Messages

1

General Comments / Re: Holy......

« on: November 23, 2016, 07:28:22 PM »

Which begs the question, who exactly are "we" to begin with?  The original 1989 writers were the elected reps of the states that had just defeated the British Empire, or so they could llausibly imagine.  Dissolve the constitution today and what unites us?

The "We" of now is not the same as it was in 1789.  I think we have moved well past the idea that we are a nation of individuals collected into states to now being a confederation of states and leagues of rival interests with membership.  If we were to rewrite the Constitution, it wouldn't be that people's rights would be either raised or lowered, but less important than what those other entities would demand and receive.  If you believe that the federal government is too powerful, you're in luck but then you'll have to contend with every state individually.  Choose where you live wisely, not because you were born there or were offered a job there.  Your freedoms and security will depend on that choice.

2

General Comments / Re: Obamacare Predictions for May 2015

« on: November 23, 2016, 02:02:49 PM »

Except he didn't even cite that survey LetterRip, he cited a survey about whether people were happy with the affordable choices, which is effectively preloaded to prejudge what's being measured. 

Every survey measures something.  What is the basis of measurement behind your 87% figure?  BTW, you haven't explained the difference between a statistic and a survey result.  I assume your number does not come from a survey.

3

General Comments / Re: Holy......

« on: November 23, 2016, 02:00:33 PM »

No, I think that movie got evicted from my memory by Weekend at Bernies II.  I never actually saw that, but the idea itself was damaging.

4

General Comments / Re: Holy......

« on: November 23, 2016, 01:54:05 PM »

W.O.P.R.

Is that a radio station?

Looked at logically, the census puts the US population at 318 million, and there were 62 million who voted for the p#ssy-pawing president-elect, and 64 million who voted for the alleged (but never formally charged) anti-christ, which means that just over one in five Americans voted for Clinton, and just under one in five Americans voted for Trump. So sure, shame on every single one of you--this part of your point is totally true!--but do note that a solid majority of Americans had nothing at all to do with the shameful party games you bipartisan idiots play to give your favored flavor of the policy mob the putative right to rule.

It's a typical level of participation in the active voting process (Clinton 1992 = 23% of eligible voters, 10% of the overall population).  The passive way to participate is to insist that you don't care and then complain about whatever the result turns out to be.

FWIW, I had an epiphany the other day (gin and tonic followed by several glasses of wine) that this election had almost nothing to do with the candidates or their positions.  Trump had no real positions and few people bothered to read any of Clinton's voluminous proposals. It was all about the establishment vs people who hate the establishment.  Trump's mantra should have been broadened beyond "Lock Her Up!" to "Tear it Down!"  No other Republican candidate could have beaten her, but Trump wasn't a Republican candidate.  He was the anti-candidate who could say anything as long as he didn't get along with anybody in Congress. He had almost no endorsements from any Senator, Representative or Governor, wasn't even popular among the "mainstream" right wing loudmouths, many of whom directly attacked or opposed him.  He had no organized support, didn't run an organized campaign, didn't tell the truth, promised to do things he could never accomplish, lies like a rug, abuses women, is xenophobic, is blatantly self-serving and narcissistic.........and won the election.

Einstein said that explanations should be as simple as possible, but not moreso.  I think mine is good.

5

General Comments / Re: So if Trump gets hit by a bus tomorrow

« on: November 23, 2016, 01:44:52 PM »

I agree that a Trump supporter could be a hypocrite depending on the specific issues they have with Hillary.  However, I think it's a settled that someone supporting Hillary while condemning Trump on the issue of honesty is a blatant hypocrite.

You never admit to being anything but logical, but insistence on this particular bit of false equivalence makes a lie of that.  I would try to explain that to you, but it wouldn't do any good.

6

General Comments / Re: Trump and quasi state controlled media

« on: November 23, 2016, 01:29:32 PM »

It's one thing to mislead the press or your public support, but this is something new.  I think they provided the full transcript to avoid him saying he didn't say what he said and because you really can't summarize a sideways conversation like this.  Here's a piece of it:

SHEAR: You’ve talked about the impact of the wind farms on your golf course. People, experts who are lawyers and ethics experts, say that all of that is totally inappropriate, so I guess the question for you is, what do you see as the appropriate structure for keeping those two things separate, and are there any lines that you think you won’t want to cross once you’re in the White House?

