From Laurie "This topic bores me. I prefer consider more important issues such as The Transition: From Democrat to Autocrat"
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
skip to main |
skip to sidebar
Raising social involvement, self awareness and self improvement topics, because our communities are the sum of our personal beliefs, behaviors, action or inaction. Only "we" can improve our family, work place, school, city, country, etc.
Search This Blog
Useful Links
YOU CAN HELP NOW !!!
Tell friends, relatives, co-workers, neighbors, politicians, etc to google give2attain or send them this address now !!!http://give2attain.blogspot.com/ Then I promise to keep posting unique and/or helpful thoughts, and hosting open polite dialogue. Thank You !!!
Trying for Balance
G2A Email and Rules
email: give2get@live.com
G2A will only discuss things that are general public knowledge. (ie no privileged info)
G2A will only link to public / posted documents. (ie school and other websites)
G2A will not post based on singular specific personal conversations or information without permission from the information provider.
G2a will only post after observing common themes, issues, discussions, etc. (ie it is out there and people are talking about it)
G2A will moderate any comments that apply derogatory labels. Be it to G2A, another commenter, group of people, etc.
G2A will moderate any comment that includes offensive language. (ie swearing)
G2A will only discuss things that are general public knowledge. (ie no privileged info)
G2A will only link to public / posted documents. (ie school and other websites)
G2A will not post based on singular specific personal conversations or information without permission from the information provider.
G2a will only post after observing common themes, issues, discussions, etc. (ie it is out there and people are talking about it)
G2A will moderate any comments that apply derogatory labels. Be it to G2A, another commenter, group of people, etc.
G2A will moderate any comment that includes offensive language. (ie swearing)
Blog Archive
-
▼
2017
(304)
-
▼
January
(30)
- How Safe is Safe Enough
- National Security Council
- Trump and Extreme Vetting
- Should I Sell?
- Border Security and Sanctuary Cities
- Trumps Keeps Kicking That Sleeping Dog
- The Right and Wrong Ways
- America First
- Trump has Smaller Crowd: Throws Tantrum
- What Is TrumpCare
- How to Win the War on Poverty?
- Democrat to Autocrat
- The Path to Hell and Good Intentions
- Federal Government Employees
- How and Where We Live is a CHOICE
- How to Pay for that New Stove
- The Coming Disaster
- Trumps News Conference
- Obama Farewell Speech and the Haters
- Trump Should be Ready for Disappointment
- Kids are Expensive
- Free Loader: Person or Behavior?
- Will SS and Medicare Change?
- Can Manufacturing Rebound?
- Yes The GOP is STUPID
- Is Trump Worth the RISK
- MN GOP Goals
- Fed GOP Goals
- Surprise: People are Nervous about Trump's Capabil...
- Who is Failing Who?
-
▼
January
(30)
About Me
- John
- I am married and we have 3 adult daughters and a dog. We live in Plymouth MN. My interests are learning, communicating, home improvement projects, motorcycling, boating, and other outside activities. Thank you for reading my blog and have a great day !!!
43 comments:
Sorry, Laurie, but I couldn't stand to read the whole thing. If it was a eulogy, I would have cut it some slack. If it was billed as a work of fantasy fiction, I might have found it interesting. Otherwise, it is simply incredible. As in not credible.
I would suggest that the proper construct would be "From Liberal Autocrat to Pragmatist." It doesn't ring as well, but I count it far more accurate.
Laurie,
I think the Liberal press gives Trump much more power than he has.
You need to remember that over half of the citizens of the country abhor him. And when he goes off on Buzzfeed... They log in to look at Buzzfeed. It is kind of like when the Liberals went after businesses who did not want to serve LGBT individuals or pay for IUD's, the Religious Right rallied to support them.
Now I agree that Trump was terrible during his news conference, but I don't think this will cause any long duration issues for the USA.
Interesting, that all of these people "abhor him," when he hasn't even taken office yet! It just sounds like the typical liberal/media playbook of demonizing the guy just because he's not a Democrat. Fairness would dictate that he get a least a week or so and, if he doesn't shoot somebody, maybe a couple of weeks before we start the "politics of personal destruction."
It just sounds like the typical liberal/media playbook of demonizing the guy just because he's not a Democrat.
I do think when Hillary told those rallies that Donald belonged in jail was a bit much. And I was truly embarrassed at that cardboard cutout at the DFL booth of Donald in a prison uniform. Never was I more ashamed of being a Democrat. And back in 2008, when President-Elect Obama called defeated GOP candidate a criminal, I felt sure our nation was headed for tyranny.
Curious how quickly Democrats forget our history of demonizing our opponents.
--Hiram
I see what you did there. But as one who stood next to Hillary-in-stripes for a few hours, I can tell you there is a substantial difference. Ninety percent of the people who wanted a selfie with "her" were laughing. Republicans poke fun at big targets. Democrats demonize. They make up the most scurrilous lies about Republicans and unabashedly trumpet them far and wide.
Jerry,
Given Trump's own scurrilous Birther lies about Obama, I hope you are kidding.
Unfortunately both the Right and Left have folks who love to lie and create fake news in an attempt to undermine the other side.
For Example
Hannity on Obama
Laura Ingraham
I can tell you there is a substantial difference. Ninety percent of the people who wanted a selfie with "her" were laughing.
Do you dispute the fact that Donald Trump is the most ridiculed, the most laughed at, candidate and president elect in American history?
--Hiram
I do think the question raised here by others is an interesting one, and one not often asked in very specific terms.
Is Donald Trump a demon? If the answer is yes, is there anything wrong about Democrats who demonize him?
--Hiram
Trump is the most ridiculed, but "most" I am not certain of. Nonetheless, it is certainly not with humor. To quote "Men in Black," "We work for the government. We have no sense of humor of which we are aware." Liberals are the "mean girls" of politics.
As for Hannity and Coulter, I am not sure why you cite them, but I was immediately reminded of Harry Truman's response to chants of "Give 'em Hell, Harry." He said, “I never did give them hell. I just told the truth, and they thought it was hell.”
Hiram, that is indeed an interesting locution. The answer is yes. Since it is not possible to "demonize" a demon, the term only reasonably applies to someone who is not a demon, and that is the case here. The objections to Trump are almost entirely without a rational basis and have often been stated in the most impossibly hyperbolic terms.
That is the sad part... You thought Hannity and Ingraham were being truthful.
Thankfully even Fox knew to put them on the "Opinions" web page.
Certainly both of them come under the heading of opinion and not news reporters, but considering what news reporters report these days, it is impossible to know the difference. So enlighten me. What of the dozens of bad things that happened on Obama's watch was he not responsible for? Or do you want to claim that every one of those things which we all know happened, never happened?
I think first you would have to identify these BAD things.
For the most things are pretty good right now. That is why Obama's approval rating is so high. I think these folks explained the dissatisfied folks well. Apparently both the Left and Right were unhappy, so that means he must have been pretty Centrist.
"Forty-eight percent of Americans approve of Obama’s performance as president, while 44 percent disapprove, according to the HuffPost/YouGov survey. Obama’s approval rating in this survey is significantly lower than in most other polls, in which the outgoing president has enjoyed ratings well into the mid-50s since Trump’s victory in November.
Respondents to the HuffPost/YouGov poll were equally likely to say Obama changed the country for the better or for the worse, at 39 percent each. And 22 percent said that he has had neither a positive nor a negative effect on the nation or that they were unsure.
Those who disapprove of Obama’s legacy fall into two distinct camps: 48 percent said he did too much to change things, while 26 percent said he didn’t do enough. Those who said Obama changed too much were mostly Republicans who voted for both Mitt Romney and Donald Trump. Many of the respondents who said he changed too little did not vote in 2012 or 2016 ― perhaps a reflection of disaffection with the political system."
And then there is Trumps Low Approval Rating.
On the upside he has an opportunity to strive for "Most Improved" since he is starting so low.
That is if he can mature and stop picking twitter fights with SNL, CNN, the Cast of Hamilton, Arnold / Apprentice ratings, civil rights heroes, etc.
