Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9038 total)
99 online now:
Aussie, PaulK (2 members, 97 visitors)
Newest Member: Barry Deaborough
Post Volume: Total: 885,688 Year: 3,334/14,102 Month: 275/724 Week: 33/91 Day: 1/17 Hour: 0/0


EvC Forum Side Orders Coffee House The Trump Presidency

Summations Only

Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The Trump Presidency
LamarkNewAge
Member
Posts: 1840
Joined: 12-22-2015


Message 21 of 4573 (796884)
01-06-2017 5:08 PM


Good thing(s) about Trump.
I like the fact that he seems to have encouraged some sanity on certain foreign policy issues when you consider the typical United States hysterics and warmongering.

There was a Senate hearing yesterday which had James Clapper presenting anti-Russian hysterics to the disgraceful people we call United States Senators. The committee made me want to vomit as I listened to Senator after Senator (though I missed much of it, so perhaps there was some sanity prior to the North Carolina junior Senator speaking) promote all sorts of accusations about Russia supposedly interfering in out election.

I expected the vast majority of committee members wished to go to war, and was frankly scared.

But in darkness, small rays of light have the ability to shine brighter than typically is the case.

Senator Tom Tillis of North Carolina spoke, and before he got to his technical questions (I can't even remember the questions lol), he made a very quick statement relative to the hysterics that preceded his time allotment to speak. He pointed out that we have interfered in 81 elections abroad since World War 2 ended, and that DOESNT EVEN COUNT the leaders we overthrew or helped to overthrow. (He meant that the 81 interferences did not include, for example, the coups against Iran in 1953 or Brazil in 1964 that overthrew their democracies).

Russia hacked computers to release emails.

I forgot to mention that the hearing was presented as a response to (something like)Trump's "mean attacks on the poor little CIA" and his "cruelty" which he constantly shows when he tells us he wants peace with Russia.

A very mean man Trump is when he doesn't want to go to war with Russia. Russia is so mean and to oppose war with Russia means you are a meanie for liking mean things.

A real life meanie beany our President is.

(actually he does seem a little mean on OTHER issues but lets give some credit, for the sake of plain SANITY, where and when it is due)

A plea for sanity this post is.


  
LamarkNewAge
Member
Posts: 1840
Joined: 12-22-2015


Message 124 of 4573 (797401)
01-19-2017 2:56 PM


This reminds to of Senator Sherod Brown of Ohio and his situation.
During the GOP Ohio meltdown of the 2006 midterm elections(the 2004 Ohio voting machine scandal, Bob Ney, Mark Foley, Tom Delay, Brown), the anti-trade liberal congressman Brown actually won in Ohio. He beat the once safe GOP incumbent 56% to 44%. Democrats won the governorship 57% to 39% (usually Republicans win by that margin in statewide Ohio races).

Brown got real lucky in 2012 when he was up for his tough reelection. He won 50% to 45% because much working in his favor. Romney opposed the auto bailout which save a very large industry (tied to 25% of jobs directly or indirectly in several large towns) for Ohio, plus Brown had a young little squirt for a GOP opponent (who yelled at Brown in a debate to "stop lecturing me"). The hurricane in New York (and super hot 2012 summer) helped democrats from being hurt too much on energy/environmental issues though Ohio is a coal state. Obamas and Brown claimed they opposed gun control (despite the former support for the assault weapons ban which they insisted they opposed in 2012).

I wonder how Trumps trade positions will play out in Ohio in the Brown race in 2018?

Will their similar positions help Brown to win in 2018 when conventional wisdom would suggest he would have an uphill fight for reelection in a state Trump won by 8-9 points?

Will this be the race to decide if the Republicans get 60 Senators?

Or will Wisconsin and Tammy Baldwin be the deciding race?

Russ Feingold always (when election time came around in 1992, 1998, 2004, 2010) spent fully 33% of his advertising dollars bragging about how he sponsored constitutional amendments, while a Wisconsin state representative, to defend the 2nd amendment and how he supports gun control. He always insisted (in 2004 and 2010) that he opposed assault weapons bans for "now and the future" while he got hammered by his GOP opponents for the support of it in the 103rd congress of 1993-1994.

It didn't save him in 2010, but the 2016 rematch against his GOP opponent had Feingold hurt terribly on the gun issue now that democrats went after them with a vengeance after December of 2012.

Tammy Baldwin won 51% to 48% in 2012. Can she hold on in 2018?

Will there be tension between Trump and her GOP opponent on various issues.

If she looses, then is the complete GOP control (White House, filibuster proof senate, strong congressional majorities) just what is needed to cause the Democratic party to take a move in a direction that previously seemed unlikely (being a party that will support a Tulsi Gabbard ) but could very well generate a powerfully positive response by an American electorate tired of the old way?

Trump could be a blessing, really.


  
LamarkNewAge
Member
Posts: 1840
Joined: 12-22-2015


Message 383 of 4573 (799814)
02-15-2017 3:23 PM
Reply to: Message 380 by RAZD
02-15-2017 10:46 AM


In the shadow of a warmongering Senate.
quote:

That's two republicans on the Intelligence Committee -- so we can be pretty sure that investigation will occur.

If anything, Democrats might be inclined to be less anti-Russian than the GOP. Party partisanship has caused Democrats to become more anti-Russian. Trump is something of an outlier among the GOP.

I never could figure out all the complexities of Russian intelligence. They seem to be in a lot of places. Lots of anti E.U. propaganda comes either from the CIA or Russian intelligence. SOMEBODY has convinced blacks, in the U.S.A., that the E.U. is "neo Nazi" even though the various right wing movements in Europe are very anti E.U.

I was just told by a Puerto Rican that he is sick and tired of constantly hearing people say that "Europeans burnt the library of Alexandria" (a favorite claim among black nationalists who say that whites destroyed black history) when it was the pagan Greeks that founded and maintained the library until the NATIVE EGYPTIAN COPTS burnt it and flayed Hypatia. He has trouble with all the propaganda and is getting sick of people not listening to him.

I was just told, by a black, that I would get killed in prison for saying good things about Alexander and ANCIENT Greece. I ALREADY KNEW THAT. You can't say anything good about modern Greece without listening to a rant.

I'm just wondering if the Russians are going along with anti-Greek propaganda (though the two get along well) or if it is all CIA. I think the Greeks are almost as hated as Jews in the black community. I brought up Bernie Sanders to a black friend and he went on a rant about how he was a "Zionist spy" and I was hoping he actually didn't know Sanders was Jewish (took me about two seconds to find out my hopes were in vain).

I don't know where all this crap is coming from.

(also I forgot to mention that I have been told, by multiple blacks, that "Russians love backs" and any claim to the contrary is American propaganda. Western Europeans hate blacks and Russians love them seems to be a theme.)

Democrats are partisan skunks that repel the average human, but there really is something to all this Russian-intel conspiracy theory stuff (despite the conspiracy theories inspired by raw partisanship, on the one hand, and warmongering on the other).


This message is a reply to:
 Message 380 by RAZD, posted 02-15-2017 10:46 AM RAZD has acknowledged this reply

Replies to this message:
 Message 385 by NoNukes, posted 02-15-2017 4:44 PM LamarkNewAge has responded
 Message 386 by Theodoric, posted 02-15-2017 4:59 PM LamarkNewAge has not yet responded

  
LamarkNewAge
Member
Posts: 1840
Joined: 12-22-2015


Message 384 of 4573 (799815)
02-15-2017 3:32 PM
Reply to: Message 378 by Porosity
02-14-2017 11:57 PM


Re: Trump Administration Caught In Lie
quote:

Not looking good for Trump and his dream team.
Trump Administration Caught In Lie About Campaign Contacts With Russians

Do you actually think Trump cares? I think he did care a little about getting elected in the first place (so some, and only some, of his anger during the campaign might have been somewhat "real" and not manufactured) but I almost think that he might be trying to blow things up for some esoteric reason.