TRUMP: O.K. First of all, on countries. I think that countries will not do that to us. I don’t think if they’re run by a person that understands leadership and negotiation they’re in no position to do that to us, no matter what I do. They’re in no position to do that to us, and that won’t happen, but I’m going to take a look at it. A very serious look. I want to also see how much this is costing, you know, what’s the cost to it, and I’ll be talking to you folks in the not-too-distant future about it, having to do with what just took place.

As far as the, you know, potential conflict of interests, though, I mean I know that from the standpoint, the law is totally on my side, meaning, the president can’t have a conflict of interest. That’s been reported very widely. Despite that, I don’t want there to be a conflict of interest anyway. And the laws, the president can’t. And I understand why the president can’t have a conflict of interest now because everything a president does in some ways is like a conflict of interest, but I have, I’ve built a very great company and it’s a big company and it’s all over the world. People are starting to see, when they look at all these different jobs, like in India and other things, number one, a job like that builds great relationships with the people of India, so it’s all good. But I have to say, the partners come in, they’re very, very successful people. They come in, they’d say, they said, ‘Would it be possible to have a picture?’ Actually, my children are working on that job. So I can say to them, Arthur, ‘I don’t want to have a picture,’ or, I can take a picture. I mean, I think it’s wonderful to take a picture. I’m fine with a picture. But if it were up to some people, I would never, ever see my daughter Ivanka again. That would be like you never seeing your son again. That wouldn’t be good. That wouldn’t be good. But I’d never, ever see my daughter Ivanka.

7

General Comments / Re: Obamacare Predictions for May 2015

« on: November 22, 2016, 05:26:02 PM »

What is a "statistic" and how does it differ from a poll?  FWIW, I used to run a software department that created patient surveys and software to analyze them.  We focused on hospitals and found far less satisfaction than you insist has always been the case.

8

General Comments / Re: So if Trump gets hit by a bus tomorrow

« on: November 22, 2016, 05:24:13 PM »

I kind of pity you if you believe that's true.  You've pretty much identified the coming of Trump as the beginning of the Apocalypse, and Pence as "terrifying" and now you seem to believe that there is no Republican who would be much better?

Who?  Ryan? Privatize Medicare? A "Better Way"?  Then who?  The GOP agenda is the steady dismantling of the federal government.  Why should I be happy about any of them, where the differences between them are which program they want to gut first.  But yes, Trump could well be the apocalyptic dream come true of wack right.  Cherry is even ok that he lies for no reason at all, because he's sure he hasn't lied to him.

9

General Comments / Re: Holy......

« on: November 22, 2016, 05:17:12 PM »

You're unaware of the clown attacks that have been happening across the country, I assume.  Trump is scarier than any of them.

10

General Comments / Re: Obamacare Predictions for May 2015

« on: November 22, 2016, 01:35:54 PM »

Whose statistic are you reporting?  If people surveyed say otherwise, why does that mean that they can't be trusted?

11

General Comments / Re: Obamacare Predictions for May 2015

« on: November 22, 2016, 12:01:49 PM »

According to one Gallup poll (quick Google search ):

One-fourth of American respondents are either "very" or "somewhat" satisfied with "the availability of affordable healthcare in the nation," (6% very satisfied and 19% somewhat satisfied). This level of satisfaction is significantly lower than in Canada, where 57% are satisfied with the availability of affordable healthcare, including 16% who are very satisfied. Roughly 4 in 10 Britons are satisfied (43%), but only 7% say they are very satisfied (similar to the percentage very satisfied in the United States).

Looking at the other side of the coin, 44% of Americans are very dissatisfied with the availability of affordable healthcare, and nearly three-fourths (72%) are either somewhat or very dissatisfied. The 44% in the United States who are very dissatisfied with healthcare availability is significantly higher than corresponding figures in either Canada (17%) or Great Britain (25%).

12

General Comments / Re: Holy......