Oh, gee, you have all the major media, the entire Democrat establishment, gangs of people who don't even know what it is they are demonstrating about, and Hollywood bigmouths lying about a guy 24/7 for a couple months and his approval ratings go down? Mirabile dictu!
I do not need to identify those "bad things." Your cite of Hannity was a lengthy recitation of them. What amazes is that liberals not only do not defend against those statements of apparent fact, but simply dismiss them and relate their own fantasies instead. I do not have the patience, but it would be interesting to compare Obama's farewell tribute to himself with Hannity's indictment, point by point, and try to decide where truth lies. I think I know already, and it isn't with the guy who won the "Lie of the Year" award.
Next you will be insulting our fellow citizens like the Democrats did regarding our fellow GOP supporters. "gangs of people who don't even know what it is they are demonstrating about"
I have looked into enough of the claims and find Hannity's version of reality lacking. I mean there may be some truth hidden in there but it so hidden and twisted that it is meaningless.
One good example is Fred's previous example of the huge number of people who are still out of the work force... When the reality is that the number is just slightly higher than when Bush was in office. U6 Total Unemployment
Here is a better graph with more history.
FDR was arguably the most autocratic president, ever. Personally, I loath everything he did, but leftists seem to adore him.
It's not autocracy Laurie fears, it's just the wrong flavor.
Obama claims to have turned the tide in our economy. As you point out, the U6 numbers are worse than Bush's.
In addition, Obama added millions of moochers to the welfare rolls.
Please tell me where my observations have gone wrong.
Trump has the worst approval ratings for any incoming President, because Hillary lost.
Said it before, I'll say it again. As long as he sticks to the list he published when picking replacements for Scalia and Ginsberg, I will count him a resounding success.
The Supreme Court thing should prove interesting. Obviously, Democrats will oppose any Trump nominee as illegitimate. Will Republicans abandon the procedural rules and push through their guy anyway?
--Hiram
I thought you might take issue, but the facts are out there. People out protesting Trump's Labor Secretary appointment were asked if they knew who Andrew Puzder was. Those shown on TV didn't know. Selective editing, sure, but collective ignorance, and demonstrating just to make noise, just the same. And notice that NONE of these demonstrations, objections, pleas from the asylum, etc. are based on anything these folks have done in office, it's all paranoid delusional speculation, based on their fundamental disagreement with what I call "reality-based government."
I suggest you find a better example to prove Hannity's lack of truth. The number you are looking at, the U6 number, is the wrong one. It's too high, too, but the one Hannity is concerned about is the "labor force participation rate." here
I thought you might take issue, but the facts are out there. People out protesting Trump's Labor Secretary appointment were asked if they knew who Andrew Puzder was
Well yes, we do. Andy is a frequent op ed writer for the Wall Street Journal where his main topic was how his fast food business would fail if he had to pay for his employee's health insurance. He also like to explain how it wouldn't be good for his business if anyone else paid for his employee's health insurance either. As I recall, he didn't discuss much who paid for his own health insurance.
Over the years, as I read Andy's columns, I was always left with the impression that this guy was the most evil person ever. The irony is that most working people don't read the Wall Street Journal and were unaware of the huge insult Donald had just issued to them by nominating Andy as Secretary of Labor.
--Hiram
I expect the GOP to cram T's SCOTUS through with at least as much zeal as the Democrats employed cramming Obamacare through.
That is to say, as much as it takes to get the job done.
Jerry, the U6 number includes the participation rate. It is the total number of working age people not working.
Hiram, you are one exceptional liberal. And it is not unreasonable to suggest that one might infer future actions from (a consistent collection of) past actions and public statements. What IS unreasonable is to suggest that those future actions are worth rioting in the streets about, at least until they actually create harm to somebody. It is quite possible that, despite your objections, the real world might react positively to those actions.
Fred, it seems like you are right, but it cannot be. U6 is a percent of the workforce not working. Participation rate is the percent actually working, and it is going down while U6 goes down. Not possible.
For SCOTUS, I expect Democrats to support Trump's nominee to the same degree Republicans supported Obama's. It won't happen because, as Obama always says, "that's not who we are."
Jerry,
I think most people know that Trump picked a fast food CEO to run Labor.