I am wondering/thinking he is convinced that the nation and the world is a nationalistic mess already, so he will try to become a parody of Archie Bunker (who was already a parody) just to show "what happens" when something or another along those lines takes total control.

I'm not sure what he is trying to do, but the GOP will get close to 60 Senate seats in a few years.

The last time the GOP had (near) total control, the nation ended up in a mess (after the September 23 2008 collapse), and Trump might not be opposed to blowing things up again just for sport.

I don't know.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 378 by Porosity, posted 02-14-2017 11:57 PM Porosity has not yet responded

  
LamarkNewAge
Member
Posts: 1840
Joined: 12-22-2015


Message 411 of 4573 (799906)
02-17-2017 3:49 PM
Reply to: Message 385 by NoNukes
02-15-2017 4:44 PM


Can we please stop making arguments from ignorance?
Here is a quote from Theodoric, and understand that it was a response to a post about the threat of nationalism and nationalistic views.

quote:

What the fuck does the fact a person is Puerto Rican or black have to do with any of your drivel?

Then NoNukes

quote:

regard to how Greeks are viewed in the black community, your conclusion is equally full of shite. Yes, there are some anti-semitic black folks, cannot argue with that, but is that really some major thing in the black community? Absolutely not. Some whites are anti-semitic. Can we conclude that the white community hates Jews?


https://www.google.com/?gws_rd=ssl#q=black+anti+semitism

https://www.washingtonpost.com/...n-among-blacks-and-latinos rant are actually on topic. The rest is your usual.

quote:

The Volokh Conspiracy

¡§Entrenched anti-Semitic views¡¨ very rare among whites and Asian Americans, common among blacks and Latinos

By David Bernstein

February 19, 2014 „³

According this article, ADL surveys show that ¡§approximately 12 percent of Americans hold deeply entrenched anti-Semitic views.¡¨ However, over 30% of African Americans and Latinos hold such views. Given that they are almost 30% of the population, this suggests that of the 12% of Americans who hold deeply entrenched anti-Semitic views, 9% or so are African Americans or Latinos. This means, in turn, of the 70% or so of the population that is not African American or Latino, only 3% hold deeply entrenched anti-Semitic views. Put another way, less than 5% of whites, Asians, and ¡§others¡¨ (including Native Americans) combined hold deeply entrenched anti-Semitic views, compared to over 30% of African Americans and Latinos¡Vor at least that¡¦s the difference in percentages of those willing to express anti-Semitic attitudes to pollsters.


Also see "Facing Up to Black Anti-Semitism | commentary"

https://www.commentarymagazine.com/...to-black-anti-semitism

(I will avoid too many personal observation stories, but I can assure you that Jews often get shouted at by senile old blacks, who often speak their minds openly, on the streets of New York. Just like senile old whites often let their feelings be known, by openly shouting the N word, when they are too old/stupid to moderate the line between their racist thoughts and words. One of my best friends is a Palestinian born Orthodox Jew, and he gets shouted at often. I get caught in the crossfire and only days ago was just approached and called a "hooknose" by a senile old fool who thought I practiced Judaism or something.)

(I don't like sharing these types of stories because they can often get selective and very often just add to confusion, when we have enough already)

But understand that I was also talking about common mainstream media reports of Russia financing the various anti E.U. right-wing nationalistic parties in Europe.

I find nationalism disturbing for so many reasons. Where it comes from, I really don't know, as I admitted frankly in my post. But I ask for folks to use a little humility in the search for answers, and I will try to avoid questioning the motives of individuals in return. I see ignorance as creating a climate that enabled Trump to rise, so I tend to make attempts to identify and combat (however futile?) the root causes.


{content hidden - too divergent from the topic, and too likely to result in even further divergences see Message 387 and Message 392 -- AdminModulous}

Edited by AdminModulous, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 385 by NoNukes, posted 02-15-2017 4:44 PM NoNukes has acknowledged this reply

  
LamarkNewAge
Member
Posts: 1840
Joined: 12-22-2015


Message 524 of 4573 (800820)
02-28-2017 2:55 PM
Reply to: Message 520 by Percy
02-28-2017 8:11 AM


Re: Health Care is Actually Very Simple
quote:

But health care is not complicated. It's actually very simple. What makes Trump's task complicated is the mutually exclusive goals he's set himself:

•Make health insurance better.

•Make health insurance less expensive for both consumers and the government.

•Don't take health insurance away from people who currently have it.

•Keep the provision against exclusions due to preexisting conditions.

•Make participation voluntary.

This is, of course, impossible. Trump has been using the euphemistic "complicated," but actually it's impossible. It will be interesting to watch Trump work out his differences with those in the Republican party who want simply to eliminate Obamacare while addressing his contradictory goals.


The "make health insurance less expensive" is the scary part. The scary parts are essentially the parts about cost controls, which typically Democrats favor (and moderate Republicans), and Republicans haven't been super big on - in the past (the great exception it Tort Reform). If all he is talking about is ending the mandates and selling insurance across state lines, then that isn't too much to fear.

Canadians have to come here to get operations and check-ups due to "cost controls" (this is a separate issue from the single payer system issue which has a very good type of "cost control" in that the insurance companies aren't in existence). Paul Krugman and endless Democrats talk about "making Obama Care stronger" by denying operations (like hip replacements) to seniors.

We all know thousands of Canadians personally who have to come hear because Canadian healthcare, in their own words, "sucks".

Watch out for "cost controls" and "making ObamaCare stronger" b.s. It is code for cutting over $700 billion per year (as Peter Orzag and Ezekiel Emanuel wanted badly to do) from healthcare spending.

Trump might join the slash and burn ship, and this Titanic might be irreversible. It much simpler to cut social programs than to fund them. If there are significant cuts to healthcare (say $500 billion per year), then the few who propose restoring the coverage (with its associated costs) to the system will be accused of proposing a "crazy" amount of spending increases that will "bankrupt" our nation with "unrealistic" healthcare costs as a percentage of both the GDP and government budget.

Getting Republicans to support the termination of much that makes up healthcare coverage would seem a big change from the past, as Democrats have been the main proponents of specific "cost controls", but it isn't as big a leap as one might expect. Trump could be the (ruinous) game changer.

On the other hand.

He is in a debate with his own party on an area of the budget where he wants increases.

quote:

Wall Street Journal (blog) (subscription)

Trump to Propose 'Historic' Increase in Military Spending

Wall Street Journal (blog) (subscription) - ýFeb 27, 2017ý

Speaking at a meeting with governors, President Donald Trump said on Monday his first budget will include a "historic increase" in military spending. He said the proposal will focus on public safety and national security. Photo: Reuters. Transcript +.

Western Journalism
See realtime coverage

McCain Denounces Trump's $54 Billion Defense Budget Increase: 'We Can And Must Do Better'

Western Journalism - ý18 hours agoý

Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., is slamming President Donald Trump's proposed $54 billion increase in defense spending, saying it is not enough of an increase to meet the demands of 21st century warfare. “President Trump intends to submit a defense budget ...

Trump to Propose Significant Increase in Defense Spending

Wall Street Journal (subscription) - ýFeb 26, 2017ý

WASHINGTON—President Donald Trump's first budget will seek a sizable increase in military funding but won't make changes to the largest future drivers of government spending: Social Security and Medicare. Work to prepare the president's first budget ...