« on: November 22, 2016, 11:48:31 AM »

There is literally, no good reason that Hillary Clinton should have been the candidate.  There are tens of millions of Democrats that were better choices to be the candidate.

And tens of millions of Republicans who were better choices than any of the 17 candidates who entered the derby at the start.  You go to election with the candidate you have, not the candidate you want.  I said here previously that Trump was my ideal GOP candidate because he was so completely unelectable.  I don't think Clinton lost because of who she is as much as because of how hated party politics has become.  We should remember that neither Party's Congressional favorable ratings are above 20%, which appeared to make Trump viable by non-association.  Imagine if any of the other GOP candidates who have served in Congress or the State House had uttered any one of the things that were laughed off or tolerated when Trump said them.  Given the choice between demagogues, hypocrites, liars, dynastic scion or religious intolerance, they chose the clown.

13

General Comments / Re: Holy......

« on: November 22, 2016, 10:38:13 AM »

Perhaps you can provide the legal definition of "cleared".  Is that an official status or a description of the outcome of an investigation where the DA (or FBI in this case) declines to prosecute?

FWIW, KellyAnne Conway said today that Trump won't pursue further legal investigations against Clinton.

14

General Comments / Re: Holy......

« on: November 22, 2016, 09:43:14 AM »

Yes, people are drawn to disasters.  Perhaps he can brand his Presidency as something like "Governing Bad" and his voters will love it so much they'll ask for 4 more seasons.

15

General Comments / Re: So if Trump gets hit by a bus tomorrow

« on: November 22, 2016, 09:40:21 AM »

But I like how with Hillary no accusation had any basis unless proven beyond a shadow of a doubt, but with Trump anything he's actually said doesn't count and all accusations have the very bent of truth.

That is an amazingly dense statement, considering how she has been personally attacked as well as hounded by partisan committees with charges of corruption and investigated more than any other public in my lifetime and never been found liable for any crimes.  You make an impossible comparison between her and a very public liar and somehow find the standard for judging her far too high.

16

General Comments / Re: Holy......

« on: November 22, 2016, 08:20:03 AM »

This is neither the set menu nor the a la carte selection, but the chef's surprise.  Enjoy!

17

General Comments / Re: Holy......

« on: November 22, 2016, 07:42:50 AM »

One wonders why all of the things Trump was accused of for which there was ample and obvious evidence didn't prevent people from voting for him.  Not to mention, as someone else already has, that he routinely lies and has a long history of destroying evidence that he was supposed to produce in court when he has been sued by people he harmed through his business practices.  I don't doubt that you picked a winner, it's that how he wins says a lot about the kind of person he is and the kind of President he will be.

18

General Comments / Re: Predictions for the Trump Administration as of October 2018

« on: November 22, 2016, 06:22:28 AM »

Pete, if my hypothetical is (intentionally) absurd, how is it different from the cake scenario?  Maybe the restaurant would have run out to get saffron if they didn't know I was gay, as they would be willing to go get nutmeg for the bechamel sauce for the guy groping his girlfriend at the next table.

19

General Comments / Re: Holy......

« on: November 22, 2016, 06:17:15 AM »

To most people when you get rid of evidence that makes you look more guilty, not less. In fact, in most cases destruction of evidence is in itself a serious crime. Wasn't she ordered to turn over these emails and didn't she have them bleached instead?

No, the absence of evidence is not the proof of guilt unless you don't need evidence to find someone guilty at all.  You've used that approach on every issue in which you've attacked both Obama and Clinton.  I must have pointed this out a dozen times by now.  The more you dig and find nothing only confirms your rigid belief that there is something even more damning to find, so let's keep digging.

Pete:

Are you claiming that she's been CLEARED on obstruction of justice charges?  Or that there is no prose cut able offense related to obstruction?

I'm not ignoring it.  Comey addressed that, too:

FBI Director James Comey said Tuesday his investigators looked very intently at whether there was obstruction of justice in the investigation into Hillary Clinton's email account, but concluded they could not prove a criminal case against anyone.

"We looked at it very hard to see if there was criminal obstruction of justice," Comey said at a Senate Homeland Security Committee hearing, under questioning by Chairman Sen. Ron Johnson (R-Wis.)

"We looked at it very hard. We could not make an obstruction case against any of the subjects we looked at," Comey said. He did not identify those whose conduct the FBI investigated for potential obstruction.

20

General Comments / Re: So if Trump gets hit by a bus tomorrow

« on: November 22, 2016, 06:09:42 AM »

The palpable fear and anxiety millions of people associate with Trump assuming the office of President is itself frightening. It's so dire that Greg and some others consider that even Cruz might be a better alternative.  I read an article in The Atlantic yesterday where the author said that an Elector revolt is unthinkable, but Trump would be worse.  It seems that we are on the verge of entering the Twilight Zone or perhaps the twilight of our Democracy, or as Lindsay Graham asked, would you rather be poisoned or shot.

21

General Comments / Re: Predictions for the Trump Administration as of October 2018

« on: November 21, 2016, 09:54:43 PM »

Depends on what you think the meaning and purpose of anti-discrimination laws are meant to be.  Why do you think my hypothetical doesn't apply?  I need to know if everyone else's rights are comparable to yours.

22

General Comments / Re: Predictions for the Trump Administration as of October 2018

« on: November 21, 2016, 09:28:06 PM »

What if my special friend and I gaily walk into a local diner and we ask to split an order for a burger rare with blue cheese, jalapenos and a dab of saffron mayonnaise?  If they don't have it they don't have it, but if they can make it and refuse while the het hunk at the next table orders scrambled eggs with crab meat and bechamel sauce and they run out to get the ingredients and he gets it, I think I should be able to win a lawsuit on Constitutional grounds.  I know where to get that kind of burger locally, but I'm not sure everyone would have the success I would.

23

General Comments / Re: So if Trump gets hit by a bus tomorrow

« on: November 21, 2016, 09:20:51 PM »

I occasionally buy lottery tickets, demonstrating that I am dysnumerically inclined despite my training and experience.  I also hold out hope that the Electoral College will do their duty to correct the mistake of this election's outcome, which indicates that I am also dysdemocratic.  OTOH, the Constitution and Founders (especially Hamilton) envisioned the EC as a check against the kind of populism that would succumb to a demagogue like Trump.  Their wisdom was intended to trump someone like Trump by selecting a better alternative.

24

General Comments / Re: Holy......

« on: November 21, 2016, 08:53:19 PM »

"Lastly, you're entitled to your opinion as to whether she should have been indicted despite Comey's  exhaustive investigation that examined all of the available facts"

ROFL!

I have no opinion as to whether indictment was proper, but your phrase "exhaustive investigation that examined all the AVAILABLE facts" (emphasis added) does Secretary Clinton no favors with an intelligent and attentive readership.

The availability of evidence is not an issue that Hillary supporters want to beg and highlight.

I don't understand you're laughing quibble.  After 6 Congressional investigations and the FBI investigation involving something like 75 agents nobody came up with a prosecutable offense.  In theory, there could be more that could damn her, but in practice it doesn't exist.

25

General Comments / Re: So if Trump gets hit by a bus tomorrow

« on: November 21, 2016, 08:51:05 PM »

Pence is a terrifying prospect.

It doesn't get any better as you go down the line.

26

General Comments / Re: Obamacare Predictions for May 2015

« on: November 21, 2016, 08:50:25 PM »

AI Wessex

"He doesn't control C-Span, which I assume you know."

My recollection is that this was debated in secret. He doesn't control C-Span, but was the offer to let them cover it even made? Was the offer to let anyone cover it made?

I don't think so.

Seems kind of narrow and specific to single out this one piece of legislation for special treatment.  Either this means that you would have closely followed the hours and hours and hours of C-Span coverage in order to come to an informed opinion about the relative benefits and costs of the legislation, or you're just looking for an excuse to blame Obama.  I wonder which one that would be?

27

General Comments / Re: Predictions for the Trump Administration as of October 2018

« on: November 21, 2016, 08:30:48 PM »

How is that different from a meal that is cooked to order at a restaurant?

