[barmar]

ldrews, on 2017-April-24, 14:47, said:

Trump did win the election with 46% of the vote. A recent poll shows that 96% of his voters would vote for him again. The following links provides a detailed demographic breakdown of Trump voters. Note there are a significant number of educated and financially successful voters.

Many of Trump's policies will benefit multi-millionaires, at the expense of the lower and middle classes, the environment, America's reputation, etc. These people are indeed educated and financially successful.

[Winstonm]

Quote

ldrews, on 2017-April-24, 16:47, said:
Trump did win the election with 46% of the vote. A recent poll shows that 96% of his voters would vote for him again. The following links provides a detailed demographic breakdown of Trump voters. Note there are a significant number of educated and financially successful voters.

barmar, on 2017-April-25, 08:58, said:

Many of Trump's policies will benefit multi-millionaires, at the expense of the lower and middle classes, the environment, America's reputation, etc. These people are indeed educated and financially successful.

If those 4% would have stayed home on election day, Clinton would be president.

[ldrews]

Winstonm, on 2017-April-24, 21:29, said:

My point? What happened to skepticism? You buy into Trump's self-promotion as if it is gospel itself, LoL. Sad. Bigly.

But, on the other hand, how can you not trust someone who says this to the Associated Press:


So now we have a super-duper, higher, better, better security president, and if he only costs us $10 billion it will be a miracle.

I think skepticism is great! I employ a lot of it myself.

You seem to be addicted to Trump's words. I think that is a mistake. Trump is a blowhard, says whatever comes into his mind in the moment, and changes what he says frequently to the consternation of his opponents. I prefer to watch what he does, his appointments, his executive orders, etc. So far he seems to be attempting to fulfill his campaign promises. Obviously those dependent upon cooperation from Congress have met with less success. But he hasn't seemed to back away from those promises. Perhaps delay some for political reasons, but he has at least 4 years to perform.

However, I do not support his military adventures. If he does enough of those I will back away from any support. But domestically he is doing the things that I think need to be done.

[Winstonm]

ldrews, on 2017-April-25, 18:10, said:

I think skepticism is great! I employ a lot of it myself.

You seem to be addicted to Trump's words. I think that is a mistake. Trump is a blowhard, says whatever comes into his mind in the moment, and changes what he says frequently to the consternation of his opponents. I prefer to watch what he does, his appointments, his executive orders, etc. So far he seems to be attempting to fulfill his campaign promises. Obviously those dependent upon cooperation from Congress have met with less success. But he hasn't seemed to back away from those promises. Perhaps delay some for political reasons, but he has at least 4 years to perform.

However, I do not support his military adventures. If he does enough of those I will back away from any support. But domestically he is doing the things that I think need to be done.

From my perspective, realists begin with objectivity rather than skepticism; skepticism is an inherent bias.

[ldrews]

Winstonm, on 2017-April-26, 11:35, said:

From my perspective, realists begin with objectivity rather than skepticism; skepticism is an inherent bias.

What you call objectivity is also inherently flawed and contains its own biases. General Semantics points out the fallibilities of our thinking. "Beyond Biocentrism" points out that modern quantum physics says the world does not work the way we think it does. From these viewpoints skepticism is quite warranted.

[Trinidad]

ldrews, on 2017-April-25, 18:10, said:

I think skepticism is great! I employ a lot of it myself.

You seem to be addicted to Trump's words. I think that is a mistake. Trump is a blowhard, says whatever comes into his mind in the moment, and changes what he says frequently to the consternation of his opponents. I prefer to watch what he does, his appointments, his executive orders, etc. So far he seems to be attempting to fulfill his campaign promises. Obviously those dependent upon cooperation from Congress have met with less success. But he hasn't seemed to back away from those promises. Perhaps delay some for political reasons, but he has at least 4 years to perform.

However, I do not support his military adventures. If he does enough of those I will back away from any support. But domestically he is doing the things that I think need to be done.

I can promise the world that I will make an engine running on water and then blame my opponents if it doesn't work.

Trump has promised his voters things that are not possible, whether physically, politically, legally or constitutionally. When his opponents pointed that out in the campaign, he simply brushed it aside and said that he would do it anyway and it would be fantastic, refusing to get specific.

Now, it is time for him to deliver on his impossible promises. And to rational people (who might have given him the benefit of the doubt at first) it is becoming painfully clear that Trump's opponents in the campaign were right: He can't deliver on his promises.

People with common sense would get angry at him since they see that they have been conned with empty promises. But the Trump electorate just applauds him: "At least he is trying!".

Please give me a couple of billion dollars and for the next four years I will try as hard as I can to build an engine that runs on water.

Rik

[Al_U_Card]

Trinidad, on 2017-April-27, 05:51, said:

I can promise the world that I will make an engine running on water and then blame my opponents if it doesn't work.

Trump has promised his voters things that are not possible, whether physically, politically, legally or constitutionally. When his opponents pointed that out in the campaign, he simply brushed it aside and said that he would do it anyway and it would be fantastic, refusing to get specific.