Reuters

Trump vows military build-up, hammers nationalist themes

Reuters - ýFeb 24, 2017ý

NATIONAL HARBOR, Md./WASHINGTON President Donald Trump said he would make a massive budget request for one of the "greatest military buildups in American history" on Friday in a feisty, campaign-style speech extolling robust nationalism to eager ...



This message is a reply to:
 Message 520 by Percy, posted 02-28-2017 8:11 AM Percy has acknowledged this reply

Replies to this message:
 Message 526 by NosyNed, posted 02-28-2017 4:04 PM LamarkNewAge has not yet responded

  
LamarkNewAge
Member
Posts: 1840
Joined: 12-22-2015


Message 611 of 4573 (802580)
03-18-2017 8:26 AM
Reply to: Message 610 by jar
03-18-2017 7:00 AM


Re: More echos of the Saturday Night Massacre
Bharara (spell check allowed me after like 8 trys) was prominently in the endlessly free papers here in Queens (over the mayor and ethical issues related to housing and favoring developers ) then he was shockingly fired in a flash.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 610 by jar, posted 03-18-2017 7:00 AM jar has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 615 by Phat, posted 03-20-2017 7:28 AM LamarkNewAge has not yet responded

  
LamarkNewAge
Member
Posts: 1840
Joined: 12-22-2015


Message 730 of 4573 (804375)
04-08-2017 9:16 PM
Reply to: Message 729 by marc9000
04-08-2017 8:24 PM


Trump and special interests. Nice if he would stand against them for once.
So why does he not allow agricultural imports (absent the trade barriers which render importing to be expensive) which would lower our food bill to the amount totaling $1000 per American per year?

The answer is the big corperations that want to make $100 billion dollars per year and will demolish those who put the American people first.

Trump could easily tell Americans that only 0.1 will be added to unemployment if all agricultural jobs are lost at once and not replaced by the net economic growth from much cheaper food for all.

Mr. Business Man could actually make a good macro economic case and he could have enough internal American datums to demonstrate the net benefit of a bold reform.

He doesn't even have to mention the trade concessions we can gain from other countries in return for tearing down barriers for allowing their goods to be freely sold to us.

He doesn't need to tell Americans that the world wide macroeconomic benefits would have a very virtuous cycle spinning at hurricane like velocity - being the American First nationalist he fancies himself.

I accept the fact that "special interests " to Trump are simply NIH grantees (who won't get many grants after his 20% cut to a program's budget that has already suffered real cuts of 25% in the last 14 years ) and kissing up to insurance companies by slashing pharmaceutical drug profits down to ruinously low levels while (falsely) claiming to be standing for lower healthcare prices.

This is the most anti-science president in America history.

He is right about one thing. We all are appearing to be the big losers


This message is a reply to:
 Message 729 by marc9000, posted 04-08-2017 8:24 PM marc9000 has not yet responded

  
LamarkNewAge
Member
Posts: 1840
Joined: 12-22-2015


Message 731 of 4573 (804384)
04-08-2017 10:48 PM
Reply to: Message 729 by marc9000
04-08-2017 8:24 PM


My source for my special interest accusation.
This is a serious charge so I owe a source to readers.

quote:

Divided Nations
By Ian Goldin
Page 124
It is important not to be naive about the interests of business. Indeed, in a number of cases, private sector interests may be directly opposed to a global solution. The lobbying power of US coal interests has been shown to be behind the erosion of public support for actions on climate change, just as that of the financial services industry was behind the drive for deregulation and resistance to constraints on their behavior. Similarly, in agriculture the lobbying power in the US and Europe of major producers of grains, sugar, and cotton is behind the economically disastrous and highly regressive protectionist policies.

The effectiveness of these lobby groups is testimony of the power of organized groups to effect and resist change. While less than 0.1 percent of the US or European population will benefit from agricultural protection, and citizens in the EU and US on average pay over 1,000 euros or dollars per year more than they should for food, the perverse subsidies are testimony to the power of lobbies to capture national politics and subvert global agreement.