28

General Comments / Re: Obamacare Predictions for May 2015

« on: November 21, 2016, 06:15:31 PM »

Maybe if Obama had put the bill online for five days like he promised, people could have crowd sourced reading parts of it to find out what was in it and bring to light some of the obvious, and maybe not so obvious, deficiencies that would eventually, undoubtedly, doom it to disaster. He could also have put the deliberations online or on C-Span like he promised instead of holding them behind closed doors.

He doesn't control C-Span, which I assume you know.  If he had put the bill "online for five days" would you have read it?  If it was so monstrously long that even the people who rejected it out of hand didn't bother to study it to find out its merits, why would you or others who instinctively rejected it spend 5 days analyzing it?

And let's face it. If single payer really is better and was Obama's preference, along with most of the Democrats, there was absolutely nothing any Republican could have done to stop them, and they wouldn't even have had to worry about a Supreme Court challenge either because there would have been no mandate to buy from a private company that jacks the rates while shrinking the networks. The Democrats had one shot. And they squandered it completely.

I wish they had gone all the way, but Obama's natural inclination is for compromise and buy-in.  That was his greatest weakness, one that Trump could care less about.  Away with it!  Replace it, uh, sure...

29

General Comments / Re: Obamacare Predictions for May 2015

« on: November 21, 2016, 03:51:00 PM »

No, they couldn't. Because here, P admits that even their agents hadn't had time to read it.

Where does she say that?  She was addressing her audience in her comment.

30

General Comments / Re: Obamacare Predictions for May 2015

« on: November 21, 2016, 01:38:35 PM »

Then why the outrage about what Pelosi said? If what you say is true, any legislator could make that comment about any piece of legislation.

31

General Comments / Re: Holy......

« on: November 21, 2016, 01:36:19 PM »

Al,

Your questions imply that Hillary's mishandling of classified information was not only someone else's bad judgement, but exculpatory.

I think Comey made a mistake not indicting her last July.

I didn't  imply anything. You inferred that interpretation of my motive.   Next,  there was no exculpatory finding, since there was no charge against her,  but that a crime had not been committed. Lastly, you're entitled to your opinion as to whether she should have been indicted despite Comey's  exhaustive investigation that examined all of the available facts.

However, nothing in your two responses includes any attempt to answer the questions I posed. One wonders why you keep changing the subject., or perhaps one doesn't

32

General Comments / Re: Holy......

« on: November 21, 2016, 09:25:04 AM »

Please explain your view rather than asking questions in response to my questions.  Your response is not very illuminating.

33

General Comments / Re: Zucker admits... Something?

« on: November 21, 2016, 09:03:38 AM »

Yes, he has a habit of condemning things from which he has gotten huge windfalls and other benefits.  I suppose you should hire a crook to run the police department or an embezzler to run a bank because they know where the weaknesses are in the system.  For President, you need somebody who has really cleaned up.  He could clean up a lot of departments with his experience.

34

General Comments / Re: Holy......

« on: November 21, 2016, 08:18:51 AM »

Three weeks before the election James Comey has 650,000 emails dropped in his lap from Anthony Weiner's shared computer, and you say the FBI director could have resolved the content question in "48 hours".

Do you have even an inkling of how partisan this sounds? Why do you think young Democrats had such a hard time voting for her in the general election?

Do you think Comey did the right thing by announcing that emails were found on Wiener's laptop before he got a warrant?  What precedent did he follow to interfere with the progress of the election with less than 60 days to go?  Even though he found nothing of value in any of the 650,000 emails, you seem to agree that he may have cost Clinton the election.

35

General Comments / Re: Zucker admits... Something?

« on: November 21, 2016, 07:57:14 AM »

Hmmm, a report of media bias toward Trump:

In her book, [Megan] Kelly claims that certain television hosts were in the tank for Trump. These hosts would arrange with Trump in advance to ask him critical questions to certain hits on him so that they would appear to have some credibility. Kurtz asked Kelly about this, and she answered, “Yes, they were acting.” Kurtz added that Kelly claims that this happened at more than one network, but she couldn’t tell us who. Kelly continued, “No, because these are off the record conversations that I was privy to that I’m not at liberty to reveal, so while I’d love to tell you who it was, I have this information, and I’m not allowed to name the names. But, trust me. This did happen, and it has been confirmed to me by more than one television executive.”

