President Trump

[Hlafordlaes]

Trump is wavering like crazy now, though. Hitler was always clear about following through on his promises (to the people, not to other politicians), and his strength was not really phony - he had a immense resolve, determination and wilpower. He made clear his intention to abolish democracy and make Germany great again - he was less overt about invading Russia, but still pretty clear if you were in the right circles.

Trump does have Hitler's ability to lie with a brazen disregard for facts, but I don't think he has Hitler's prudency. I don't think Trump can make people feel like they got their vote's worth. Hitler always had a clear idea of what to do, and made a lot of that clear to the people. Trump doesn't seem to.

But we'll see. Maybe he's just pandering to Democrats across the aisle in order to gain wider support in face of their resignation. His radical satraps will probably keep his base happy, and a lot of his voters are probably happy about him backing down on some promises.

Hitler was an ideologue with a clear agenda well before attaining power, but also had the keen sense of how to rouse rabble. Trump is at least as good at the rousing - for those who are not concerned flies might enter mouths when agape - and he has almost surrounded himself with ideologues. Pence alone is a complete loon, tongue loll included if science comes up.

So, we are either seeing the car keys for the moderates and left, to bide time until in office, when the pedal hits the metal, or his moderate tone indicates some notion of reality. IF the latter is the case, he is then most definitely a sociopath, as he was willing to burn the country down and throw peace out the window.... as mere rhetorical tools just to get into office. Madness, no matter which way you slice or dice.

Words have meaning, actions result; ideologies matter.

 

[acbytesla]

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

No its not. But it depends on the city. Rents have skyrocketed in SF, Seattle, LA, NY, etc,

 

[Emily's Cat]

Apparently this is why Clinton lost. See, the ignorance of someone like logger should be treated with just as much deference as the expertise of actual climate scientists, and the failure of "leftists" to do so caused fewer people to vote for Trump than did for McCain or Romney. Or something, I'm still fuzzy on the details.

Yeah, nobody is asking you to value their opinions as highly as an expert. But you might consider treating them with some respect rather than insulting and mocking them.

Seriously people, is this that difficult of a concept?

 

[dudalb]

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.

But then Trump is also a control freak.Hard to say how this will play out.

 

[acbytesla]

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.

It's really not true. Or at least only partially true. There is a need for higher wages and affordable housing that's true, but job opportunities are here. It's here in the city where we NEED higher minimum wages. It's not an easy problem that's for sure.

 

[Spindrift]

No its not. But it depends on the city. Rents have skyrocketed in SF, Seattle, LA, NY, etc,

And yet, there are lots of poor people living in those cities.

ETA: http://www.mercurynews.com/2015/04/...ecord-levels-in-bay-area-despite-hot-economy/

San Fran had the highest poverty rate in the Bay Area.

 

[Emily's Cat]

That will at least show them that they are interdependent and not the rugged independant people not dependant on others that they lie to themselves about being. They hate government entitlements while being incredibly dependant on them. But that is the hypocrisy one expects from them.

One expects hypocrisy from the poor?

 

[Emily's Cat]

But that is what rural america wants. White nationalism is their true calling.

Anyone who doesn't live in a big city is a racist? Solid logic there.

 

[Spindrift]

Yeah, nobody is asking you to value their opinions as highly as an expert. But you might consider treating them with some respect rather than insulting and mocking them.

Seriously people, is this that difficult of a concept?

When they espouse something that isn't downright ludicrous then yes they deserve respect. But anyone espousing white supremacy, anti-vax, anti-gay, anti-science, pro-creationism or whatever other bs they 'believe' hasn't earned any respect.

 

[Emily's Cat]

Why would you start caring after the election? He wasn't secret about his desires to curtail constitutional rights.

Enough, ponderingturtle. Stop demonizing me. I did not vote for Trump. I didn't vote for Clinton either, but please stop acting as if my failure to vote for the person you liked best gives you the moral authority to crap all over me.

 

[Emily's Cat]

How?

By exercising my first amendment right to peacefully petition the government. But appeal to my local and state legislatures. By speaking out against it.

By doing all the things that it is in my power to lawfully do.

 

[Emily's Cat]

Really? You're going to rise up with firearms if Trump requires Muslims to register in the US?

With firearms? No. With voice, with petition, with protest, with appeals to my local and state legislature yes.

What would YOU do?

 

[Emily's Cat]

I just explained it to you in the post you quoted!

Did you even read what I wrote? Holy cow. How the heck did I move goalposts? How did I fail to answer the questions that you asked?

WTF is it that you're asking that I have failed to answer? Be explicit and specific since I seem to be missing it.

 

[Emily's Cat]

Trump did that in 2012 when Obama got elected but Romney won the popular vote.

http://mashable.com/2012/11/06/trump-reacts-to-election/#0F2h6teAOkqu

One person protested therefore it's the same?

 

[Emily's Cat]

But he was ALWAYS A JERK. His personality has never changed.

Well yes, that's true.

 

[Minoosh]

The interview wasn't made public until Sunday, so when it was recorded isn't important. As far as the public is concerned the interview was on Sunday night.

"60 Minutes" took one of the issues (health care) and promoted it Friday. I don't know if the show released any more information from Friday before Sunday's airing. Maybe it was just health care.

It's still journalists covering what Trump says to other journalists. Apparently it was one of the strongest items CNN had first thing this morning. I can see filling up a newspaper with it on a Sunday night, because Sundays are usually very slow news days. I was a little surprised this morning that CNN was still relying so much on the interview to fill its home page. Things are more up-to-date now though.

ETA: Here is probably my biggest beef, illustrated by what's on top of CNN's page now. It speaks of Chris Christie "mercilessly mocking" Marco Rubio. "Mocking" is fair but why the "mercilessly"? As a former news writer it jars me. I find myself calibrating copy for credibility - do I believe HuffPo's statistics? CNN's adjectives? MSNBC's ... whatever? I don't watch Fox News, it's too blatant but bias seems to creep in everywhere.

 

[Emily's Cat]

No, they would be planning an armed insurrection.

Why do you think that?

 

[Emily's Cat]

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.

Sorry, ponderingturtle, it's not immediately clear to me what "that" refers to in the highlighted above. I'm sure I'm missing something obvious, but I'm having trouble interpreting your post

 

[Dumb All Over]

Dow closes up 21 points today, another record high.

 

[Emily's Cat]

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.

When we proposed it, T2Diabetes wasn't in the mix. Even insulin dependent Diabetes wasn't in the mix. ESRD, a collection of enzyme-related orphan diseases, some terminal cancers with high end-of-life costs, hemophilia, etc. were in there.

Diabetes, regardless of type, is generally within about 3 sd of the mean for the annual claim probability distribution - well within the range of expected variance. Hemophilia, when an event occurs, ends up being up around 6 to 10 sd. The things we wanted in the HRP are all things that are waaaaaaay out on the tail of the distribution, but that have a material effect on the outcome of the pool as a whole. The whole point of it is that it's for a very small set of people with very extraordinary medical needs and costs.

It's like the opposite of a lottery. Right now, if you win the lottery, you get some massive upside potential and nobody is unhappy. Imagine if it were the other way around - imagine if the lottery would give you a multi-million dollar debt. Nobody wants that. It makes more sense to take that very rare occurrence of OMG skyrocketed costs, and share them out over a bigger population.