(note in back references Globalization for Development : Meeting New Challenges which was 2012 Cambridge University Press book by Goldin and Reinert )

I was recently reading about the drop in agriculture profits and how subsidies of a few extra billion dollars to pay farmers not to plant food can drive profits up $100 billion per year. That was about the difference between 2014 and 2015 I think. Artificial scarcity and it is on all our backs.

Japan has suffered from much higher prices due to protectionism in "five sacred areas of agriculture " but so few people farm anymore there that the average farmer is like 77 year's old. Old time farmers are all that is left so the tiny aging constituency has been seen by analysts to lack most of the political muscle to stop radical trade reforms which will benefit Japan as a whole.

One day, the truth will be known by all and the obvious policy solution will be correctly seen as much more free trade in every genuine sense of the words FREE and OPEN.

Edited by LamarkNewAge, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 729 by marc9000, posted 04-08-2017 8:24 PM marc9000 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 737 by marc9000, posted 04-09-2017 1:36 PM LamarkNewAge has responded

  
LamarkNewAge
Member
Posts: 1840
Joined: 12-22-2015


(1)
Message 735 of 4573 (804398)
04-09-2017 2:36 AM
Reply to: Message 733 by NoNukes
04-09-2017 1:18 AM


NoNukes got this one this time when he indicated our general inabilities to detect st
Back in the late 1990s, Senator Phil Gram was voted the smartest man in the Senate by the broad body of the Washington press and the Texas economic PhD was considered someone who was just so knowledgeable about arcane and complex financial issues that Washington D. C. as a whole simply took his word for it when he preached endlessly about the future economic miracle that deregulation would work.

The economist Senator was an opinionated and doctrinaire conservative but he sounded like his mind was technically inclined enough on the letter of the law and its real world consequences for the (real and sustained - SUSTAINED! ) growth of our economy and fundamental financial health. He was handed the keys to far reaching deregulation and he gladly took control of the wheels, with his colleagues supporting his legislation and the enactment was done with hardly a clue of any hints of a hitch.

It turned out that the next decade had just about no real growth once the collapse was completed by mid 2009. The only thing to show for the aughts ( 2000-9) was an essentially permanent $500 billion per year tax cut and (again ) an essentially permanent increase in military and security spending of about $500 billion a year.

Back in 2001 Senator Gram pushed through the Bush tax cuts saying that the budget "surplus" was so big that the debt holders would have to be paid big penalties for the government buying back their treasury bonds before they mature so "the only thing that we can do is use the surplus money to give out giant tax cuts now and not worry about paying off the national debt " (roughly what he said ). Even if the nation didn't actually (even! ) fail to achieve a balance that year, much less see the big "surplus" materialize, he was genuinely full of crap - the bonds were capable of being paid off with either a relatively small penalty or with no penalties at all (investors could agree to waive penalties for cashing in the bill early ).

The phantom growth of the first decade of the 21st century was the best mirage the military industrial complex was able to get the American people to follow insearch of whatever they were told they were going to need to swallow. They are still drinking all the imaginary and (perhaps? ) real Cool Aid and the catch is they don't even have a clue - they NEVER do!

Meanwhile, $15 trillion of debt later...

Edited by LamarkNewAge, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 733 by NoNukes, posted 04-09-2017 1:18 AM NoNukes has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 736 by NoNukes, posted 04-09-2017 11:58 AM LamarkNewAge has responded

  
LamarkNewAge
Member
Posts: 1840
Joined: 12-22-2015


Message 744 of 4573 (804435)
04-09-2017 2:37 PM
Reply to: Message 737 by marc9000
04-09-2017 1:36 PM


Re: My source for my special interest accusation.
quote:

There are plenty of lobby groups that are all about promoting change which can harm society


