guaranteed a GOP majority and POTUS for the remainder of my life....
And, since I plan to live forever... :D
Which is second. NUMERO UNO is first. So your guns are more important than somebody's kids lives?
How was this latest scumbag stopped??
By a man with a gun....
So.... Yea....
Basically, Iran is bullying the US and the world is laughing...
Who's laughing?
They are trying to make us out to be savages. The Revolutionary Guard, prompted by the Iranian hardliners want to create a situation where we are attacking them and they can claim self defense. They can easily build bomb proof bunkers and develop their nuclear program there, but if they do it without provocation then they risk renewed sanctions from Europe, Russia, China, etc.
Nobody is laughing at us, they know we have the strongest military in the world and a few PT boats aren't going to inflict any meaningful damage to us. They are watching to see how smart we are.
This is the adult world that seems to be beyond Trump and the diminutive chest thumpers he is surrounding himself with.
There is nothing wrong with our message.. The American people LOVE our message.. It's just our messaging that's the problem..
-The Democratic Party
No amount of lipstick will make this pig look good..
Democrats need to change their message or they will be the minority Party in perpetuity....
How was this latest scumbag stopped?? By a man with a gun....
By a cop with a gun.
Q: How many kids have been killed this year by firearms?
A: http://www.gunviolencearchive.org/reports/child-injured-killed
Who's laughing?
The world..
Iran is being a bully..
Appeasing bullies and turning the other cheek simply invites more bullying and an escalation in bullying..
Stopping it now actually is the better choice to de-escalate the situation...
It's the difference between living in the REAL world and living in a fantasy utopia where everyone is reasonable and rational...
By a cop with a gun.
Man....Cop.. A distinction without a difference...
It could have easily been a carrying civilian..
The point is, a man with a gun prevented more loss of life...
Q: How many kids have been killed this year by firearms?
A: http://www.gunviolencearchive.org/reports/child-injured-killed
How many have been killed by cars??
BAN CARS!!!!
Notice that the refugee scumbag didn't have a gun.. Yet he was able to inflict a whole lot of misery and pain and was STOPPED by a man with a gun..
Guns simply are not the problem.... People who want to kill WILL kill...
Open carry states have some of the lowest violent crime and gun crimes in the country..
Areas that have the STRICTEST gun laws are a shithole of gun violence...
These are the facts that no one on the Left will concede...
Guns are NOT the problem...
If Trump Were A Democrat, He’d Be A Hero
I find the insistence of many liberals now that Clinton won the popular vote to be annoying. Yeah, she did, and maybe the Electoral College needs scrapping, I dunno. The much more important point is that Hillary Clinton, the very embodiment of Establishment Washington, lost the presidency to Donald Trump. Donald Trump! That’s a message that shakes both the Democratic Party and the establishment of the Republican Party to their cores. Whether you like Trump or not, you have to admit that his was a breathtaking achievement.
http://www.theamericanconservative.com/dreher/if-trump-were-a-democrat-hed-be-a-hero/
Yep.. yep....
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2016/11/29/ohio-state-police-officer-hailed-hero-for-quick-reaction-to-campus-attacker.html
When a University cop kills a scumbag to save his life, Campus Cops are denigrated as "glorified security guards" and "cop wannabees"....
When a University cop kills a scumbag to save other lives, Campus Cops are hailed as heroes...
Sometimes I just hate the hypocrites.. :^/
Donald Trump therefore enters the Oval Office with an underestimated advantage. Obama’s foreign policy has been a failure, most obviously in the Middle East, where the smoldering ruin that is Syria—not to mention Iraq and Libya—attests to the fundamental naivety of his approach, dating all the way back to the 2009 Cairo speech. The President came to believe he had an ingenious strategy to establish geopolitical balance between Sunni and Shi’a. But by treating America’s Arab friends with open disdain, while cutting a nuclear deal with Iran that has left Tehran free to wage proxy wars across the region, Obama has achieved not peace but a fractal geometry of conflict and a frightening, possibly nuclear, arms race. At the same time, he has allowed Russia to become a major player in the Middle East for the first time since Kissinger squeezed the Soviets out of Egypt in the 1972-79 period. The death toll in the Syrian war now approaches half a million; who knows how much higher it will rise between now and Inauguration Day?
Meanwhile, global terrorism has surged under Obama. Of the past 16 years, the worst year for terrorism was 2014, with 93 countries experiencing an attack and 32,765 people killed. 2015 was the second worst, with 29,376 deaths. Last year, four radical Islamic groups were responsible for 74 per cent of all deaths from terrorism: ISIS, Boko Haram, the Taliban, and al-Qaeda.9 In this context, the President’s claims to be succeeding against what he euphemistically calls “violent extremism” are absurd. Much opprobrium has been heaped on Donald Trump in the course of the past year. But there was much that was true in his underreported August 15 foreign policy speech on the subject of Islamic extremism and the failure of the Obama Administration to defeat it.
http://www.the-american-interest.com/2016/11/21/donald-trumps-new-world-order/
The whole article is a fascinating read from the mind of Dr Henry Kissinger...
http://www.denverpost.com/2016/11/25/we-need-trumps-wall-both-physical-and-psychological/
Yep.. Make E-Verify mandatory... Stiff penalties for employers who hire illegals and bypass checks..
This SHOULD have bi-partisan support.. Every Weigantian SHOULD support these measures...