President Trump

Status
Not open for further replies.
Emily's Cat said:
That's always possible... but like you I doubt it. I don't consider it plausible at all. I know a large number of gun-rights people. Sure, there are a few nutjobs out there... but the vast majority of them really truly believe in the 2nd amendment, they believe very strongly that if german citizens had a 2nd am before WW2,
Click to expand...

So they are misinformed then. How do they explain Putin, there is easier access to weapons in Russia than in the US. Clearly he is a good democratic leader.
 
Fast Eddie B said:
Read what Comey told us:

"For example, seven e-mail chains concern matters that were classified at the Top Secret/Special Access Program level when they were sent and received. These chains involved Secretary Clinton both sending e-mails about those matters and receiving e-mails from others about the same matters. There is evidence to support a conclusion that any reasonable person in Secretary Clinton’s position, or in the position of those government employees with whom she was corresponding about these matters, should have known that an unclassified system was no place for that conversation. In addition to this highly sensitive information, we also found information that was properly classified as Secret by the U.S. Intelligence Community at the time it was discussed on e-mail (that is, excluding the later “up-classified” e-mails).

None of these e-mails should have been on any kind of unclassified system, but their presence is especially concerning because all of these e-mails were housed on unclassified personal servers not even supported by full-time security staff, like those found at Departments and Agencies of the U.S. Government—or even with a commercial service like Gmail.

Separately, it is important to say something about the marking of classified information. Only a very small number of the e-mails containing classified information bore markings indicating the presence of classified information. But even if information is not marked “classified” in an e-mail, participants who know or should know that the subject matter is classified are still obligated to protect it."

Come to your own conclusions.
Click to expand...

And this is all without even mentioning the fact that it was clear policy to NOT have any of your government-related emails being handled on your personal email. She just flouted that policy, with blatant disregard for security, for... reasons I guess. I've never actually heard a good reason for this. A bit of "well she didn't know" which is BS as far as I'm concerned. Either she's purposefully circumventing security policy, or she's too dumb to grok that there's a policy for this. Either way, my trust is a bit shaken there.
 
newyorkguy said:
The sad thing is -- and I don't mean this in a nasty way and I hope it doesn't come across that way -- but the average Trump voter is, or is supposed to be, someone whose lot in life is not going well and feels ignored by the political process. I guess voting for Trump -- in light of the above -- is just evidence of their poor decision-making skills. That based on their personal feelings they chose the candidate least likely to help their situation.

As an example, I still think of the woman at the Trump rally in New Hampshire, the one that was all aglow about The Don. Her husband had worked in a local industry for thirty years only it closed down, moved away and now, she said, he works 16 hours a day at two minimum wage jobs to make ends meet. The reality is, people have been warned for at least thirty years not to assume they have "lifetime jobs." That you need to keep upgrading your skills, looking for better opportunities. That if you allow yourself to become complacent then you are quite likely to suffer the way this man has. (Personally I'm doing okay but I'm on my third 'career.')

Clinton's solution was to make retraining available to men like this woman's husband at no cost or low cost. Maybe have government play a role in finding a job he could fill, once he got some new training, by developing job banks. Trump's solution was to build a wall on the U.S.-Mexico border.

She chose the wall. :(
Click to expand...

I still contend that they didn't necessarily think Trump would make anything better... but they did fear that Clinton wold make things worse.
 
acbytesla said:
But he was ALWAYS A JERK. His personality has never changed.
Click to expand...

Precisely. Why anyone expects him to suddenly become someone entirely different is puzzling, unless they think he's been putting on a show for the last 30 years just to get into the white house, from which he could finally enact his evil scheme -- a mighty conspiracy theory if ever there was one.

No, he'll continue to be Trump after inauguration. He'll seek the spectacle and adulation and ratings and money, but he'll very soon bore of the actual job, allowing Pence and other minions to run the show. In other words, the right-wing extremists and super-rich.

If you thought SJWs in colleges were damaging to civilisation, just wait until their polar opposite, with actual political clout, get going. I don't know how much they'll manage to accomplish, but they'll get part of their agenda done, for sure, and none of it is particularily appealing to me. Women, homosexuals, trans people, immigrants and atheists beware. And forget about better wages or healthcare, folks.
 
Last edited:
Emily's Cat said:
And this is all without even mentioning the fact that it was clear policy to NOT have any of your government-related emails being handled on your personal email. She just flouted that policy, with blatant disregard for security, for... reasons I guess. I've never actually heard a good reason for this. A bit of "well she didn't know" which is BS as far as I'm concerned. Either she's purposefully circumventing security policy, or she's too dumb to grok that there's a policy for this. Either way, my trust is a bit shaken there.
Click to expand...

And it was standard in the executive to do that for as long as they actually used emails. Bush, Rice and Powell then need to be seriously investigated and possibly face charges. Not to say the violations of national records acts and the millions of criminally deleted emails.
 
Emily's Cat said:
If it's set up well, it isn't as unworkable as you think. My profession actually made several suggestions to this effect before ACA went live. Here's the very high-level reasoning.

People in those High-Risk categories have extremely high costs. In WA, the State High Risk Pool (HRP) had claim costs that were 12 times the average claim cost in the individual market, and that's with the HRP paying at Medicaid rates (I believe, not 100% sure).