True and they claim that they are bucking the trend and often actually claim the role of a young boy attempting to slay the giant when they are infact the Goliath himself. The sad reality is that most political debate is just alot of lame Democrat verses Republican talking points. Actual discussion of real policy that genuinely helps 99% of us, while HONESTLY only cutting the throats of greedy special interests rarely gets discussed. Instead we get alot of discussion about divisive issues that come with alot of severe side effects. Those policies need to be discussed too (though the very reason that there is the discussion in the first place is usually a top-down propaganda campaign by powerful and/or partisan special interests which falsely claim the role of the little David "bravely" fighting the giant on "behalf of the little people" when there isn't an ounce of truth to their loaded and distorted picture ).

quote:

"Free and open" in International terms can cause a greater terrorist threat . And in the case of food, it can also mean a health threat.

It can also give us a chance to have worldwide food safety standards that make the overall situation much better overall compared to the present.

I don't quite know what to make of apparent terrorist threats. It would probably be something we don't need to worry so much about but we should have government watchers to monitor the situation.

Islam followers surely come to your mind on terrorism but look at the food issue. I know that kosher food is very safe to eat due to good inspections so a worldwide regime that employs Islamic inspectors to insure halal food standards and top notch safety concerns could have the doubly beneficial effect of high safety standards and disarm extremists from claiming "persecution" (or at least prevent from gaining too much of a following).


This message is a reply to:
 Message 737 by marc9000, posted 04-09-2017 1:36 PM marc9000 has not yet responded

  
LamarkNewAge
Member
Posts: 1840
Joined: 12-22-2015


Message 747 of 4573 (804439)
04-09-2017 2:48 PM
Reply to: Message 736 by NoNukes
04-09-2017 11:58 AM


Re: NoNukes got this one this time when he indicated our general inabilities to detect st
I interpreted your question to Mark to mean that we really don't know how we are getting screwed by special interests until the bill comes due in the time future.

Nobody knows what policy today will turn out to be seen as really bad and potentially ruinous.

A disaster causes us to see which laws were most responsible for the sad state of affairs.

Then we will try to trace the history of policy changes.

That will lead to a trail that tends to isolate the major movers that had the most to do with the implementation of the law(s).

The investigation of the historic record will, among other things, lead to details about who exactly lobbied for the legislature to make the public policy.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 736 by NoNukes, posted 04-09-2017 11:58 AM NoNukes has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 751 by NoNukes, posted 04-09-2017 11:50 PM LamarkNewAge has responded

  
LamarkNewAge
Member
Posts: 1840
Joined: 12-22-2015


Message 752 of 4573 (804465)
04-10-2017 12:09 AM
Reply to: Message 751 by NoNukes
04-09-2017 11:50 PM


Re: NoNukes got this one this time when he indicated our general inabilities to detect st
You said we would have trouble knowing, right?

Honestly, special interests run wild, and a disaster is what causes certain ones to get noticed.

You asked Marc how on earth he would possibly know just what is going on.

Nobody makes much of an issue with what always goes on (albeit in dark) - or I should say that the larger public fails to - until something so bad happens that we are forced to notice WHO exactly pushed for the specific law changes to affect the general outcome.

That would include the role the special interests had in their dealings with the POTUS.

Edited by LamarkNewAge, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 751 by NoNukes, posted 04-09-2017 11:50 PM NoNukes has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 753 by NoNukes, posted 04-10-2017 11:41 AM LamarkNewAge has not yet responded

  
LamarkNewAge
Member
Posts: 1840
Joined: 12-22-2015


(1)
Message 760 of 4573 (805213)
04-16-2017 9:05 PM
Reply to: Message 755 by Dr Adequate
04-12-2017 8:05 PM


Trump and Chinese currency - a story of getting an education in reality.
I scanned over my past posts and was shocked to see that I did not comment on his fallacious and often repeated campaign blather that China supposedly undervalues it's currency. Every informed person has long feared that Chinese currency is not only propped up but could ( in a nightmare scenario ) actually loose half its value - among all the various possibilities.