Now, it is time for him to deliver on his impossible promises. And to rational people (who might have given him the benefit of the doubt at first) it is becoming painfully clear that Trump's opponents in the campaign were right: He can't deliver on his promises.

People with common sense would get angry at him since they see that they have been conned with empty promises. But the Trump electorate just applauds him: "At least he is trying!".

Please give me a couple of billion dollars and for the next four years I will try as hard as I can to build an engine that runs on water.

Rik

Politics is a game best played by those that understand the rules and not just the obvious ones. The electorate has been played for centuries without significant objection (revolution) so they continue to refine (?) and expand (!) their control and exploitative influence. This is mostly fostered by the monied interests that use them as a buffer and cover for their serial machinations. A logical progression and Trump may be the nec plus ultra of this situation. Individual rights and freedoms? Bushwah! As soon as a leader puts the populace above the special interests (it has been a whilw with the Bush family legacy "in charge" for the last 50 years or so...) they are "removed" from power, one way or another. As for the OP? More Bush-whacked than trumped...

[Winstonm]

Quote

The following is an excerpt from the new book Requiem for the American Dream: The 10 Principles of Concentration of Wealth & Power by Noam Chomsky and edited by Peter Hutchison, Kelly Nyks, and Jared P. Scott (Seven Stories Press, 2017):

One of the leading political scientists, Martin Gilens, has done important studies of the relationship between public attitudes and public policy, based on polling data. It’s a pretty straightforward thing to study—policy you can see, and public opinion you know from extensive polling. In one study, together with another fine political scientist, Benjamin Page, Gilens took about 1,700 policy decisions, and compared them with public attitudes and business interests. What they show, I think convincingly, is that policy is uncorrelated with public attitudes, and closely correlated with corporate interests. Elsewhere he showed that about 70 percent of the population has no influence on policy—they might as well be in some other country. And as you go up the income and wealth level, the impact on public policy is greater—the rich essentially get what they want....

Unfocused Anger

There’s popular mobilization and activism, but in very self-destructive directions. It’s taking the form of unfocused anger—hatred, attacks on one another and on vulnerable targets. Really irrational attitudes—people mobilizing against their own interests, literally against their own interests. Supporting political figures whose goal is to harm them as much as possible. We’re seeing this right in front of us—you look at the television and the Internet, you see it every day. That’s what happens in cases like this. It is corrosive of social relations, but that’s the point. The point is to make people hate and fear each other, look out only for themselves, and not do anything for anyone else.

[jogs]

Berkeley was the home of the FSM.
Today Berkeley will be he home of the end of democracy in America.
Berkeley does not support free speech. It refuses to protect
Ann Coulter.

The elitist progressive left will be the end of Western Civilization.

[jogs]

On Many Campuses, Hate is Spelled SJP.

http://www.thetower....is-spelled-sjp/

Students of Justice in Palestine are allowed to speak in US campuses.
This is a true hate group.
While conservatives are not allowed to speak.

[Winstonm]

jogs, on 2017-April-27, 08:06, said:

Berkeley was the home of the FSM.
Today Berkeley will be he home of the end of democracy in America.
Berkeley does not support free speech. It refuses to protect
Ann Coulter.

The elitist progressive left will be the end of Western Civilization.

I kind of doubt your conclusion but I agree Ann Coulter has the right to speak her nonsensical blather to those stupid enough to want to listen to her.

[kenberg]

Winstonm, on 2017-April-27, 11:01, said:

I kind of doubt your conclusion but I agree Ann Coulter has the right to speak her nonsensical blather to those stupid enough to want to listen to her.

There are times that I think we have lost our minds. I was reading the Washington Post this morning:

https://www.washingt...m=.959add582343

Quote

Coulter said in an email to the Associated Press that she was considering a visit to one of the events Thursday but did not elaborate.

"I'm not speaking. But I'm going to be near there, so I might swing by to say hello to my supporters who have flown in from all around the country," Coulter said in the email. "I thought I might stroll around the graveyard of the First Amendment."

I cannot imagine myself walking as far as across the street to hear Ann Coulter. I cannot imagine myself walking as far as across the street to protest Ann Coulter.

We have people flying in from all over the country, national news coverage, people in riot gear, helmets, what have you? Have we all gone nuts?


In the early 60s, before the 60s became the 60s, a political science prof at the University of Minnesota, Mulford Q Sibley said some things in an interview with the student newspaper that caused commotion. A St. Paul councilman, in difficulty with his re-election bid, challenged Sibley to a debate. Most of us viewed this as a great over-reaction. I assure you nobody flew in from anywhere, and no riot gear was needed.

Ann Coulter. Really? Ann Coulter?

The debate? Sibley won on logic, the councilman won on emotion, and as I recall the councilman was turned out of office for corruption.

[jogs]

kenberg, on 2017-April-28, 07:08, said:

I cannot imagine myself walking as far as across the street to hear Ann Coulter. I cannot imagine myself walking as far as across the street to protest Ann Coulter.