I can only how Conservatives who were outraged about a possible leak of a question to Clinton will react.

36

General Comments / Re: Obamacare Predictions for May 2015

« on: November 21, 2016, 07:23:08 AM »

Many times we hear liberals tell us about how great the healthcare systems in so many other countries are compared to our own. So my question is why didn't the Democrats and Obama model the new healthcare system they passed into law on one of those other successful systems? Does any country with a successful healthcare system have one that looks anything at all like Obamacare? Does any country with any type of healthcare system have one that looks anything like Obamacare?

I'm a bit flummoxed by your seeming naivete.  Our country is the only major industrialized country in the world that relies on private health and medical services.  All other countries use socialized government-run universal health care with lower overall health care costs and better overall medical outcomes.  If I didn't know you better I'd think you were asking an honest question instead of finding another opportunity to bash Obama.  Or perhaps I'm wrong and you just didn't understand what Obamacare is while you were attacking it.

37

General Comments / Re: Obamacare Predictions for May 2015

« on: November 21, 2016, 01:26:57 AM »

Nobody in Congress did read the bill, or if they did, they had advance copies they weren't sharing with anyone else. The ACA is freaking huge, and they passed it within days of it being finalized/released to congress at large. Parsing and processing 1200+ pages of statutory regulations in the span of just a couple days just doesn't happen, even with a decently sized legal (and medical!) consulting team on the payroll.

You can't have it both ways, either they read the bill they were debating and fighting over for month and after month, or shame on them if they didn't. Nobody outside of the Congress would have had access to the working copy of the bill while it was still under debate and consideration.  OTOH, how many bills do you think Congressmen/women actually read before they vote on them?

Nevertheless over 1200 days have passed since passage and problematic sections should have been discussed by now.

The sad truth is that the actual content of the ACA is secondary to its mission and opposing mission.  It's a token and a symbol more than a law.

38

General Comments / Re: Obamacare Predictions for May 2015

« on: November 20, 2016, 11:20:01 PM »

The other thing in all this, chance to negotiate on what?

The ACA is the bill that, after all, Pelosi proudly proclaimed "We're going to have to pass the bill to find out what's in it." It was proposed and rammed through congress before anyone had a chance to process what was in there.

Which do you find more convincing, the soundbite you regurgitated or her statement in context?

Speaker Nancy Pelosi said Tuesday that people won’t appreciate how great the Democrat’s health plan is until after it passes.

“You’ve heard about the controversies, the process about the bill…but I don’t know if you’ve heard that it is legislation for the future – not just about health care for America, but about a healthier America,” she told the National Association of Counties annual legislative conference, which has drawn about 2,000 local officials to Washington. “But we have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it – away from the fog of the controversy.”

During a 20-minute speech, she touted benefits she thinks will be tangible to the audience’s employers. She said there’s support for public health infrastructure and investments in community health centers that will reduce uncompensated care that hospitals now need to deliver.

“You know as well as anyone that our current system is unsustainable,” said Pelosi (D-Calif.). “The final health care legislation, which will soon be passed by the Congress, will deliver successful reforms at the local level.”

Note the highlighted portions, which tells you when she made the remarks and who her audience was.  Without context it's been made to seem like nobody even in Congress had read it or knew what was in it when they passed it.

39

General Comments / Re: Obamacare Predictions for May 2015

« on: November 20, 2016, 11:55:33 AM »

Not a single Republican voted for Obamacare.

What that means is that if the Democrats under Obama had wanted to pass single payer they could have. No Republican could have stopped them.

Instead they chose to pass this disaster.

They tried to find a bi-partisan basis and failed.  The law as passed reflects the compromises they made, but from the first days of Obama's administration the Republicans were committed to thwarting him in every way possible.  I can imagine that they were ultimately willing to let the maimed law pass because they realized its vulnerabilities.  That gave them room to refuse to correct them and the opportunity to insist that it was a failure.  You have bought into that narrative completely.

40

General Comments / Re: Obamacare Predictions for May 2015

« on: November 20, 2016, 10:15:10 AM »

Whatever the problems were the one thing that is clear right now is that Obamacare wasn't the solution. Why couldn't the Democrats and the two independents have seen this coming?

I admire your steady discussion technique of giving an inch and trying to take a mile.  Perhaps all anyone really needs is privatization of Medicaid and Medicare and a gift card to Walgreen's.  Add to that a saw, knife, scissors and thread so we can do the doctoring ourselves.

41

General Comments / Re: Holy......

« on: November 20, 2016, 09:55:32 AM »

Except Reid is gone at the end of December, he retired. Replacement (democrat) gets Sworn in during January with everyone else.

No more Reid, no more Clintons(until/unless Chelsea decides to do something), no more Obama(for now), and probably a lot less Pelosi if the Democrats internal challenge in the House wins out. Washington is going to look a bit different next year.

Let's wait to see how Schumer publicly responds.  He and Trump are like old boxers who have fought their entire adult lives.  I don't see Trump bullying him into submission, and I don't see Schumer opposing every action Trump takes.  Differently than how Republicans did it, Schumer will pounce when he sees an opening.

The Clinton dynasty wasn't in the cards and the Bush dynasty is dead.  I don't see the political forum returning to "normal" for a long time, but it has to happen eventually.  In the meantime, watch your step. There's a twitter troll on your trail.

42

General Comments / Re: Holy......

« on: November 19, 2016, 11:10:45 PM »

I assume you would be OK if Reid said the number one goal for Democrats over the next four years would be to make sure Trump is a one term President. Goose and gander is how this game is played.

43

General Comments / Re: Holy......

« on: November 19, 2016, 10:45:22 PM »

It looks like the outrage that the right had when Obama was President because he wouldn't accede to the demands and priorities of the Republicans is being transformed into outrage that he is not falling in line behind Trump's vision for the next four years.  Pity Obama can't contribute to the undoing of his major initiatives like a patriotic citizen should do.  Amazing how the rhetoric flips upside down when the Republicans are in charge.  I'm guessing that will have tremendous outrage toward the Democrats when they oppose their proposals in Congress over the next two years.

44

General Comments / Re: nightime arrest for woman who had previously burned Confederate flag

« on: November 19, 2016, 10:41:20 PM »

I can't get excited about every possible outrage.  I'm still in shock over the election results and starting to plan how to respond.  If I solve that problem by then I might join you there.

45

General Comments / Re: nightime arrest for woman who had previously burned Confederate flag

« on: November 19, 2016, 04:48:44 PM »

Ah, fooled again.  I didn't notice the date on the story.  This is not new, not news, not relevant.

46

General Comments / Re: nightime arrest for woman who had previously burned Confederate flag

« on: November 19, 2016, 07:39:44 AM »

That is so absurd that I had to check what site posted it, but still can't believe that the police actually did that.

47

General Comments / Re: Worst Job in the New Administration

« on: November 19, 2016, 07:36:09 AM »

Did everyone else get that I used the term "kill" metaphorically?

I got it and used it as metaphorically as Trump did.  Did he really mean he could do that?

48

General Comments / Re: Worst Job in the New Administration

« on: November 18, 2016, 08:17:19 PM »

It's possible that if she had shot someone on 5th Avenue she might have gotten more votes.

49

General Comments / Re: Predictions for the Trump Administration as of October 2018

« on: November 18, 2016, 05:23:51 PM »

My understanding is that his business record includes some explicitly no black renters policies.

As for antisemitism, I think he's intentionally hinted to it just to distract the left and let them make fools of themselves as they did with Mel Gibson's movie.  Political correctness enforcers run amok have been Trump's most effective promoters.

Interesting that by asserting that Trump is not anti-semitic because Gibson is not anti-semitic, that that settles it.  Except that I believe that Gibson *was* and perhaps still *is* anti-semitic, though he claims that he regrets many of his past remarks.  Who can really know?

50

General Comments / Re: Holy......

« on: November 18, 2016, 01:14:02 PM »

This is a nearly irrelevant standard, as most kinds of effective propaganda or demagoguery ride not on direct lies but on insinuation and narrative.

It's a critically important check against mendacious demagoguery and poisoning of the well of public discourse.  That it's only one way to deceive the public doesn't minimize the importance of confronting and addressing it.