I do like those Carls Jr commercials, but I don't know if that qualifies him to run the Dept of labor.
I don't know that it doesn't. I guess it depends on whether you see an adversarial relationship between employers and employees as beneficial to the economy as a whole, or not.
As far as running a huge bureaucracy, he seems eminently well qualified.
Not sure. But I am looking forward to seeing the new labor dept PSAs... :-)
What IS unreasonable is to suggest that those future actions are worth rioting in the streets about, at least until they actually create harm to somebody.
I, personally, don't think they are worth rioting in the streets about. But then I won't be the one rioting. But the fact is, we as a nation are like the frog in the pot of water, with the heat on. We have been boiling quite some time, and yet few seem to have noticed.
One of the ironies of Trump is that some of the things he has done or is doing are things we should have done. We should have been the ones using the market power of the government to crush Big Pharma. Why didn't we do it? Why did we leave it to Trump to do?
--Hiram
Oddly enough, I think that's one place where Trump is wrong. Big Pharma has HUGE obstacles to making a profit-- the enormous cost of getting a new drug through the FDA, and the refusal of foreign competitors to honor US patents. Why do you think drugs are so cheap in Canada? If you cut profit margins for the US companies too much, that next generation of life-saving pharmaceuticals will never get developed. Far better to streamline the FDA and enforce US patents. Forcing the companies to sell to government at artificially fixed prices (just as Medicare now does for other medical care) is simply going to make the whole enterprise unprofitable and to everyone's detriment.
Oddly enough, I think that's one place where Trump is wrong.
What's surprising is that any Republican thinks it's right. It's a fundamental contradiction of so much in Republican thinking. Not even Democrats would go as far as Trump is eager to go because hey, we aren't stupid. At least in our personal self image, we aren't nearly as stupid as Trump.
You know, Trump isn't a guy who is very knowledgeable about how markets work. His experience in Manhattan is more about monopoly and oligopolies and that sort of thing. When he branched out into more competitive markets as when he ventured into the gambling business his failure was total.
--Hiram
Layover in lovely Seattle...
As I am inundated with TV commercials for "me to drugs" on TV... I am thinking there is plenty of excess money in Pharma...
The worst I saw lately was some drug to minimize one's double chin...
Besides the Pharma Sales Reps get paid big bucks for little value.
It sure seems so, right? All that advertising and paying "sales reps"? But ask yourself, how does a doctor find out about these new wonder drugs? By people coming in asking for them, or by a rep coming in and explaining them. And I wouldn't get too concerned about advertising being convincing. Every one I hear sounds as if the side effects are far worse than the disease.
Obviously, the wider the distribution of the drug (assuming doctors are convinced to prescribe it) the wider the development cost can be spread and the lower the cost.
Well if you believe negotiation and the free market is good. Then let's have Medicaid and Medicare negotiate...
And if they don't pay enough we don't get that drug... Just like with our normal insurance companies. Or we can pay out of pocket.
How would Doctor's learn about it... Let's try direct mail, journals or web marketing. Not expensive DR vacations, expensive TV time, etc.
The problem is that Medicare and Medicaid do not negotiate, they dictate. They "control" a large portion of the customer base and therefore a "monopoly" on the demand. Government price-fixing doesn't work. On the other hand, I have a private drug insurance plan, and have discovered that the prices I get-- my copays-- are something like a 90% discount. Assuming there are competitors, this is the way the free market can and should work.
I agree with all of your proposals, and believe they would be constructive in removing the most destructive segment of the poor population, but I aver we will never completely be free of poverty. Poverty, you see, being an innate station in any free Democracy.
There will always be people that choose poverty, and it is their right as free citizens to make that choice. Most free living bums are not a blight on society. Poverty's damage comes at the hand of the despised moocher, and it is they that will wither under your proposals.
Moochers do not want to be poor; they just don't want to work for their daily bread. American moochers are among the worst. Not being satisfied with free bread, they demand standards of living indistinguishable from the lives of the people that work and pay for their room and board.
You cannot punish someone with harsh standards they freely choose to impose upon themselves, but you can use them to uncover the imposters.
~ Fred
Post a Comment