We have people flying in from all over the country, national news coverage, people in riot gear, helmets, what have you? Have we all gone nuts?

Yes, the left started going nuts when they were able to stop the Nixon administration from functioning which forced Nixon to resign.

[Winstonm]

jogs, on 2017-April-28, 07:58, said:

Yes, the left started going nuts when they were able to stop the Nixon administration from functioning which forced Nixon to resign.

Have you looked into a mirror lately?

[Winstonm]

kenberg, on 2017-April-28, 07:08, said:

There are times that I think we have lost our minds. I was reading the Washington Post this morning:

https://www.washingt...m=.959add582343


[/font][/color]

I cannot imagine myself walking as far as across the street to hear Ann Coulter. I cannot imagine myself walking as far as across the street to protest Ann Coulter.

We have people flying in from all over the country, national news coverage, people in riot gear, helmets, what have you? Have we all gone nuts?


In the early 60s, before the 60s became the 60s, a political science prof at the University of Minnesota, Mulford Q Sibley said some things in an interview with the student newspaper that caused commotion. A St. Paul councilman, in difficulty with his re-election bid, challenged Sibley to a debate. Most of us viewed this as a great over-reaction. I assure you nobody flew in from anywhere, and no riot gear was needed.

Ann Coulter. Really? Ann Coulter?

The debate? Sibley won on logic, the councilman won on emotion, and as I recall the councilman was turned out of office for corruption.

Here is a quote from the WaPo article: (Problems corrected)

“Berkeley will continue to be a liberal echo chamber unless the university we can ensure that conservative speakers can speak on campus it becomes a conservative echo chamber,” Tahmas said.

[Winstonm]

ldrews, on 2017-April-26, 18:02, said:

What you call objectivity is also inherently flawed and contains its own biases. General Semantics points out the fallibilities of our thinking. "Beyond Biocentrism" points out that modern quantum physics says the world does not work the way we think it does. From these viewpoints skepticism is quite warranted.

Yet you proclaim Trump's executive orders are significant - and it seems you really haven't tried to understand their impact. From what I have learned, it appears Trump stages these signing ceremonies in order to produce a visual effect, like a t.v. show, instead of actually governing.

Politico helps explain:

Quote

But 99 days into his presidency, Trump’s high-profile orders have not actually undone Obama’s health reforms, financial regulations, or carbon restrictions. They’ve merely allowed him to announce his intentions to undo those policies in official documents. Trump’s first 30 executive orders will create a lot of federal reviews and reports, along with some new task forces and commissions, but not a lot of substantive change. So far, they’ve been more about messaging than governing, proclaiming his priorities without really advancing his priorities.

The White House is making Trump’s flurry of executive orders the centerpiece of his 100-day legacy, in part because he hasn’t yet signed any major new laws or made much specific progress on his Make America Great Again policy agenda. And his orders have echoed his rhetoric about trade, regulations, crime, and other policy issues, which has given them the appearance of promises kept. But a close look at the language of his orders shows that most of them are basically press releases with presidential signatures, plus instructions to his Cabinet secretaries to look into the issues at hand.

[ldrews]

Winstonm, on 2017-April-28, 09:25, said:

Yet you proclaim Trump's executive orders are significant - and it seems you really haven't tried to understand their impact. From what I have learned, it appears Trump stages these signing ceremonies in order to produce a visual effect, like a t.v. show, instead of actually governing.

Politico helps explain:

How condescending! Apparently you haven't really tried to understand the impact of Trump's executive orders at all. He is already moving the ship of state in a different direction from the last couple of decades. And I would very much like to review your sources for what you have learned about the staging of Trump's signing ceremonies. Please provide some links.

[mycroft]

To give him credit, "messaging rather than governing" is good leadership, and what I would expect from anyone in an executive position, government or business. I may have issues with the message (United, anyone?) but anything big enough to be "not small" is too big for the person at the top to do anything more without fatally neglecting something. "I'll explain what we want to happen, and my trusted, capable subordinates who are hired both to think and to produce - possibly to disagree, because I may be wrong - will cause it to happen." That's why he hires all those trusted, capable subordinates, well versed in the worlds they are to work, in the first place.

Oh, wait.

I also note the "messaging" in the people he *has* put forward to be the "message" of the big governmental divisions. That message seems to be "burn it all down."

[Winstonm]

ldrews, on 2017-April-28, 13:17, said:

How condescending! Apparently you haven't really tried to understand the impact of Trump's executive orders at all. He is already moving the ship of state in a different direction from the last couple of decades. And I would very much like to review your sources for what you have learned about the staging of Trump's signing ceremonies. Please provide some links.

You are free to dig into the impact of the executive orders just like I did but I doubt you will because I believe your pro-Trump bias has you blinded.

[ldrews]

Winstonm, on 2017-April-28, 14:41, said:

You are free to dig into the impact of the executive orders just like I did but I doubt you will because I believe your pro-Trump bias has you blinded.

Since the first 100 days have elapsed I will, indeed, review the executive orders. And I believe your anti-Trump bias also has you blinded.