Barron's April 17 2017 has an article on the large flip flops of the previous week.

quote:

Key Reversals
by Randall W. Forsyth
....
For those whose focus is the financial markets, Trump provided several head-snaping reversals. Perhaps most prominent - but upon reflection, least surprising - is that he no longer deems China to be a currency manipulator.

....

As for Beijing's alleged manipulation of its currency, the yuan, there was no reversal, but rather a reflection of reality, even if that wasn't acknowledged.
....
The People's Bank of China spent about $1 trillion of its foreign reserves ( which still total a formidable $3 trillion ) to keep the yuan from falling against the greenback...

As for the dollar overall, Trump reiterated that it is "getting too strong," which, with characteristic modesty, he partially attributed to a surge of confidence that he had inspired.


An absolute idiot.

He seems to want to risk our ability to get loans at super low interest rates, which is the best thing going for our treasury, but he seems oblivious to the issue of the amazingly low interest payments we get away with for such a massive ( 20 trillion bucks worth of) national debt.

He seems to want a 20% BAT added to the price of all imports PLUS a weaker dollar to boot.

I wonder if he thinks this kind of race to the bottom will really not collapse the entire world economy and cost us all kinds of jobs (export related jobs especially ) and an unheard of deficit explosion . A trade war is the cheapest old school pile of proven destruction that nobody should be so crappy to even think about doing ( much less actually DOING) .

He feels that building a (trade)wall will eventually bring back so many jobs that he can just ignore an exploding debt and currency crash. He imagines a new domestic economic order where we isolate ourselves from the world and enjoy low unemployment and adequate purchasing power despite a ruined currency.

If he gets his way then get ready for a dangerous ride home while we crash and burn along the way (yes he thinks we will still make it to the destination - have our car and life while our guts and bolts are scattered along the highway miles from home )

Historians will look back and ask just how many years of misery he expected to be able to sustain before the ( trade war induced ) jobs magically appeared after he magically invoked his manipulation to bring back the old industry he fondly imagines will bring America to some sort of fairy tale la la dreamland or whatever sort of warped fantasy he ponders.

This guy reminds me of Pinky and the Brain.

"Pinky, are you pondering what I am pondering? "

"I think so brain, but this time you wear the pink bib"

"NO PINKY! We take over the world! "

Trump has proven "animaniac" level knowledge of the world he wants to reform. Steve Bannon gave a speech to CPAC and it was loony toons crazy. I suggest people read the transcript. He literally talks about a creative destruction of the economy.

Edited by LamarkNewAge, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 755 by Dr Adequate, posted 04-12-2017 8:05 PM Dr Adequate has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 761 by JonF, posted 04-16-2017 10:41 PM LamarkNewAge has not yet responded

  
LamarkNewAge
Member
Posts: 1840
Joined: 12-22-2015


Message 764 of 4573 (806885)
04-28-2017 9:05 PM
Reply to: Message 763 by NoNukes
04-21-2017 12:51 PM


Re: Trump's Korea Policy
Here in New York City, I get briefings from lots of conspiracy theorists friends on war issues. One ( who is no longer on speaking terms because we got into heated fights over his anti Semitic theories ) kept telling me about all the "evil Ashkenazi Jews " that were pushing war, and he would constantly show me rosters and names. The ironic thing is that he came to see the generals as the dangerous warmongers and Kushner as a voice of reason and anti-war. I got lots of briefings on his research.

I got the impression that he found Trump as more sane than the generals.

The generals are crazy enough for sure.

South Korea is about to elect a liberal who opposes the anti missile interception installation so hopefully this whole thing calms down from our side. The South Koreans have millions of skins in the game and hopefully their voices are heard and afforded due weight.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 763 by NoNukes, posted 04-21-2017 12:51 PM NoNukes has not yet responded

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2021