The proposal for ACA was to keep the HRP in place, but to make it "invisible". People would still sign up with whatever carrier they wanted, to the consumer it wouldn't even exist. But if they met the qualifying criteria (a set of particularly high-cost rare diseases, a few terminal conditions, etc.) then all of their claim costs and all of their revenue would be ceded to the HRP. The additional cost of these people above their revenue would then be shared back out across all of the insurance carriers in the state - it would become a pooled cost. This would reduce the volatility for all carriers, allowing for a more stable marketplace with more manageable premium levels.

They didn't go for it, but it's an actuarially sound idea. It would also have helped reduce some of the big swings we've been seeing, some of the inconsistencies from one carrier to another, etc. It would have been paid for by the insurance carriers within the state - the same ones who are paying for it now. It's just that we all would have been pitching in the same amount, rather than one or two carriers with bad luck getting reamed.
Click to expand...
If there is going to be some sort of high risk pool I hope it will be for a larger group than just the very high risk people. The millions of Type 2 diabetics for example:)

I'm not at all sure how any new system will work, he is still claiming he doesn't want the 22 million people to return to uninsured status , but if the subsidies are cut off, I'm sure that most will.
 
trustbutverify said:
Great article. But I thought this comment was interesting:
Click to expand...

Re the comment...

If my choice is between a lion that says it understands and values lambs and a lion that says lambs are delicious for eating, I'm going with the one that at least claims to dig lambs even if I don't believe him.

It's like jumping out of a building. No way in hell I'm jumping out of a 20 story building. Unless it's on fire. Because in the choice between highly probable death and certain death, I'll take that one in a million chance any day. ;)
 
Emily's Cat said:
Re the comment...

If my choice is between a lion that says it understands and values lambs and a lion that says lambs are delicious for eating, I'm going with the one that at least claims to dig lambs even if I don't believe him.
Click to expand...

How does the latter in any way correlate with Clinton?
 
Cain said:
Really?

Is there any data showing rural people turned out in significantly greater numbers to vote for Trump than previous Republicans?

Someone posted that article here a month ago, and it's just saying what commenters have said many times before, especially in the wake of the 2000 blue state vs. red state election (yes, analysts understood it was urban vs. rural).

It's not a matter of urban people failing to understand the yokels, but probably the other way around. Rural areas can get away with "limited" government, but cities require an active public sector -- a public transportation system to move people and police, courts and social services to resolve conflicts. How many mayors of major cities are libertarians?

Also, is it right to say rural areas have been particularly "beaten to ****." As I'm sure conservatives like to point out, the material standard of living has improved, it's just that urban wealth has increased at a much, much faster pace. When it comes to human beings, relative wealth and opportunity matter.

It's nice mollycoddle those poor, country-livin' folk with more guns than teeth, but those are places where ignorance flourishes (along with meth-addictions). The salt of the earth is also where you find racism, homophobia, xenophobia, misogyny and religion. Seventy-five percent of Americans believe in angels. Guess who most of them voted for?

Bush Jr. was a terrible president, and then they voted for him again! We had a monster recession and people said, "enough of this ****," and voted for a relatively decent manager of empire.
Click to expand...

From the article:
It really does feel like the worst of both worlds: all the ravages of poverty, but none of the sympathy. "Blacks burn police cars, and those liberal elites say it's not their fault because they're poor. My son gets jailed and fired over a baggie of meth, and those same elites make jokes about his missing teeth!" You're everyone's punching bag, one of society's last remaining safe comedy targets.

...


It feels good to dismiss people, to mock them, to write them off as deplorables.
Click to expand...
 
Emily's Cat said:
Re the comment...

If my choice is between a lion that says it understands and values lambs and a lion that says lambs are delicious for eating, I'm going with the one that at least claims to dig lambs even if I don't believe him.
Click to expand...
The problem is you believed the former in spite of multiple videos of him just killing them for fun.
 
Mader Levap said:
Wrong.
Click to expand...

Your post doesn't support your contention.

But at the end of the day, densely populated cities make up 4% of the land mass, but have 64% of the population. No rational candidate is going to spread themselves evenly across the US - they're going to concentrate where the density of people is highest. Thus, in the cities.
 
Last edited:
acbytesla said:
The chasm betwee the 2 communities is large, but the truth is they are facing the same economic problems. The cities tend to be able to cope with them better though, mostly because we're more honest about them. Yesterday's solutions are simply not right for today and tomorrow. The rugged individualism and toughness that served the rural folks so well simply fail in today's world where education, money and interdependence rules.
Click to expand...
The cities cope with them better by gentrifying the area, increasing property values, and creating rents that skyrocket so dramatically that all those poor people simply move out of the cities. Problem solved!

I have some serious irritation with cities, in particular with how they have become so ridiculously unaffordable to anyone who isn't wealthy.
 
Emily's Cat said:
The cities cope with them better by gentrifying the area, increasing property values, and creating rents that skyrocket so dramatically that all those poor people simply move out of the cities. Problem solved!

I have some serious irritation with cities, in particular with how they have become so ridiculously unaffordable to anyone who isn't wealthy.
Click to expand...

I hear that cities are unaffordable to anyone who isn't wealthy but then I visit them and realize that's just ******** hyperbole.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom