ChrisWeigant.com

Please support ChrisWeigant.com this
holiday season!

Friday Talking Points [417] -- Turkey Leftovers

[ Posted Friday, December 2nd, 2016 – 17:25 PST ]

So, has everyone had their fill of turkey leftovers? Well, taking a quick look at Donald Trump's cabinet choices should suffice anyone who still craves some leftover turkeys, if you know what we mean.

The most amusing headline we've seen so far came from Trump's consideration of David Petraeus for secretary of State: "Hillary Clinton wasn't charged with mishandling classified information. Trump might appoint someone convicted of it." Heh.

Trump's big photo op this week was at a Carrier plant in Indianapolis, where he announced he had only saved half the jobs which had been planned to move to Mexico. A thousand Carrier workers will still soon be out of a job, but Trump played it as a total victory. He only had to get Mike Pence to give up $7,000,000 in tax breaks from Indiana (Pence had refused the same deal earlier, a detail that also got lost in all the breathless reporting). Which, as Bernie Sanders quickly pointed out, is going to encourage all sorts of companies to threaten to move their workforce unless the government gives them some fat corporate welfare as well. Hey, Carrier got $7,000 per job, maybe we can hold out for $10,000 each!

The truly interesting thing was how this all happened. Trump was watching NBC news, and saw a Carrier worker interviewed who said he fully expected all the jobs to be saved, because Trump had promised to save them. In Trump's own words:

And they had a gentleman, worker, great guy, handsome guy, he was on, and it was like he didn't even know they were leaving. He said something to the effect, "No, we're not leaving, because Donald Trump promised us that we're not leaving," and I never thought I made that promise. Not with Carrier. I made it for everybody else. I didn't make it really for Carrier.

And I said, "What’s he saying?" And he was such a believer, and he was such a great guy. He said, "I've been with Donald Trump from the beginning, and he made the statement that Carrier's not going anywhere, they're not leaving." And I'm saying to myself, "Man."

And then they played my statement, and I said, "Carrier will never leave." But that was a euphemism. I was talking about Carrier like all other companies from here on in. Because they made the decision a year and a half ago.

But he believed that that was -- and I could understand it. I actually said -- I didn't make it -- when they played that, I said, "I did make it, but I didn't mean it quite that way."

This is pretty astonishing, because Trump was admitting that he really didn't expect his own followers to believe the things he told them, but it's also instructive for the future. Trump loves getting all his information from television news shows -- by his own admission. So shaming Trump into taking action should be pretty easy. Just interview someone who believed a Trump campaign promise, then play a clip of Trump actually making the promise out on the campaign trail. That's all it should take to hold his feet to the fire, on pretty much any issue. Run a storyline of "Trump supporter disappointed in unkept promise," and Trump'll get right on it! Sadly, this level of manipulation of Trump seems to work, so all news media should take special note, for the future. That's if they can tear themselves away from Trump's Twitter feed long enough to do so, of course.

Trump is back out on the campaign trail again, for his "victory tour." Because, after all, that's so much more fun that making cabinet choices (even when you have the power to make Mitt Romney roll over, sit up, and beg for a treat). Which means the whole The Apprentice -- Secretary Of State Edition show Trump has been hosting will continue for at least another week or so, it seems.

Republicans in Congress are realizing that they're going to actually be expected to do some stuff, although whether that will happen or not is still to be seen. Lindsey Graham actually wants to pass a bill to keep President Obama's DACA program going (which allows the DREAMers to continue to have temporary legal status), but he seems a wee bit overconfident that he'll convince his own party to vote for such a thing. Not to mention whether Trump would sign it -- which seems rather far-fetched to us, but maybe we're just being gloomy. It'd be great if it did pass, but we're not exactly holding our breaths.

Nancy Pelosi won another term as House Minority Leader, but we're going to address that down in the awards section. Barack Obama gave an exit interview to Rolling Stone that is worth reading, although he had some rather disappointing things to say about marijuana legalization (which we addressed in detail earlier this week, if anyone's interested).

Senator Ron Wyden is pushing Obama hard to publicly release -- or at least preserve the existence of -- the full 7,000-page report on torture. A much shorter version of the complete report was made public earlier, but Wyden correctly fears that the Republicans will succeed in their efforts to literally shove the whole document down an Orwellian memory hole -- which Trump might just go along with. If Obama acts before he leaves, then the document will be properly preserved, even if an unredacted copy never gets publicly released, so Wyden deserves kudos for pushing the issue.

Let's see, what else? The contest for who will chair the Democratic National Committee is going to get more attention, but probably not until after the New Year. We recently read one article that had an absolutely brilliant idea on this front. Democrats need someone to reconnect the party with working-class, blue-collar values? Well, there's an obvious choice, who will be out of a job soon anyway. How does "DNC Chair Joe Biden" sound? We have to say that sounds pretty good, to us. Biden speaks that language fluently, and he'd be able to refocus the party on some core issues they've been largely ignoring, that's for sure.

That's about it for this week, except to note the signs of the year-end holidays fast approaching. That's right -- Festivus poles are appearing once again! And this year's "airing of the grievances" should be epic, that's for sure.

 

Most Impressive Democrat Of The Week

This one is rather odd, because we're awarding the Most Impressive Democrat Of The Week to someone who just lost an election.

Not a popular election, mind you, but rather the election for leadership of the House Democratic caucus. Nancy Pelosi won the election with a comfortable margin (she got just over two-thirds of the votes, as she predicted earlier), and will continue as House Minority Leader. But what that also means is that the brash challenger, Representative Tim Ryan, got 63 votes to Pelosi's 134. That's the largest amount of anyone who has challenged Pelosi for the leadership, and it signals one-third of the House Democrats were willing to support someone with no experience in leadership rather than the tried-and-true Pelosi.

Nancy Pelosi is 76 years old. Her second-in-command is also a septuagenarian. The average age of the House Democratic leadership is 72. Even that is about to change, though, since Xavier Becerra -- who, at 58, had been the youngest member of the leadership -- is soon going to resign his House seat (since Jerry Brown just named him to replace California's attorney general, who is leaving to replace Barbara Boxer in the Senate). Speaker of the House Paul Ryan, by contrast, isn't even 50 yet.

Democrats have got to rebuild their "bench." And they're going to need some younger blood to do it. Now, rumors are circulating that Tim Ryan was only making a bid for the leadership position to raise his political image because he's thinking of running for governor of his own state, Ohio. But no matter the reason, he made a pretty strong case that Democrats need to start paying a lot more attention to districts like his, where blue-collar voters used to reliably vote Democratic. He also pushed a strong economic message as opposed to telling all the disparate parts of the Democratic coalition what they want to hear on all the social hot-button issues.

The fact that Ryan got so much support for these stances -- which Democrats truly should be listening to -- shows there is a lot of discontent with staying with the same leaders who went from controlling the House and winning a 60-vote supermajority in the Senate (albeit very briefly), to their current sad state of affairs, in the minority in both houses.

Now, to be clear, we have nothing personal against Pelosi. She does a fine job of speaking up for Democratic issues and making the case for progressive legislation. Ideologically, we have no beef with her, to put this another way.

But, having said that, we're still pretty impressed with Tim Ryan's losing bid for Pelosi's leadership position. Whether he stays in the House or whether he runs for statewide office in Ohio, we'd bet this isn't the last we'll be hearing from Ryan. For getting 1-in-3 House Democrats to back him, we have to say Ryan is the clear choice for Most Impressive Democrat Of The Week -- even though he lost.

[Congratulate Representative Tim Ryan on his House contact page, to let him know you appreciate his efforts.]

 

Most Disappointing Democrat Of The Week

Millions of workers across America were disappointed this week, because they won't be getting the overtime pay they were promised. This week was when a new overtime rule was set to take effect, but it has now been temporarily blocked by a federal judge. This doesn't leave much time for the Obama administration to fight back, and who knows what Donald Trump will do when he takes office?

All of this is why Barack Obama has to be awarded this week's Most Disappointing Democrat Of The Week. Here's a hint why -- Obama got a previous MDDOTW way back in FTP [348], because he had been dragging his feet on the issue for so long.

I first wrote about the issue, in detail, in the first week of January of 2015. At the time, Obama was promising the new policy would be unveiled in "weeks, not months," which optimistically led me to speculate whether it'd be unveiled during that month's State Of The Union speech.

Turns out, this was premature. Obama got his MDDOTW award at the end of May. We did award Obama the MIDOTW a month later, after he wrote his own blog post for Huffington Post which called for raising the overtime threshold from $23,600 to instead cover "all salaried workers making up to about $50,400 next year." Turns out even that was premature, as the rule wasn't officially rolled out by the Labor Department until May of 2016 -- where it got whittled down to $47,476 per year.

So, to review, Obama promises new overtime rule is imminent at the beginning of January, 2015. He does nothing for six months, and then finally gets the process underway. But the Labor Department doesn't actually roll out the rule for almost another full year. That's a lot of wasted time.

In other words, if Obama had acted swiftly and decisively, as he himself initially promised to, the lawsuit would have likely already been resolved, one way or the other. Running out of time now was entirely predictable, which is why we spent so many months strongly urging Obama to act fast -- to no avail.

So while nothing Obama actually did this week earns him the Most Disappointing Democrat Of The Week, his earlier inaction came home to roost this week, as tens of millions of workers will not see any change in their paycheck this week. Changing the rule meant employers had a clear choice: stop working their so-called "managers" 60 or 70 hours a week with no overtime pay as compensation, or hire more people so such insane workweeks wouldn't be necessary anymore. Workers would either have gotten more money, or more free time. Now, they will have to wait and see what Donald Trump will do for them. Perhaps he'll fight for the rule, perhaps he won't.

For dithering for so many months instead of quickly acting with enough time to fight for the new policy in the courts, Barack Obama wins his second MDDOTW for dragging his feet. This should have been one of Obama's legacy items that would have helped out millions of workers. Now, if it even happens, those workers will remember it happened under the Trump administration. Delaying tactics have consequences, in other words.

[Contact President Barack Obama via his White House contact page, to let him know what you think of his (in-)actions.]

 

Friday Talking Points

Volume 417 (12/2/16)

The last few weeks have seen a steady drip-drip-drip of news from the Trump transition team, as they trickle out high-ranking appointments and nominees. We're going to mostly ignore that this week (except for the hapless Mitt Romney), and instead make a few other random observations. Oh, and we should note that this really covers the last two weeks, as we skipped the day after Thanksgiving to watch football and eat leftovers. With no further ado, let's get on with it.

 

1
   Like night and day

Jared Bernstein should be credited for that particular phrase, and his recent article lays out a much more complete case.

"Historically, the economy has always done better under Democratic presidents, all the way back to the 1960s. Democrats have been used to cleaning up Republican messes for a long time, now. The difference between the economy President Obama inherited and what he'll hand off to Donald Trump is like night and day. When Obama took office, the economy was in free-fall, we were losing jobs at the rate of 800,000 per month, and the unemployment rate was headed to 10 percent. Eight years later, Obama has presided over the longest period of job expansion the country's ever seen, we're gaining hundreds of thousands of jobs per month, and the unemployment rate is at 4.6 percent -- the lowest it has been in nine years. So we'll see what Obama's record looks like after a few years of Trump. My guess is that there will be a lot of people missing Obama when he's gone."

 

2
   Yeah, right afterwards...

This should be the stock response of every Democrat, for the immediate future.

"You're asking me to give Donald Trump credit for saving 1,000 jobs at Carrier (while failing to save another 1,000 that will still be headed to Mexico, but nevermind...), at the reported cost of $7,000 in tax breaks per job? OK, I'm all prepared to give Trump that credit -- which I will do immediately after the Republican Party gives President Obama for saving the entire American automobile industry, with no help from them whatsoever. Just as soon as I hear that admission from the GOP, I'll be happy to give Trump credit for all 1,000 jobs he saved, how's that?"

 

3
   Because the sequester worked so well

Yet another Republican plan to explain why they cannot come up with an actual plan. Sigh.

"I see the Republicans are now talking about 'repeal and delay' for Obamacare. This means they'll repeal it right away, but not really, because they'll merely start a three-year clock ticking for the repeal. During this time, the supposed threat of dire consequences is supposed to magically mean that Republicans will finally get their act together -- after seven years of doing absolutely nothing, I might add -- on the whole 'replace' idea. They've had seven years to offer up a bill that replaces Obamacare, and they have not done so, but now they're going to put a three-year deadline on themselves which is supposed to solve the problem. I only have one question: how'd that work out the last time you tried it? Remember the 'sequester' -- the consequences of which were so dire it would force Republicans to agree on a budget? Yeah, that didn't work out so well, did it? The deadline came and went, and Republicans still couldn't get their act together. So you'll have to excuse me if I don't believe 'delay' is going to lead to anything more than 'never get it done' -- as it always seems to with the GOP."

 

4
   Problem solved!

This one's so obvious, we're surprised nobody else has proposed it.

"In the most recent polling, only 26 percent of Americans wanted to see Obamacare repealed -- which is down quite a bit among Republicans even since last month. Polling has previously shown that people generally like all the benefits of Obamacare, but are sharply divided on the name. Now we have a man about to enter the White House who has made a lot of money licensing his name to projects he otherwise has nothing to do with. So why don't we just let Republicans 'repeal' Obamacare by passing a bill that does nothing more than rename it 'Trumpcare'? They won't have to come up with a replacement, they can just replace the name and start supporting it. Maybe they could even sweeten the pot and add a provision where Trump gets a dollar every time a politician uses 'Trumpcare' in public! That'd be sure to get him on board, right? As he might say: 'Bingo, Obamacare is now Trumpcare. Problem solved!'"

 

5
   Tasty!

This one is just too funny to pass up.

"Did you see Mitt Romney having dinner with Donald Trump the other day? Trump had a juicy steak, while Romney was served a big helping of crow."

 

6
   A mighty big list

Thanks to the Washington Post for doing the gruntwork on this one.

"If you want to keep track of how many of Donald Trump's campaign promises he's either kept or broken, the Washington Post has a handy reference guide of 282 campaign promises Trump made before he was elected. Print it out and use it as a scorecard!"

 

7
   No word yet...

This one was also too funny to resist.

"Hawai'i just built a fence that is five miles long, to protect endangered birds on Mauna Loa from feral cats. The cats -- many descended from cats who went AWOL from early explorers' ships -- have now been barred from the nesting grounds for the Hawai'ian petrel. No word yet on whether Donald Trump will be able to get the cats to pay for the fence, however...."

-- Chris Weigant

 

All-time award winners leaderboard, by rank
Follow Chris on Twitter: @ChrisWeigant

Cross-posted at: Democratic Underground
Cross-posted at: The Huffington Post

 

258 Comments on “Friday Talking Points [417] -- Turkey Leftovers”

  1. [1] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Chris,

    The link you give for Jared's article is actually a link to this FTP piece. :)

  2. [2] 
    neilm wrote:

    "Did you see Mitt Romney having dinner with Donald Trump the other day? Trump had a juicy steak, while Romney was served a big helping of crow."

    Best one I saw was Trump introducing his table mate as "Reek"

  3. [3] 
    neilm wrote:
  4. [4] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:

    LizM -

    Thanks! I will go fix it now, but had to re-post the following (which I added to the comments from yesterday's pledge drive article as well)

    Update:

    Check out (may have to reload page in your browser) that graphic at the top!

    This has got to be the best kickoff to a pledge drive ever, as not only did I find when checking my PayPal account (for the first time in many moons) that donations had been trickling in already, but the first two days of pledge drive has also seen a rather impressive amount flowing in as well.

    So we start with rougly a third of our goal already met. Woo hoo! Keep those cards and letters (and PayPals) coming in, folks! Maybe we'll reach our goal in record time this year.

    :-)

    I'll be watching PayPal a lot closer from now on, I can promise you that...

    Thanks to all who have already given, and I promise the thank-you emails will get attended to this weekend.

    :-)

    -CW

  5. [5] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:

    LizM -

    OK, there -- try it again, it should work now (reload the page if necessary before clicking it). Thanks for pointing it out!

    :-)

    -CW

  6. [6] 
    neilm wrote:

    She started it.

    Is this man for real?

  7. [7] 
    neilm wrote:

    Concerning the $7,000 per job:

    I don't think this was the whole reason. Carrier we're going to save $68M/year by moving to Mexico. Either there was a threat about the parent company's defense contracts or there were more shenanigans. I predict we'll find a bit of both.

    Of course the CEO could have taken one for the team, reasoning that making Trump look good would allow the administration to put in place some sweetheart legislation that will help all businesses. If so, watch out labor, the real sting will come later.

    If I was a shareholder I'd be asking some questions at the next annual meeting.

  8. [8] 
    neilm wrote:

    My earlier thought on 'Repeal and Delay' stand. It will be up to the Democrats to set the positioning on this fast. If the insurance companies pull out as expected it is important that the Republicans don't get away with a big lie about this showing that Obamacare was fatally flawed. Of course in a post fact World we can't expect the fanboys to do anything but swallow any lie they are given and claim it is fact, however there will be a lot of pissed people and Obama's last act should be a warning about the likely outcome.

  9. [9] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Chris,

    The link works just fine, now ... thanks!

  10. [10] 
    michale wrote:

    This is pretty astonishing, because Trump was admitting that he really didn't expect his own followers to believe the things he told them, but it's also instructive for the future. Trump loves getting all his information from television news shows -- by his own admission.

    You mean like Obama found out about just about everything by watching the news??

    Goose??? Gander???

    Nancy Pelosi won another term as House Minority Leader, but we're going to address that down in the awards section. Barack Obama gave an exit interview to Rolling Stone that is worth reading,

    Yea... Obama bitched and moaned about "fake news" to a publication that epitomizes "fake news"....

    :^/

    So we'll see what Obama's record looks like after a few years of Trump. My guess is that there will be a lot of people missing Obama when he's gone."

    He means, his HOPE is that there will be a lot of people missing Obama when he's gone.. :D

    "If you want to keep track of how many of Donald Trump's campaign promises he's either kept or broken, the Washington Post has a handy reference guide of 282 campaign promises Trump made before he was elected. Print it out and use it as a scorecard!"

    Obama abandoned his commitment to "unprecedented" transparency.

    Obama has failed on his promise to close GITMO.

    Obama failed to end the war in Iraq and finish the job in Afghanistan.

    Obama broke his promise to pursue a "tough, smart and principled national security strategy."

    Obama broke his promise not to raise taxes on the middle-class.

    Obama failed to grow the middle-class and Americans' incomes.

    Obama broke his promise to allow Americans to keep their plans and lower costs under Obamacare.

    Obama failed to make immigration a top priority and pass comprehensive reform in his first year.

    Obama failed to "nail shut" the revolving door of lobbyists working in his administration.

    Obama broke his promise to bring both parties together to enact a bipartisan agenda.

    Of course, the Left is going to hold Obama accountable for HIS broken promises, eh?? :D

    Yea, when pigs fly outta my arse.. :D

  11. [11] 
    michale wrote:

    And just to get back on track... :D

    088

  12. [12] 
    michale wrote:

    I think the biggest problem that the Left is going to have is how Trump goes off script..

    A common refrain from the Left (and probably many on the right) is going to be, "That's not how things are done!!"

    The current Left Wingery freak-out over Trump's contacts with world leaders is a perfect example...

    What the Left *AND* Right need to come to grips with is that thar's a new sheriff in town...

    The OLD way of doing things, the ways that got this country in the Foreign Policy mess it's in, is over...

    The Left and Right better get used to it..

    089

  13. [13] 
    michale wrote:

    Liz,

    Rather than get my wee-wee whacked again.... :D

    I wanted to bring your last comment forward and address it..

    In this case the assumption is correct and, in fact, doesn't go far enough.

    Clinton was such an extremely flawed candidate and her message so negative and uninspiring as to be the wrong candidate with a decidedly inept campaign.

    Why she won the popular vote can be attributed to the flawed nature of her opponent's campaign. As a very wise analyst has said from the get-go, if Trump hadn't repeatedly sabotaged his own campaign he might have won the popular vote and, more electoral votes, to boot!

    I completely concur with your assessment with one minor change...

    You really can't judge Trump by the normal criteria of a Party candidate...

    He is a totally new and different kind of candidate, the likes this country hasn't seen in well over a century...

    If Trump's current actions are any indication of how his Presidency is going to run, Trump might very well take 60%-70% of the Vanity Vote in 2020...

    Especially if the Democratic Party sees merit in trudging on the same course that has handed them 3 stinging shellacking, each more terrible (for them) than the previous one...

    As CW pointed out with the comment on the Pelosi/Ryan face-off, some in the Democratic Party are seeing the error of their ways..

    I just don't think it's going to sink in until 2018, when the Democratic Party will likely be handed another shellacking...

    Will THAT be in time to make a difference in 2020??

    Time will tell...

    The key is not moving Left.. Moving Left will only energize those who already are Party sla.... er... stalwarts...

    The Democratic Party must appeal to the maximum amount of Americans possible. That means, moving to the center, compromising and working WITH the GOP....

    Until the Democratic Party can do that, they will always be the Minority Party...

    090

  14. [14] 
    michale wrote:

    For those who don't believe that Trump can't deliver on jobs???

    Trump’s Charm of Not Being Obama
    The new White House won’t fail to embrace the jobs that fracking and pipelines can bring.

    http://www.wsj.com/articles/trumps-charm-of-not-being-obama-1480723697

    Trump won't let political correctness stand in the way of American prosperity...

  15. [15] 
    michale wrote:

    While we’re on the subject of rhetoric, what of this use of the word “process”? It is everywhere in the response to the election. The Hollywood Reporter informed the world that “A strange silence descended on Hollywood on Wednesday morning as stunned studio executives, agents and producers went through the motions as they tried to process Hillary Clinton’s surprise loss to Donald Trump.” A student at Columbia wrote that “I want no class tomorrow to process. Fearful for my life!! Not trying to do a midterm while crying.”

    Tears were another favored response to the tragedy. Cornell University even held a “cry-in” at which students were furnished with poster boards, markers, and chalk to express their emotions about the dread event. Many institutions mentioned Play-Doh and puppies. A student at Loyola University reported that “I cried until I vomited. I don’t even remember falling asleep, but I must have passed out from hyperventilation. I woke up with my eyes nearly swolen [sic] shut. My body is sore. My mind is numb.” Who could doubt it? Meanwhile, students at Bryn Mawr circulated a petition (there is a lot of that) asserting that “We need a day to heal after we’ve been told the country doesn’t value our existence at all. A Trump election directly endangers the lives of all students at Bryn Mawr College that are people of color, lgbtqa+, non-Christian, and female.” At Yale, an economics prof made the midterm examination optional for those students who “feared for their families” because of the Trump victory.
    http://www.newcriterion.com/articles.cfm/-i-Trumped-up--trickle-down-outrage-i--8542

    My gods.... Are these people for real!!!????

    And to think that it's THESE kinds of people that would be empowered had Hillary won the election..

    Now THAT is scary....

  16. [16] 
    neilm wrote:

    Sarah Palin might have learned a lesson from Trump. Perhaps she decided that having a real job with responsibilities is nothing like as much fun as shooting your mouth off about how much better you would be at it than anybody else.

    So she committed what is usually a cardinal sin for Trump - she badmouthed him.

    She correctly pointed out that the Carrier 'deal' is exactly what Republicans have been condemning as 'crony capitalism', and even used the 'socialist' word.

    She hedged her bets by saying that the details of the deal aren't fully published, and she might change her mind when they are.

    http://www.youngcons.com/sarah-palin-but-wait-the-good-guys-wont-win-with-more-crony-capitalism/

    Well Sarah, we're all waiting to see why a company that was going to save $68M/year, and has a fiduciary duty to its shareholders to maximize profits (Trump used this as an excuse not to pay taxes), opted to take $7,000 per worker ($68M/1000 workers = $68,000/worker - a 10:1 sacrifice even if you don't count the $16M plant investment).

  17. [17] 
    neilm wrote:

    Trump's call with Taiwan could be regarded as fantastic new thinking from an incredibly smart businessman who is breaking new ground.

    Or it could be the actions of a clown who doesn't read anything beyond the comic pages and get's his foreign policy from watching TV.

    Given the "fanboy doth protest too much" nature of the above posts, I'm going with the clown/TV take.

  18. [18] 
    michale wrote:

    Trump's call with Taiwan could be regarded as fantastic new thinking from an incredibly smart businessman who is breaking new ground.

    Or it could be the actions of a clown who doesn't read anything beyond the comic pages and get's his foreign policy from watching TV.

    OR, it could be just the leader of Taiwan calling Trump to congratulate him on his Presidential win...

    Sorry to rain on your parade, but facts and reality triumph again.. :D

    094

  19. [19] 
    michale wrote:

    Trump Derangement Syndrome is going to be REALLY fun for the next 8 years... :D

    095

  20. [20] 
    neilm wrote:

    OR, it could be just the leader of Taiwan calling Trump to congratulate him on his Presidential win...

    OR, it could be just the leader of Taiwan calling Trump to see if he was dumb enough to take a call that would overturn 37 years of careful diplomacy.

    Remember Trump's sign off to Teresa May? Did that make it into the right wing fanboy bubble? Do you know why the educated pissed themselves laughing at that? Isn't it far more likely Trump is blundering about completely out of his depth?

  21. [21] 
    neilm wrote:

    Trump Derangement Syndrome is going to be REALLY fun for the next 8 years... :D

    I'd say four, but yup - laughing at Trump until he learns about the real world will give us plenty to laugh at.

  22. [22] 
    michale wrote:

    Well Sarah, we're all waiting to see why a company that was going to save $68M/year, and has a fiduciary duty to its shareholders to maximize profits

    So, now you are defending corporate shareholders?? Upset that Trump's deal cut into their profits??

    :D

    096

  23. [23] 
    michale wrote:

    I'd say four, but yup - laughing at Trump until he learns about the real world will give us plenty to laugh at.

    Funny.. The Left said pretty much the EXACT same thing about Trump winning the GOP nomination...

    "Trump can't win the nomination because he is just a reality TV star and doesn't know anything..."

    Trump won the GOP nomination...

    The Left said pretty much the EXACT same thing about Trump winning the Presidency..

    "Trump can't win the Presidency because he doesn't know a thing about anything..."

    Trump won the Presidency...

    What's it going to take for the Left to admit that they have been WRONG about Trump at EVERY turn?? With EVERY prediction??

    The ONLY logical and rational conclusion is that Trump is simply not the person the Left claims him to be...

    097

  24. [24] 
    neilm wrote:

    Sorry to rain on your parade, but facts and reality triumph again.. :D

    Trump's realization that he screwed up, then his need to deflect blame gave it away. The "but she started it" tweet is a classic Trump.

    Trump is handing China negotiating points all over the place. China are beating us hands down with the RCEP (I'll bet Trump doesn't even know what the RCEP is) now Trump has abandoned the TPP. Trump is giving China the moral high ground over Taiwan. Trump proposed that Japan and South Korea go nuclear because he wouldn't guarantee their safety.

    President Xi must be wondering if Trump thinks Christmas comes early in the Chinese calendar.

  25. [25] 
    neilm wrote:

    Yes, yes, yes, everybody thought the American public could see through an obvious con man, and they couldn't.

    We should have remembered H. L. Mencken's keen observation.

    You've used that one. Time to move on, or is that all you have to excuse Trump for the next four years?

  26. [26] 
    neilm wrote:

    So, now you are defending corporate shareholders?? Upset that Trump's deal cut into their profits??

    Yes. United Technologies are an S&P 100 company, and thus I indirectly own their stock. Probably just about everybody with a 401(k) or similar pension plan does.

  27. [27] 
    michale wrote:

    You've used that one. Time to move on, or is that all you have to excuse Trump for the next four years?

    I'll quit pointing out how wrong the Left was about Trump if you quit making grandiose predictions that are based on nothing but Trump Derangement Syndrome...

    The simple fact is, the man you describe could NEVER have been the successful business man he is today...

    The man you describe could NEVER have defeated 16 seasoned politicians to win the GOP nomination...

    The man you describe could NEVER have defeated the BIGGEST and MEANEST Political Juggernaut in the history of the planet...

    So basically what you are saying is "Who ya gonna believe?? Me or the facts???"

    I'll take the facts, thank you very much.. :D

  28. [28] 
    michale wrote:

    Yes. United Technologies are an S&P 100 company, and thus I indirectly own their stock. Probably just about everybody with a 401(k) or similar pension plan does.

    Ahhhh.. So you are looking out for your own interests and the interests of your family, rather than the thousand Americans who still have a job, thanks to Donald Trump..

    Hay, no worries.. In your shoes, I would do the same thing.. Family comes first....

    Kudos that you can rise above Party ideology and do what's right for you and yours.. I mean that.. No BS...

  29. [29] 
    michale wrote:

    Yes, yes, yes, everybody thought the American public could see through an obvious con man, and they couldn't.

    Yes, that's one theory.. Unsupported by any real facts..

    Another theory (that is more in keeping with Occam's Razor) is that Trump is simply a successful business man who tapped into the angst felt by tens of millions of Americans caused by them being ignored by the Democratic Party and Trump was able to convince those tens of millions of Americans, including millions of Obama voters, that he could help them...

    A flawed human being?? Sure... Aren't we all...

    A super duper con-man extraordinaire?? No real facts to support that...

    100

  30. [30] 
    michale wrote:

    Another theory (that is more in keeping with Occam's Razor) is that Trump is simply a successful business man who tapped into the angst felt by tens of millions of Americans caused by them being ignored by the Democratic Party and Trump was able to convince those tens of millions of Americans, including millions of Obama voters, that he could help them...

    And if I tweaked a few things...

    Another theory (that is more in keeping with Occam's Razor) is that Obama is simply a successful community orgainizer who tapped into the angst felt by tens of millions of Americans caused by them being ignored by the Republican Party and Obama was able to convince those tens of millions of Americans, including millions of Bush voters, that he could help them...

    ...... it is an accurate assessment of the 2008 election...

    Funny how that works, eh?? :D

  31. [31] 
    michale wrote:

    ...... it is an accurate assessment of the 2008 election...

    Funny how that works, eh?? :D

    And it's also ironic that the Left's hysterical response to Trump is identical to the Right's hysterical response to Obama.. :D

    102

  32. [32] 
    michale wrote:

    When Donald Trump was elected president three weeks ago, many Democrats -- and even some Republicans -- openly fretted about whom he would pick to be in his Cabinet. Would he appoint only loyalists who affirmed his views? People with zero experience? People no one had ever heard of?

    With the announcement Thursday of Gen. James Mattis as his pick for secretary of defense, Trump continues to demonstrate that those early worries were way off base. In fact, Trump's Cabinet choices -- and some of his potential choices -- reflect a political savviness that many people haven't been willing to grant the president-elect.
    https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/12/02/donald-trump-deserves-more-credit-than-hes-getting-for-his-cabinet-picks/?utm_term=.bb17a9c1905e

    Let's face reality.. Trump is acting a LOT more presidential than anyone on the Left (and many on the Right) is willing to give him credit for....

    103

  33. [33] 
    Mopshell wrote:

    [13]

    Michale -

    If Trump's current actions are any indication of how his Presidency is going to run, Trump might very well take 60%-70% of the Vanity Vote in 2020...

    There won't be a general election in 2020.

    The GOP has worked out how to win every time now. They will make absolutely certain that 2018 will give them more than three-quarters of the senate, house and states.

    In 2019 they will hold their constitutional convention. They will finally have the numbers to repeal all the amendments they don't like and add all the new ones they want.

    The latter will include an amendment requiring the election of president, US senators and US representatives to be by state legislatures only from 2020 onwards. Democrats need not apply.

  34. [34] 
    neilm wrote:

    I'll quit pointing out how wrong the Left was about Trump if you quit making grandiose predictions that are based on nothing but Trump Derangement Syndrome...

    Trump is deranged, on that we can agree. However it wasn't only "the Left" who ignored H.L. Mencken warning about "nobody going broke underestimating" Americans. It was the "Right" as well.

    This was a statistical fluke of an election - Trump lost both the Primary and the General votes by historically unprecedented numbers, but squeaked in through the back door.

    Those are the facts.

    You can repeat the same argument over and over again as a riposte to every Trump disaster, and all it will do is make us realize you can't defend his actions, so have to go back to your one moment of glory.

    Your almost child-like and touching faith that there is some sort of arbiter that only lets brilliant business people succeed when their Daddy gives them today's equivalent of $2B plus a functioning business is sweet, but misplaced. Look how wealthy Paris Hilton is going to be - want to tell us about her amazing rags-to-riches story?

  35. [35] 
    neilm wrote:

    And it's also ironic that the Left's hysterical response to Trump is identical to the Right's hysterical response to Obama.. :D

    The right is hysterical all the time. They are still hysterical and they won, for Pete's sake. The latest "bimbo bitchin' for bucks" Tomi Lahren is milking the same anger that Ann Coulter did, probably with the same results ($$$$).

    So when Hannity stops needing his diapers changed at the end of every show, and the Trumpters stop chanting "Lock her up" on his victory tour, you can start to compare the response to Trump with that of Obama.

  36. [36] 
    neilm wrote:

    And it's also ironic that the Left's hysterical response to Trump is identical to the Right's hysterical response to Obama.. :D

    The right is hysterical all the time. They are still hysterical and they won, for Pete's sake. The latest "bimbo bitchin' for bucks" Tomi Lahren is milking the same anger that Ann Coulter did, probably with the same results ($$$$).

    So when Hannity stops needing his diapers changed at the end of every show, and the Trumpters stop chanting "Lock her up" on his victory tour, you can start to compare the response to Trump with that of Obama.

  37. [37] 
    neilm wrote:

    Michale [32]: Quoting Chris Cillizza's article is an interesting choice. He has written some others you know:

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/11/29/breaking-president-trump-isnt-going-to-be-any-different-from-candidate-trump/

    Basically Trump had no plan for building a cabinet - his first action was to fire the guy who he had given the job to, for Pete's sake.

    He is playing "Cabinet Apprentice" and picking the people who, for the most part, have been loyal to him.

    Picking Mnuchin for treasury secretary is an interesting choice. A favorite of Wall St with a hedge fund background was always going to be an FSI pleaser. Trump has been desperately trying to become part of the NYC in-crowd for years and so picked the prettiest girl in the cheerleaders as his new friend.

  38. [38] 
    michale wrote:
  39. [39] 
    michale wrote:

    Michale [32]: Quoting Chris Cillizza's article is an interesting choice. He has written some others you know:

    Yep.. I especially like the one where CC admitted how wrong he was about Trump's election.. :D

    My fav...

    Picking Mnuchin for treasury secretary is an interesting choice. A favorite of Wall St with a hedge fund background was always going to be an FSI pleaser. Trump has been desperately trying to become part of the NYC in-crowd for years and so picked the prettiest girl in the cheerleaders as his new friend.

    I am absolutely certain that is your take..

    But what are you going to do when Trump succeeds?? :D

    105

  40. [40] 
    michale wrote:

    President-elect Trump's deal with Carrier isn't important because it saved 1,000 jobs. It's important because of the message it sends to businesses everywhere: Help is on the way.

    The reaction to Carrier's decision to retain some of its employees after meeting with Trump has been amusing. On the one hand, Trump's critics say the deal was a mere trifle, since there are still so many people out there hurting. On the other hand, they claim that Trump is acting like a third-world despot.
    http://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/heres-why-trumps-carrier-deal-is-so-important/

    Sounds familiar... :D
    106

  41. [41] 
    michale wrote:

    He is playing "Cabinet Apprentice" and picking the people who, for the most part, have been loyal to him.

    Yea??

    How has General Mattis been "loyal" to Trump?? Chao?? While Sessions may be loyal, there is no doubt he is imminently qualified for AG....

    The fact that Trump is seriously considering Romney for SecState shows how utterly false your claim is..

    The only people Trump has picked out of loyalty was Flynn and Bannon... How is that any different than Obama choosing Axelrod??

    Let's face it.. You don't approve of any of the picks because they have a '-R' after their names.... Trump has a couple Democrats in mind for positions in his cabinet..

    What will be your beef against them??

    Besides the fact that Trump selected them, I mean... :D

  42. [42] 
    altohone wrote:

    Troll

    "The key is not moving Left.. Moving Left will only energize those who already are Party sla.... er... stalwarts..."

    You are delusional.
    Hillary (and Obama) pretending to move left is not the same as moving left.

    Dems can't move any further right than they have.
    Right wing health care "reform", Wall Street coddling and warmongering is why Hillary lost.

    Energizing the base is exactly what Dems need, and that means ditching the right wing ideology of the Clinton/Obama wing.

    A

  43. [43] 
    neilm wrote:

    But what are you going to do when Trump succeeds?? :D

    Be happy, it will be good for my pocketbook and family.

    What are you going to do when he fails?

  44. [44] 
    neilm wrote:

    President-elect Trump's deal with Carrier isn't important because it saved 1,000 jobs. It's important because of the message it sends to businesses everywhere: Help is on the way.

    This is a typical IBD article - I've seen them 101 times before. IBD is a rah-rah rag for weak minded investors. The serious Wall St types call their readers "marks".

    So, what are the great things Trump has in store? Rolling back regulations. Sounds great, but which ones?

    As usual, like Trump, they are long on promises and rosy pictures, but silent on specifics.

    What are the three key regulations Trump needs to roll back, why will they be good for both labor and capital, and what are the potential pitfalls?

    When you can answer questions like that, you can be taken seriously as a commentator. Given that all you expect from Trump is that you want to feel good, I don't expect anything concrete. Until you can explain what Trump is going to actually do you are just a fanboy.

  45. [45] 
    neilm wrote:

    Energizing the base is exactly what Dems need, and that means ditching the right wing ideology of the Clinton/Obama wing.

    I think you are right. Trump won in the rustbelt by attacking Hillary from the left - exactly where Bernie came from to great effect. Most people didn't think enough people would fall for Donald "Consummate Capitalist" Trump pretending to be Donald "Downtrodden Workers of the World Unite" Trump, but we are back to H.L. Mencken's observations again.

    I personally think Bernie would have been a disaster for the country, but I understand why his message appeals.

    My view is that the rise of global capitalism, plus the free movement of capital coupled with technological innovation, has made the world that Bernie wants to restore impossible. Just like we can't and don't want to go back to the agrarian society of the 1870's, we can't and shouldn't want to go back to the heavy manufacturing world of the 1970's.

    The lesson to learn, in my view, is that we need a new political framework for a post "job" society. This means radical restructuring of wealth allocation, otherwise the current accelerating wealth accumulation of a few at the top will result in torches and pitchforks.

    In the interim, populists like Bernie and Trump, Le Pen and Farage, the AfD and Ergodan, who prey on the fear and uncertainty brought on by massive changes in our economies, coupled with the very unfair outcomes in income and wealth, will rule the day. This is not usually a good thing for anybody (e.g. the aforementioned torches and pitchforks).

  46. [46] 
    michale wrote:

    What are you going to do when he fails?

    Something you won't agree to do..

    Concede that I was wrong about Trump.. :D

    108

  47. [47] 
    neilm wrote:

    Concede that I was wrong about Trump.. :D

    He will fail. I've decided, like you, to judge him on he me makes me feel, and he makes me want to puke. Ergo, he's failed before he gets the job.

    If you want to judge him on something concrete, let me know.

  48. [48] 
    michale wrote:

    So, what are the great things Trump has in store? Rolling back regulations. Sounds great, but which ones?

    Whichever ones are an impediment to success in business...

    As usual, like Trump, they are long on promises and rosy pictures, but silent on specifics.

    Yea, that's how Obama was when he first started out.. Funny.. No one seemed to mind the lack of specifics then.. :D

    What are the three key regulations Trump needs to roll back, why will they be good for both labor and capital, and what are the potential pitfalls?

    How the hell should I know?? I am just a grunt...

    When you can answer questions like that, you can be taken seriously as a FINANCIAL commentator.

    There... Fixed it for you.. :D

    I have the BEST qualification for a Trump Commentator..

    I have been right every time.. :D

    109

  49. [49] 
    michale wrote:

    He will fail. I've decided, like you, to judge him on he me makes me feel, and he makes me want to puke. Ergo, he's failed before he gets the job.

    But you see, when it comes to Trump, you have no credibility for accurate predictions...

    I do....

    You have *ALWAYS* said Trump would fail based on so-called "concrete" data... But you were ALWAYS wrong...

    I always went with my gut and a buttload of facts..

    I was always right...

    And right now, my gut outranks your concrete...

    "Yea, well right now, Mac outranks your gut."
    -Jeff Daniels, SPEED

    :D

    110

  50. [50] 
    michale wrote:

    I mean honestly, I don't mean to beat a deceased equine...

    But since we're dealing in the realm of predictions as they pertain to Trump, surely past accuracy is a relevant factor, no??

    All of your predictions to date have been ideological, based on facts, true enough... But ONLY based on the facts that supported your ideology..

    There was PLENTY of data that I brought to the forum that was ignored because it didn't meet the parameters of the Left Wingery ideology...

    And, as it turns out, THAT data was more accurate than the cherry picked data...

    So, if you want to say TRUMP WILL FAIL AS PRESIDENT in the same sure-fire voice you said TRUMP WILL NOT BE THE GOP NOMINEE and TRUMP WILL NOT WIN THE ELECTION, you simply HAVE to allow for the fact that you COULD be wrong..

    And, when you ARE wrong, the only question that remains is...

    Will you concede it...

    Or will you choose to go a 'birther-esque' route and claim Trump is an illegitimate POTUS because he has funny hair....

    111

  51. [51] 
    neilm wrote:

    You haven't predicted anything to be right about, except Trump winning. Being right about one thing doesn't make you right about everything, especially as you list no policies of Trump that you support.

    As I said, you have one horse, that you are beating to death, plus the ability to claim you are right if you feel good in the future.

    Not very impressive. You don't actually think, you just support.

  52. [52] 
    John M wrote:

    By the way Elizabeth, to get back to a question you asked a long while back now...

    Just to go on the record, Yes, I do think that a single payer national health insurance system would be the best way to go to fix our health care problems that we have now.

  53. [53] 
    altohone wrote:

    neil
    45

    "My view is that the rise of global capitalism, plus the free movement of capital coupled with technological innovation, has made the world that Bernie wants to restore impossible. Just like we can't and don't want to go back to the agrarian society of the 1870's, we can't and shouldn't want to go back to the heavy manufacturing world of the 1970's"

    Well, given that Bernie was not seeking to restore the world as you imagine, your claim that he would have been a "disaster" is suspect too... and since you said you would have voted for him over Trump, some context on "disaster" would seem to be in order.

    I'm pretty sick of your unrepentant free trade cheerleading too. You admit the negative consequences should be addressed, but then insist the status quo is preferable even if they aren't addressed (from our last discussion, not this comment).
    Dwelling on a "post job" fantasy that is probably generations away (if not outright impossible within our current power structure) instead of seeking implementation of viable policies that could help those getting the short end of the stick right now just isn't a moral position to maintain. Maybe it helps you sleep at night, but you are abandoning the people who are currently suffering.

    And, and, and... your factually inaccurate comparison of Bernie's left wing populism which was not about "preying on fear" to that of right wingers Trump, Le Pen, Farage and Erdogan raises serious questions about your ability to grasp reality.

    I appreciate you agreeing with part of my comment, but I just can't understand how someone who seems to be well informed can misrepresent and distort reality like that.

    CW's tagline is "reality based political commentary"... we've already got more than our fair share in the comment section that undermine it. Is it wrong of me to ask you to rise above?

    A

  54. [54] 
    altohone wrote:

    Hey CW

    Given that Pelosi's ideology included both of her thumbs on the scale for Hillary and devout adherence to Wall Street coddling and all the disastrous, election losing policies therein, I think it's well past time that you admit that you should in fact have a "beef" with that ideology.

    Given that Obama and Biden share a great deal of the blame for the current state of the Democratic party, and his Delaware tax haven background, Biden's ability to appear to have the ability to relate to the working class just isn't enough for the DNC job.

    "For dithering for so many months instead of quickly acting with enough time to fight for the new policy in the courts, Barack Obama wins his second MDDOTW for dragging his feet. This should have been one of Obama's legacy items that would have helped out millions of workers"

    Months?
    Waiting until 2015 was 7 years of inaction.
    The cynic in me sees his true motivation as just another failed attempt at helping the hapless Hillary rather than any real concern for workers... both the overtime and minimum wage increase could have been part of his legacy from early in 2009, but he chose otherwise.
    Remember the "reality based political commentary" thing?

    And, speaking of reality, Obamacare was written by the right wing Heritage Foundation and was originally implemented as Romneycare... so admitting that the name was part of the biggest swindle of the left in the last 8 years and was never worthy of their support should go hand in fist with your suggested renaming to Trumpcare.
    Government subsidies for insurance middlemen who prey on the sick while providing no care should never have been embraced by real Democrats.

    A

  55. [55] 
    neilm wrote:

    Well, given that Bernie was not seeking to restore the world as you imagine

    OK, I'll admit I'm not the Bernie expert on the board, but what is he seeking?

    It sure sounds like a rewind of global capitalism.

    I'd like to remind you that I point out that global capitalism has positive aspects, such as growing the total size of the economy, and that it also has a deleterious impact on our society, such as negatively impacting individuals, families, and in some cases whole communities.

    The preponderance of evidence shows that, if you take America as a whole, most people gain incrementally from global capitalism*, while a regrettable minority lose disproportionately. I have repeatedly contended we should make sure we help the people that lose. I have suggested using the Gini coefficient a simple heuristic to display this impact to try to highlight the unfairness.

    But to reject all the gains in order to eliminate the chance of anybody losing isn't the right approach. The economic forces are elemental, and trying to reverse them will perverse the economy in ways that are far more detrimental, while pointlessly destroying the all the positives.

    And up to this point I'm talking from an American-only mindset. From a worldwide perspective, global capitalism has lifted more people out of poverty in the last 30 years than in all of history combined.

    I will not apologize for being a supporter of global capitalism, just as I will not stop pointing out that the distribution of wealth and income in this country is failing most Americans.

    The two are intertwined but not mutually mono-directional. We can grow the economy and make the distribution of wealth fairer. Many countries already do a much better job of this than ours.

  56. [56] 
    neilm wrote:

    * Americans gain from global capitalism primarily via lower prices for goods. My big beef is that, over the last 40 years internal fiscal policies have ensured that basically all of the gains have gone to the top 10%, with the top 1% doing an order of magnitude better yet again, and don't get me started on the top 0.1% where the Trumps of this world reside.

  57. [57] 
    neilm wrote:

    Altohone:

    I appreciate your thoughts on my positions, and am always pleased when you respond. Thinking about your posts frequently results in a learning experience for me.

    With that in mind, let me explain why I lump Bernie in with AfD, Le Pen, etc.

    It is not because he is part of the fascist movement that they are part of, and I can see why my list would make it seem that way. I apologize if that was the impression given.

    Rather I'm listing political leaders who I think are trying to recreate the past. At the moment this list is preponderantly right wing, but that is why they call themselves "conservatives" after all - they are our society's reactionaries against progress.

    And as a reactionary against progress, I've added Bernie to that list.

    I am willing to be educated on Bernie's vision of the future that starts today and moves forward, but that is not what I hear from his rhetoric. If has has a book or detailed website you want me to peruse, I'm all eyes.

  58. [58] 
    neilm wrote:

    Obamacare was written by the right wing Heritage Foundation

    I think many of us agree that Obamacare is a very poor cousin to a single payer system.

    It isn't like this country is adverse to single payer systems. Take the military as an example. Or it offshoot, the VA.

    I believe that the prevailing opinion in 2008 was that the chance of getting the Heritage Foundation's approach trough Washington was significantly greater than delivering a national single payer system.

    Yes this was a compromise, but it was a compromise that moved the ball closer to the single payer goal line, got coverage for 20+ million people who had none before, and was possible to jam through DC - even then only just.

  59. [59] 
    michale wrote:

    You haven't predicted anything to be right about, except Trump winning.

    And he won HUNDREDS of times... Every time the TRUMP IS TOAST meme was bandied about by ya'all, I told ya'all that were were wrong..

    What was the last "TRUMP IS TOAST" count around here?? 518??? 620???

    Every time I was right.. So that is hardly just "one" thing..

    Being right about one thing doesn't make you right about everything, especially as you list no policies of Trump that you support.

    That's because Trump isn't President yet and HAS no policies out there to support..

    But I can name a bunch of ideas that Trump has that I like...

    Securing the southern border...

    Actually enforcing immigration laws...

    Getting Americans back to work...

    I actually disagree on Trump's isolationist tendencies.. I think, as the only remaining Superpower, we have a moral obligation to get involved in regional disputes.. How else can we insure our interests are protected??

    Libya is a perfect example of what happens when we forfeit our seat at the table...

    But I do support Trump's "policy" (ie idea) of building up our military..

    I support Trump's support of LEOs and crackdown on violent protesters/rioters...

    There are a plethora of Trump ideas that I support... There are a couple I don't...

    And NONE of it is based on Party ideology because I have no Party...

  60. [60] 
    michale wrote:

    Like I said above..

    If you want to quit making predictions based on nothing but partisan ideology, I'll quit pointing out that you have a crappy track record in accurate predictions..

    The recent SecDef conversation is a PERFECT example of how discussions should go..

    I offered a glowing atta-boy to Trump for picking General "Mad Dog" Mattis as SecDef.. You immediately panned Trump's pick.... well, because it was Trump's pick....

    But then you went past the partisan crap and actually LOOKED at Mattis' record and then you conceded that Mattis was, indeed, a good pick for Trump...

    I don't mind anti-Trump hyperbole... I just want to see it based in FACTS, rather than partisan Party bigotry...

    If Trump hires an axe murderer or a serial rapist or something similar, THAT is a legitimate gripe against Trump..

    But just because he hires someone that you politically disagree with?? How can that possibly be construed as Trump being a con-man??

    114

  61. [61] 
    michale wrote:

    Look at it this way...

    When CW makes his Electoral College picks or, pretty much, ANY picks, for that matter.. He always gives us a run-down of his past performance.. That way, we can gauge his accuracy and assign the appropriate value to his current prediction...

    In another example, my SCOTUS ruling predictions. I think I have been WRONG on each and every SCOTUS prediction I have made..

    So, if I predict a SCOTUS ruling the next 8 years, it is perfectly acceptable for ya'all to remind me that my accuracy in SCOTUS predictions is ZERO... ZILCH... NADA... NONE...

    115

  62. [62] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    While we're making predictions I predict that no matter what Trump does those on the right will continue to call it successful and those on the left will say it is a failure.
    I predict the Democratic Party will not be saved because they don't want to be saved. They are happy as they are and with the way things are.
    The oligarchs that control both parties want their minions to continue to divide and conquer.
    They want you to pick a team and defend it. Left or Right. Liberal or conservative. Democrat or Republican. The Patriots or America's Team.
    I predict you all will continue to fall into their trap.
    I would prefer these predictions not come true. I would hope that the 80% of citizens that want the Big Money out of our political process would work together against the oligarchy on this common issue by participating in Voucher Vendetta.
    I want to be a uniter- not a divider.

  63. [63] 
    neilm wrote:

    Getting Americans back to work...

    This is joke, right?

  64. [64] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    I predict you all will continue to fall into their trap.

    Uniters don't make predictions - at least, not publically - that only serve to divide.

    Don't you know that you attract more little worker bees with honey? Don't you know that?

    I'm just sayin' ... people are tired of all the pessimism and negativity and are longing for an uplifting message. Which is another reason to change the name of your movement, Don. Seriously!

  65. [65] 
    neilm wrote:

    I predict you all will continue to fall into their trap.

    What do you mean? Do you think you are the only person to realize that money in politics is a bad thing?

    by participating in Voucher Vendetta.
    I want to be a uniter- not a divider.

    Labeling your approach as a "Vendetta" might not be construed as the work of a "uniter".

  66. [66] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    This is joke, right?

    I think so.

    Inadvertently, of course. :)

  67. [67] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    It is said that great minds think alike. On the other hand ... :)

  68. [68] 
    neilm wrote:

    I offered a glowing atta-boy to Trump for picking General "Mad Dog" Mattis as SecDef..

    No, you listed a bunch of quotes that made Maddis look like a clown. You then gloated about those quotes. I pointed out that these quotes are not the type of thinking needed in a Def Sec. I was the one that then did the research to discover that Maddis was embarrassed about the same quotes you glorified him by.

    You're getting boring Michale.

  69. [69] 
    neilm wrote:

    Inadvertently, of course. :)

    And "building up the military". Who are we competing against? We already have a military a magnitude larger than everybody else.

  70. [70] 
    michale wrote:

    Don,

    While we're making predictions I predict that no matter what Trump does those on the right will continue to call it successful and those on the left will say it is a failure.

    Oh that's a given.. :D

    But the key will be who has the facts and reality to back up their claims.. :D

    I predict the Democratic Party will not be saved because they don't want to be saved. They are happy as they are and with the way things are.

    I am not sure I agree... I am sure that the DP likes the status quo, but would prefer that THEY be in charge in the status quo..

  71. [71] 
    michale wrote:

    Liz,

    I'm just sayin' ... people are tired of all the pessimism and negativity and are longing for an uplifting message.

    Which is exactly why Trump was so successful..

    MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN is as uplifting as it gets...

    116

  72. [72] 
    michale wrote:

    Neil,

    What do you mean? Do you think you are the only person to realize that money in politics is a bad thing?

    I think what Don means is that ya'all keep voting for people who CLAIM to be against it, but benefit from it and refuses to change it..

    That is why I am so surprised that the people who claim to be against money in politics didn't support Trump.. The *ONLY* people who have "bought" Trump are the American people...

    And "building up the military". Who are we competing against? We already have a military a magnitude larger than everybody else.

    Both China and Russia are on the ascent as far as military build-up goes..

    What do you suggest??

    That we wait until there is parity and THEN start to build our forces back up to keep our superiority intact???

    No, you listed a bunch of quotes that made Maddis look like a clown.

    That's your civilian assessment that doesn't jibe with the facts on the ground.. Mattis is RESPECTED by both military and civilians alike...

    I pointed out that these quotes are not the type of thinking needed in a Def Sec.

    And that's my point.. You are a child of the Obama years, as far as the military is concerned.. Speak softly and carry a kneeling mat......

    Those quotes are **EXACTLY** the type of thinking we need in a United States SecDef...

    I was the one that then did the research to discover that Maddis was embarrassed about the same quotes you glorified him by.

    He expressed regret over *ONE* quote which was perfectly acceptable in the context and group it was given.. And he only expressed regret on orders from higher ups.

    You're getting boring Michale.

    I know. Being correct all the time has that effect on people.. :D

    117

  73. [73] 
    michale wrote:

    Getting Americans back to work...

    This is joke, right?

    Unfortunately, it HAS been a joke to the Left Wingery for the past 8 years..

    Which is EXACTLY why we have President-Elect Trump....

  74. [74] 
    michale wrote:

    Unfortunately, it HAS been a joke to the Left Wingery for the past 8 years..

    I mean, honestly.. Look what the Democrats and Obama has concentrated on.. Gender in the bathrooms.. TrainWreckCare... Only Black Lives Matter.... Cops Are Stupid... Having A Son That Attacks Neighborhood Watch... etc etc etc...

    All the while, the American people have been screaming JOBS!!!! JOBS!!!! JOBS!!!!

    Democrats and Obama wouldn't listen...

    Which is EXACTLY why we have President Elect Trump...

    It's not rocket science...

    119

  75. [75] 
    neilm wrote:

    All the while, the American people have been screaming JOBS!!!! JOBS!!!! JOBS!!!!

    And we are at the point where reality has taken a back seat.

    4.7% unemployment, but we need more jobs.

    But let's take Michale up on this, we finally have something to measure from him. Currently we have, according to Michale:

    1. 4/7% unemployment that needs fixing
    2. Michale's dream-come-true coming into power who is going to fix our unemployment problem

    So let's see if Trump can make a sizable impact on this "terrible" unemployment number (regardless of the fact that it is considered full employment by economists).

  76. [76] 
    michale wrote:

    Iran urged Barack Obama to block a law that would extend the U.S. president’s authority to impose sanctions on the Islamic Republic, calling it a violation of the Iranian nuclear deal.

    On Thursday, the Senate voted 99-0 to extend the Iran Sanctions Act, which authorizes a president to prevent investment in Iran’s energy sector and other sensitive industries. While Obama has waived most sanctions under the nuclear accord, congressional leaders said keeping them in reserve provides valuable leverage against Iran. White House spokesman Eric Schultz said the bill won’t interfere with the U.S.-led nuclear agreement and he expected the president to sign it.

    “If this law is implemented it will be a blatant violation of the Iran deal and it will lead to our resolute answer,” Iranian President Hassan Rouhani told parliament on Sunday.
    https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-12-04/rouhani-urges-obama-to-block-iran-sanctions-extension-law

    Say goodbye to the JCPOA... :D

    120

  77. [77] 
    neilm wrote:

    Say goodbye to the JCPOA... :D

    Their "resolute answer" will be, "Damn. OK, same time, same place, next year?

    This is nothing new. This is the authority to "snap back" sanctions if Iran doesn't keep to the agreement.

  78. [78] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Neil [69]

    Indeed.

  79. [79] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    So let's see if Trump can make a sizable impact on this "terrible" unemployment number ...

    Heh.

    Let's compare notes 6 months to one year from now ...

  80. [80] 
    neilm wrote:

    That is why I am so surprised that the people who claim to be against money in politics didn't support Trump.

    Because some of us can spot a con man when we research his actions and past, rather than his tweets or bombastic rhetoric.

  81. [81] 
    neilm wrote:

    The election of Donald Trump has reinvigorated Republican opposition to the accord, and last month the House of Representatives voted to block Boeing Co. from selling or leasing planes to Iran. The company agreed earlier this year to supply 109 aircraft to Iran in a deal worth as much $25 billion.

    Sort of puts the whole "Carrier" grandstanding into a bit of perspective, doesn't it?

    $68M vs. $25B

    Let me help you Michale, $25B is much, much bigger than $68M.

  82. [82] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Michale,

    How many American jobs does $25B translate into?

  83. [83] 
    michale wrote:

    Neil,

    Their "resolute answer" will be, "Damn. OK, same time, same place, next year?

    You misunderstand my point..

    99-0 was the vote in the Senate.. That means ALL the Democrats in the Senate joined with the GOP to put the screws to Iran..

    That will likely continue under President Trump...

    121

  84. [84] 
    michale wrote:

    Heh.

    Let's compare notes 6 months to one year from now ...

    Yea, that's exactly what I mean...

    Why not give Trump a CHANCE to fail before he is declared a failure??

    122

  85. [85] 
    michale wrote:

    Liz

    How many American jobs does $25B translate into?

    Why do ya'all insist on asking me economic questions??

    I have no idea....

    Neil,

    Sort of puts the whole "Carrier" grandstanding into a bit of perspective, doesn't it?

    $68M vs. $25B

    And now you are comparing Apples and Eskimos

    How many jobs were lost because Boeing doesn't get to sell to the number one terrorist country on the planet??

    I'll help you out...

    ZERO....

    123

  86. [86] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    neilm (65)-
    I want to unite people in a vendetta against the oligarchy.
    I am not claiming to be the only one to recognize the problem of money in politics. I have often pointed out that 80% of citizens want the money out of politics.
    But VV is the only approach that requires no legislation. It can unite the victims on the left and the right on this common issue because it can be used by all citizens on all parties and candidates. It does not promote a liberal or conservative agenda.
    And unlike both the left and the right it does not require the Big Money contributors. Even Ralph Nader seemed to think it was a good idea when Kevin Zeese said his organizations were scheduling meetings with Big Money donors on the left to raise capital for his "Grassroots" movement(s) on a recent Radio Hour. The fact that it takes a lot of money to run those movements seemed to make it okay.

  87. [87] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Michale (70)-
    They will be back in charge at some point because there is no other choice. That is why they are happy for now.

  88. [88] 
    neilm wrote:

    Let's do Iran 101 again for you Michale:

    1. The right wing in this country, and the religious fundamentalists in Iran are on the same side. They both want to overturn the agreement. They use "provocations" by each other to claim they are being "disrespected".

    Examples:

    1.a Huffing and puffing over the U.S. Senate reserving the right to "snap back" sanctions
    1.b Revolutionary Guards pointing guns at our helicopters to elicit a "oh lordy, those bad Iranians, we need to teach them a lesson" response

    2. Both right wing Americans and Iranian religious fundamentalists will continue to look for and create more of these "provocations" for home consumption

    3. The right wing in this country want a war with Iran. You'll have to ask them why, it makes no sense to me.

    4. The Iranian religious leadership want a bomb because then they know that, with a bomb, a future nutcase in the White House can't do to them what Bush 2 did to Iraq. The fact the N. Korea is getting away with snubbing its nose at America and there is nothing militarily we can do about it hasn't escaped their notice.

    This only works when jingoistic fanboys in Iran and America who don't take the time to learn about the details of the situation jump on their bandwagon.

    Don't be a jingoistic fanboy.

  89. [89] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Why not give Trump a CHANCE to fail before he is declared a failure??

    I'm all for that, Michale! :)

  90. [90] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    But VV is the only approach that requires no legislation. It can unite the victims on the left and the right on this common issue because it can be used by all citizens on all parties and candidates. It does not promote a liberal or conservative agenda.

    Here's the thing, Don ... VV won't unite anyone if it continues to insult the intelligence of the people it wishes to recruit.

  91. [91] 
    neilm wrote:

    Don [86]

    I have no problem with your approach, and in fact I fondly remember "Dollar" Bill Bradley's campaigns from the past. I'm not thrilled about the VV name, but that is a minor issue. Otherwise I wish you well.

    I can't make the money in politics my "single issue" however. The reason for this is sad, and I'm not happy about it, but I live with it.

    Unfortunately, whether we like it or not, in the vast majority of cases the side with most money wins. They do this by buying most media time to influence most voters (Trump got $2B of free airtime by playing the media, and it had the same result).

    The mechanism for why this works was pointed out in one of the most important books I read in my life "The Age of Propaganda" by Eliot Aronson and Anthony Pratkanis. It is very out of date (it uses the 1988 election as an example though out), but the lessons still apply today. A good read. I learned a lot about BS detection from this book.

    The majority of our current political class, including, and in fact especially, Trump, are driven by greed. This is why it is sad to see Michale fall for Trump's greatest con - that he has so much money he doesn't care about it, he only cares about Making America Great Again. (The tax returns, and more recently the fact that he isn't putting his money in a blind trust, are just two obvious proof points gleefully ignored by the fanboys).

    We've seen some grass roots movements splutter and die recently (Occupy, the original Tea Party), and perhaps VV can be the one that succeed. Heaven knows we need it.

  92. [92] 
    neilm wrote:

    You misunderstand my point..

    Wow, you really think I missed the 99-0?

    Didn't the 99-0 vote ring some alarm bells for you? Suddenly a Senate that recently ratified the Iran deal had now just voted to kill it? Could there be another explanation?

    Good grief.

  93. [93] 
    neilm wrote:

    Austria's is spinning into a morass - anybody else watching?

  94. [94] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Neil
    I have no problem with your approach, and in fact I fondly remember "Dollar" Bill Bradley's campaigns from the past.

    Are you familiar with his cousin,William (Bill) Bradley, California's extremely esteemed political analyst and prognosticator, extraordinaire ... among other things!

    Here is something that won't be a waste of your time:
    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/author/william-bradley

  95. [95] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Here is something that won't be a waste of your time:

    Just to be clear, that last bit was not meant to suggest that you do anything that wastes your time ... heh ... just reread that and that's how I might have taken it if someone said it to me ... :)

  96. [96] 
    neilm wrote:

    Elizabeth [94] Thanks for the link!

    [95] No need for clarifications - I've got a new writer to follow. I don't agree with everything he says (that would be boring anyway), but at least he backs up his points with facts.

  97. [97] 
    neilm wrote:

    OK, I'm taking the "Bernie would have won" theory a bit more seriously now some numbers are coming in:

    http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2016/12/the_myth_of_the_rust_belt_revolt.html

  98. [98] 
    michale wrote:

    I am not sure patriotic Americans would WANT to work on planes that go to the biggest terrorist government on the planet..

    But maybe that's just me...

    124

  99. [99] 
    michale wrote:

    , but at least he backs up his points with facts.

    As do I...

    The problem is you don't LIKE the facts so you don't consider them as facts...

    If you had, you wouldn't haven been surprised by Trumps election win.... :D

    125

  100. [100] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    No need for clarifications - I've got a new writer to follow. I don't agree with everything he says (that would be boring anyway), but at least he backs up his points with facts.

    His analyses are nothing if not fact-based and, more often than not, they are supported by his always fascinating real life experience.

  101. [101] 
    neilm wrote:

    The problem is you don't LIKE the facts so you don't consider them as facts...

    Dream on - supply verification and you will be taken seriously. Spout your opinions as "facts" and prepare to be ignored.

  102. [102] 
    michale wrote:

    Didn't the 99-0 vote ring some alarm bells for you? Suddenly a Senate that recently ratified the Iran deal had now just voted to kill it? Could there be another explanation?

    "I'm all ears...."
    -Ross Perot, 1992 Presidential Debates

    :D

  103. [103] 
    neilm wrote:

    His analyses are nothing if not fact-based and, more often than not, they are supported by his always fascinating real life experience.

    His take on Giuliani is interesting, based as it is on his one-on-one interviews. It begs the question, if Giuliani isn't the ranting loon as Bradley claims, why does he act like one in public? I thought his eyeballs were going to pop out at the RNC he was lathered up so much.

  104. [104] 
    michale wrote:

    Dream on - supply verification and you will be taken seriously. Spout your opinions as "facts" and prepare to be ignored.

    I DID provide verification.. And that verification was verified by the results of the election...

    But you didn't like the facts so you ignored them..

    And then was shocked when Trump won the election...

    If I didn't have any facts, how was I so dead on balls accurate with the Electoral count?? I called it to the NUMBER....

    Lucky guess??? :D

    127

  105. [105] 
    michale wrote:

    Michale predicts 232 for Clinton, 306 For Trump
    theworleys.net/temp/michaleEC.jpg

    ACTUAL RESULTS
    CLINTON 232 TRUMP 306

    270towin.com/

    "No studying..... ppfffffftttttt"
    -Dr Peter Venkmen, GHOSTBUSTERS

    :D

    128

  106. [106] 
    neilm wrote:

    If I didn't have any facts, how was I so dead on balls accurate with the Electoral count?? I called it to the NUMBER....

    Link? (You see what I mean about not supplying verification? You even do it when you claim you do.)

  107. [107] 
    neilm wrote:

    Link to the comment in CW - anybody can put a 270 graphic up after the fact.

  108. [108] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    if Giuliani isn't the ranting loon as Bradley claims, why does he act like one in public? I thought his eyeballs were going to pop out at the RNC he was lathered up so much.
    Well, he never claimed that Rudy wasn't a ranting loon, to be clear.

    In not exactly a ringing endorsement, he said that Giuliani was a likeable fellow, a true-blue Trump supporter and a proven figure in dramatic crisis and much better travelled than Romney. Heh.

    In fact, Bradley implied that General Petraeus might be the best candidate of Trump's known list of candidates. Again, not a ringing endorsement.

    Who would you like to see as Secretary of State?

    It may be interesting to compare Obama's first choice for Secretary of State and the reasoning behind it with who will ultimately be Trump's choice ...

  109. [109] 
    michale wrote:

    Link to the comment in CW - anybody can put a 270 graphic up after the fact.

    Gladly....

    http://www.chrisweigant.com/2016/11/07/final-electoral-math-my-2016-picks/#comment-87665

    Election Day morning...
    0232hrs PST

    Read 'em and weep, Sonny Jim :D

  110. [110] 
    neilm wrote:

    Who would you like to see as Secretary of State?

    I suppose Hillary isn't an option ;)

    I was leaning to Romney because he didn't seem to be one of the bug eyed loon brigade (Bolton, Giuliani) or yet another General.

    But I forgot about Romney being so parochial.

    Of the current four, Romney is the most likely to smooth things over when Trump does his "BS-artist in a China Shop" impersonation.

  111. [111] 
    neilm wrote:

    Read 'em and weep, Sonny Jim :D

    That is a link to a site that you can update, and could have done today, or on the day after the election to make yourself look good.

    Where did you state on the record (not your own webpage) that you called it to the number?

  112. [112] 
    michale wrote:

    That is a link to a site that you can update, and could have done today, or on the day after the election to make yourself look good.

    No, that's a link to a screen capture of the website that I accessed on the morning of the election..

    I also pointed out how accurate I was on the morning after the election..

    http://www.chrisweigant.com/2016/11/08/get-out-and-vote/#comment-87756

    Yer REALLY reaching here, my friend... :D

    I called it.. To the number.. I messed up on the states.. Took New Mexico for Trump and gave Hillary Wisconsin...

    But, other than that major call, all the rest were dead on... I called FL and PA and MI and OH and NC.....

    But your response illustrates the problem here. You can't conceive you are wrong..... Even when the facts clearly show you are...

  113. [113] 
    michale wrote:

    http://www.270towin.com/maps/6AKPN

    That's what 2020 is going to look like :D

    131

  114. [114] 
    neilm wrote:

    But your response illustrates the problem here. You can't conceive you are wrong..... Even when the facts clearly show you are...

    I can conceive a lot of things - like scams that are as old as the hills:

    http://skepdic.com/perfectprediction.html

  115. [115] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    I suppose Hillary isn't an option ;)

    Ditto for Biden, I guess.

    Though, I believe he and the vice president-elect have been spending a lot of time together, talking about foreign policy and the like ...

    Of course, I'm still wondering if there is anything that can happen - perhaps, something related to Trump not wanting to divest himself of all of his global business ties - that would dissuade the president-elect from actually taking the oath of office. :)

    Hey, stranger things have already happened and we have lost the right, a long time ago, to be surprised and/or shocked by any new developments.

  116. [116] 
    neilm wrote:

    And here's mine:

    http://www.270towin.com/

  117. [117] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Michale,

    Have you seen this preview for Guardians of the Galaxy, vol.2 ...
    https://youtu.be/dW1BIid8Osg

  118. [118] 
    neilm wrote:

    An interesting take on the rise of the robots. I think he is downplaying the role of machine intelligence in his predictions, and over-extrapolating from current technologies (i.e. underestimating both exponential and quantum changes in robot technology).

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2016/12/02/robots-wont-kill-the-workforce-theyll-save-the-global-economy/

    He backs up my feeling on immigration - i.e. we should remove immigration controls and let every law-abiding Mexican who wants to come in (he doesn't state this, that is my viewpoint).

  119. [119] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Al,

    Biden's ability to appear to have the ability to relate to the working class just isn't enough for the DNC job.

    If the DNC chair is a partisan job, and I think it is or, at least, has been, then I don't think Biden is the right guy for it.

    Your quip about Biden's ability to appear to have the ability ... is off the mark.

  120. [120] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    ... both the overtime and minimum wage increase could have been part of his legacy from early in 2009, but he chose otherwise.
    Remember the "reality based political commentary" thing?

    Isn't that precious ... look who seems to have blinders on regarding the reality of early 2009.

    It is unwise to reduce everything to simplistic terms and, worse still, to ignore the all-important context of the situation. Unwise because it diminishes one's own credibility.

  121. [121] 
    michale wrote:

    Liz,

    Have you seen this preview for Guardians of the Galaxy, vol.2 ...
    https://youtu.be/dW1BIid8Osg

    I did.. Ohmygods, it's hilarious!!! I cannot wait for that movie.. Definitely on my MUST SEE list!! I might even spring the $80+ bucks to go see it with my lovely wife.. :D

    132

  122. [122] 
    michale wrote:

    And here's mine:

    http://www.270towin.com/

    Uh.. That's the 2016 map.. :D

    You need to click on the SHARE MAP button and copy n paste the given URL for your map... :D

    133

  123. [123] 
    michale wrote:

    I can conceive a lot of things - like scams that are as old as the hills:

    http://skepdic.com/perfectprediction.html

    Ahhh But mine wasn't a perfect prediction, was it??

    As I pointed out, I mixed up New Mexico and Wisconsin.. I also think I messed up on some of the northeastern states as well..

    So, while my numbers were dead on, my allotment of states was wrong...

    134

  124. [124] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Mopshell [33]

    I noticed that you haven't received a response yet to your last comment here.

    That's probably just a reflection on the decidedly non-serious nature of it ... as well as the sense of a general lack of humour, to boot. :)

    Not to mention how dispiriting it all sounded ...

    Try to lighten up, sometimes!

  125. [125] 
    michale wrote:

    I can conceive a lot of things - like scams that are as old as the hills:

    http://skepdic.com/perfectprediction.html

    You will also note that at the bottom of the JPG is a line about Arizona and it's "specs"... That proves that the screenshot was done BEFORE the election took place..

    The facts are clear..

    And, as with all the facts I had about Trump and how and why he will win, you will ignore what you don't want to accept...

    But ya know what?? It doesn't matter.. Max nichts... :D

    135

  126. [126] 
    neilm wrote:

    Uh.. That's the 2016 map.. :D

    Yes. I know.

  127. [127] 
    neilm wrote:

    And, as with all the facts I had about Trump and how and why he will win, you will ignore what you don't want to accept...

    You had a prediction. You didn't have (or at least haven't listed) any facts. Predictions are opinions, facts are verifiable at the time.

    How much money did you make betting on the result?

  128. [128] 
    neilm wrote:

    Mopshell [33]

    I noticed that you haven't received a response yet to your last comment here.

    I found that comment to be very dark. I'm not a big fan of the Republican's efforts to suppress votes and gerrymander, but an outright overturn of our democratic processes seems implausible.

    Far more likely is a blah election in 2018 as the balance between ennui with Republicans grows countering the off-year Republican election stronger turnouts.

    2018 will also be the year that the next generation of Democratic leadership starts to get sorted out and line up for 2020.

    2020 is when the fireworks start again - well actually probably early 2019. I don't expect the next election to be any shorter than this one. I think there is a good chance Trump will declare victory and not run, but I'm sure he won't announce this until just before the primaries to get most self publicity.

  129. [129] 
    michale wrote:

    You had a prediction. You didn't have (or at least haven't listed) any facts.

    I had plenty of facts.. The fact that Trump supporters were wary about giving their opinions in polls for one...

    The fact that Trump was making inroads in PA, Ohio and FL that Clinton couldn't match for another..

    The fact that Black Americans were not enthused at all about Clinton for yet another...

    PLENTY of facts.. A PLETHORA of facts... But ya'all didn't like those facts so you didn't acknowledge them...

    How much money did you make betting on the result?

    Not a penny, which I kick myself for each and every day! :D

    I wonder how much STIG lost? :D heh

    Yes. I know.

    Of course you do... :D

    136

  130. [130] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Neil,

    I found that comment to be very dark.

    Yes, me too. It didn't appear to be the least bit tongue-in-cheek.

    Perhaps, it's an Aussie thing, mate? :)

  131. [131] 
    michale wrote:

    2018 will also be the year that the next generation of Democratic leadership starts to get sorted out and line up for 2020.

    If the Democratic Party has ANY hope of that, they need to start NOW....

    But the info coming out of the Party is that they think their strategy of the last 8 years has been fine and there doesn't appear to be any chance of a change...

    Welcome to Democratic Party as the minority party in perpetuity...

    137

  132. [132] 
    michale wrote:

    For the record, there is absolutely NO CHANCE that the fundamentals of the election will change..

    Any more than there is a chance that Obama will declare martial law and remain in power after 20 Jan 2017...

    138

  133. [133] 
    altohone wrote:

    neil
    55, 56, 57

    We are generally on the same page... me, you and believe it or not, Bernie.

    None of us are anti-capitalists.
    None of us are anti-trade.
    We all see the problems.
    None of us are happy about them.

    If you have any evidence to present that Bernie believes otherwise, the burden is on you because I've never seen any.

    (before I go any further, I want to point out that Bernie is not the future. His ideas should be pursued, he should participate, but he should not be the candidate... he helped organize the movement, but he had his shot... time for a new face. So, when I mention him, it's about the ideas, not a desire to cling to a cult of personality)

    I'm fairly certain that you were following along enough to understand that Bernie's ideas were not regressive. In the language you prefer, his proposed policies were new efforts to shift the Gini coefficient in a positive direction.

    Most of Bernie's proposals were about domestic issues.
    Free higher education paid for by a negligible tax on securities transactions would have shifted the Gini in a positive direction.
    Single payer health care would have shifted the Gini in a positive direction.
    Strengthening and expanding Social Security would have shifted the Gini in a positive direction.
    Reversing the regressive shifts in the tax code would have shifted the Gini in a positive direction.

    None of those policies would have destroyed capitalism... none of them were fear mongering or regressive... well, OK, our tax code used to be more progressive (though there were really just different loopholes for the rich to abuse) so technically, slightly increasing income taxes on the rich would be regressive progressivism.
    And, yes, all of these proposals enjoy majority support in every poll that has asked, so they are populist.

    That said, the Gini coefficient is a measuring tool, not a raft of policy proposals, so just monitoring the Gini is not supporting the people who are losing out.
    If you prefer other policy proposals to Bernie's to help the statistically small but numerically large minority who have lost out, please share them. That's not snark, I mean it seriously.

    Now, Free Traders share an ideology, and it's not about global capitalism as they desperately want everyone to believe... it's about global crony capitalism Wall Street style... where legalized corruption distorts the free market for the benefit of the already rich and powerful. It's actually anti-capitalistic. Manipulation of the markets using anti-competitive regulations, government subsidies, the oligarch friendly tax code, and political pressure up to and including military force. I know you are aware of many blatant recent examples... we discussed tax breaks that actually incentivize the offshoring of jobs, but, to name just a few, there was also LIBOR manipulation, the dumping of mortgage backed securities designed to fail on unsuspecting pension funds and foreign banks, and provisions in the TPP that unfairly favor capital over labor both here and abroad (to acknowledge your point about the gains on both sides of international trading)... not to mention destroying Libya, which was (coincidentally) the most prosperous, and the only debt free country in Africa that guaranteed housing, education and health care to all its citizens using an 80% royalty on oil production, and destroying Syria which (coincidentally) favored the gas pipeline proposals of economic competitors.

    The alternative is Fair trade, not anti-trade.
    And basically that boils down to not allowing the corrupt to write the new trade deals in a manner that rigs and entrenches their self-dealing globally.
    Bernie supported Fair trade, but other than opposing the corrupted TPP, I'm not aware of any other specific policy changes he was touting. Nor do I think he would have opposed a "clean" version of the TPP.

    So, I don't expect you to apologize for supporting global capitalism, but I would like you to disavow the corrupted Free traders, and support current, viable policies to rectify the damage that has been caused and will continue to be caused.
    They don't have to be Bernie's ideas, but they should be effective and saleable to the majority of voters.

    A

  134. [134] 
    neilm wrote:

    Yes. I know.

    Of course you do... :D

    That was my 2016 prediction. Just thought you'd like to see how good mine was ;)

  135. [135] 
    altohone wrote:

    Liz
    119, 120

    Biden supported Hillary.
    His abilities were ineffective.
    But, your unsubstantiated opinion countering my opinion that lacks direct causation has been noted.

    The overtime rule was an executive order that Obama could have implemented at any time.

    If Obamacare could pass, an increase in the minimum wage could have passed.

    Stuff your insults.

    A

  136. [136] 
    altohone wrote:

    neil
    58

    I disagree in two ways.
    I think Obamacare has entrenched into place the interests who would lose out in a single payer system, thus making it even harder to achieve.
    I don't see any family relation... not even as a poor cousin.

    I also think that insurance coverage in reality doesn't equate to health care. Of the 20 million extra who are now covered, a majority can't actually afford to use it, and the expenses are still impoverishing and bankrupting many who do.

    I think you are correct that single payer wasn't possible, but I still think the public option was with some arm twisting and effective use of the bully pulpit..
    We'll never know for sure, but public support was there, and continues to be.

    A

  137. [137] 
    neilm wrote:

    Altohone [136]

    Well if Paul Ryan gets his was, we won't need to worry about entrenched interests from Obamacare much longer.

    I think Healthcare might be the chronic issue that bedevils both parties until we learn that single payer is the worst system except for all the others (to paraphrase Churchill).

    To continue with the Churchill (perhaps apocryphal quotes: "You can always count on Americans to do the right thing – after they’ve tried everything else."

  138. [138] 
    neilm wrote:

    Altohone [133] (this will have to be in parts, I have things to do by she who must be obeyed)

    I agree with Bernie's policies regarding universal tertiary education, single payer (see above) and progressive taxation. I was focusing on the calls for tariffs and the dismissal of the TPP.

    I also agree that trade agreements are not perfect - and that they tend to suffer from two types of imperfection:

    i/ Compromises with other countries - e.g. we want intellectual property protection and are willing to allow access to our markets in return for their manufactured goods

    ii/ Special interest carve outs

    The BS usually comes in the second category. We have to tell all of our industries that they are not getting special treatment at the expense of the American people, and thus we can negotiate from a much stronger position with regards to other countries special interests.

    I've yet to see any agreement be lily white, and would regard demands for purity as tantamount to putting obstacles in place that are never meant to be overcome.

    My reading of the TPP is that it is as imperfect as most deals, but the positives outweigh the negatives and it will create wealth at the country level.

  139. [139] 
    michale wrote:

    "I DON’T THINK THAT PEOPLE WANT A NEW DIRECTION"
    -Nancy Pelosi

    This is why Democrats will lose.... AGAIN... in 2018....

    Even the election of Donald Trump has not woke her up...

    139

  140. [140] 
    michale wrote:

    That was my 2016 prediction. Just thought you'd like to see how good mine was ;)

    Mine was made the morning of the election.. This is proven fact..

    Yours was made almost a month after the election...

    :D
    140

  141. [141] 
    neilm wrote:

    Mine was made the morning of the election.. This is proven fact..

    How is it proven? Why didn't you just put the number in a post instead of having a link to a graphic on a website you control?

    Sounds like fake news to me.

  142. [142] 
    neilm wrote:

    This is why Democrats will lose.... AGAIN... in 2018....

    So why are you unhappy? You seem way more interested in what the Democrats are doing than the Republicans, whose glorious leader you worship.

    You can't even give any detail on what Trump stands for and what he is going to do, and how you will measure his success. You've repeatedly ducked the simple question of what the top three things you expect Trump to achieve, and how they can be empirically and publicly measured.

    This is why you get labeled a troll, because on a left leaning web site you don't present what your ideas are, or why they are better, and how you can prove anything, you just snipe at those you dislike and spread misinformation.

    Oh dear, oh dear.

    I suppose it is cheaper than therapy.

  143. [143] 
    neilm wrote:

    I just listened to the NPR "Planet Money" podcast while grocery shopping. It focused on one article of fake news: "FBI Agent Suspected In Hillary Email Leaks Found Dead In Apparent Murder-Suicide."

    Who wrote it? Why?

    The site owner who propagated the article initially tried both outrageous left-leaning and right-leaning articles, but the left-leaning ones were quickly ridiculed and didn't spread, so he just went with right-wing nonsense (the article above was shared 1/2 million times on Facebook despite it being almost instantly debunked in the mainstream press).

    My favorite (and the site owners) was the totally fake article about how people are using food stamps in Colorado to buy weed. That one even made Fox News (I mean really, do they even have any fact checkers there?).

    Why did he do it? Well he claims to have made between $10,000 and $30,000 per month via ad revenues.

    http://www.npr.org/sections/alltechconsidered/2016/11/23/503146770/npr-finds-the-head-of-a-covert-fake-news-operation-in-the-suburbs

  144. [144] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Stuff your insults.

    What?

    You know, that sounds like something a girl would say.

    Not that I have anything against girls ... some of them are very lovely people. :)

  145. [145] 
    michale wrote:

    How is it proven?

    It's proven because the jpg is clear from the morning of the election..

    Prove me wrong.. Duplicate the jpg completely.. :D

    You can't..

    Since you have absolutely NO FACTS to back up your claim that the jpg was from after the election, my assertion stands as valid..

    Ignoring that I am sure someone read my comment and saw the jpg before the election but is unwilling to come forward to back me up... We saw what happens to a Weigantian who has the temerity, the unmitigate GALL to actually agree with me.. :D

    Which simply proves my point that ya'all are living in your own little bubble and refuse to let facts and reality intrude into that bubble...

    141

  146. [146] 
    michale wrote:

    You know, that sounds like something a girl would say.

    Not that I have anything against girls ... some of them are very lovely people. :)

    heh :D

  147. [147] 
    michale wrote:

    So why are you unhappy?

    What makes you think I am unhappy???

    I am the happiest guy IN Weigantia.. :D I am sure that is an uncontested fact..

    You seem way more interested in what the Democrats are doing than the Republicans,

    Yer right.. I don't care much for Republicans.. Democrats are so much more fun to toy with.. Republicans KNOW they are spewing BS...

    Democrats actually BELIEVE the BS they spew... :D

    whose glorious leader you worship.

    Worship?? Hardly.. What do you think I am?? An Obama sycophant... :D

    I respect Trump.. He took on the biggest and meanest political juggernaut in the history of history and slammed it's face into the gutter from which it sprang...

    What's not to love?? :D

    143

  148. [148] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Stuff your insults.

    Actually, Al, and on sober second thought, that sounds more like something that someone who could be called the 'King of Insults' might say.

    And, it has been my experience that none of them are lovely people. Ahem.

  149. [149] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    And, it has been my experience that none of them are lovely people. Ahem.

    Well, that may be an oversimplification. Heh.

  150. [150] 
    neilm wrote:

    Prove me wrong.. Duplicate the jpg completely.. :D

    Done.

    https://drive.google.com/file/d/0Bw5RlKBX2EcGQUJ5N095RUJWcW8/view

  151. [151] 
    neilm wrote:

    Since you have absolutely NO FACTS to back up your claim that the jpg was from after the election, my assertion stands as valid..

    Prove my jpg wasn't from 1997.

  152. [152] 
    neilm wrote:

    Which simply proves my point that ya'all are living in your own little bubble and refuse to let facts and reality intrude into that bubble...

    Your concept of logic is mixed up your your concept of "what makes me feel good". This proves nothing apart from the fact that you have an unsupportable opinion.

    "Trump will be a good president if he makes me feel good".

    Who is in the bubble, fanboy?

  153. [153] 
    altohone wrote:

    Liz
    144, 148

    If you can't argue the point, double down on the insults.

    Did you wake up on the wrong side of the planet today?
    Or is sobriety your problem?

    A

  154. [154] 
    neilm wrote:

    Or is sobriety your problem?

    It is my problem right now, but there is something in the fridge that I'm going to take 12oz of to help :)

    Let's not fight among ourselves, let's remember the real enemy: Belgium!

    (And Trump, but mostly Belgium).

  155. [155] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Al, I'm going to start calling you Alice. :)

  156. [156] 
    neilm wrote:

    https://trumpgrets.tumblr.com/

    The bubble has popped for some, wonder if ...

  157. [157] 
    neilm wrote:

    BTW I love the ones from supporters pleading with Trump to stop tweeting - I mean, really?

  158. [158] 
    altohone wrote:

    neil
    138

    I'm going to go ahead and respond to part of your first installment.

    Glad to hear that like most Americans you are on board with the policies at the core of Bernie's campaign. I hope we can overcome the establishment opposition to them.

    It may yet happen, but the TPP is currently dead because of Trump, not the objections that Bernie had.
    Hard to tell with Trump, but I suspect that his objections were mainly a campaign tactic, and not due to concern for our working class.

    I'm not willing to call corruption "imperfections" though.

    In any case, we're back to the "putting the cart before the horse" scenario where you support passage of the deal before policies to mitigate the problems they've caused are in place.

    To mix metaphors, I think inaction is preferable even though I'm closing the barn doors after (most of) the horses have gotten out.

    A delay in additional wealth creation at the country level, which you noted in comment 56 is mostly going to 1%ers, seems like a minor penalty for them to pay until concerns that can be met, are met.
    If the compromises in the trade deals are acceptable, they should be willing to compromise on the resulting domestic issues of concern as well.

    If the TPP has actually been stopped, then we're both flogging a dead horse.

    A

  159. [159] 
    neilm wrote:

    The restaurant’s owner and employees were threatened on social media in the days before the election after fake news stories circulated claiming that then-Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton and her campaign chief were running a child sex ring from the restaurant’s back rooms. Even Michael Flynn, a retired general who President-elect Trump has tapped to advise him on national security, shared the stories. None of them were true.

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/local/wp/2016/12/04/d-c-police-respond-to-report-of-a-man-with-a-gun-at-comet-ping-pong-restaurant/?hpid=hp_hp-more-top-stories_comet-535pm%3Ahomepage%2Fstory&utm_term=.66ad819a6082

    Trump's America. Incendiary fake news. Guns. Stupidity. A bad combination.

  160. [160] 
    altohone wrote:

    Whatever Liz.

    A

  161. [161] 
    neilm wrote:

    In any case, we're back to the "putting the cart before the horse" scenario where you support passage of the deal before policies to mitigate the problems they've caused are in place.

    To mix metaphors, I think inaction is preferable even though I'm closing the barn doors after (most of) the horses have gotten out.

    To commit a cardinal sin on grammar that goes beyond just mixing metaphors, let me try to explain what my point is:

    1. I'm claiming that a present has arrived in the mail in the form of a larger marketplace that improves things for everybody.
    2. You believe the mailman is also the person who unbolts the barn door
    3. I'm saying there are other people unbolting barn doors, so rejecting the parcel is pointless. The barn door is going to be opened anyway.

    Hope that makes things crystal clear ;)

  162. [162] 
    neilm wrote:

    Oops - meant to say that the mailman is completely innocent!

  163. [163] 
    neilm wrote:

    Altohone [133]: you asked why I think Bernie is against trade deals, and the TPP in particular:

    Q: What do you think about the new TPP trade deal, the Trans-Pacific Partnership?

    SANDERS: I voted against NAFTA, CAFTA, PNTR with China. I think they have been a disaster for the American worker. A lot of corporations that shut down here move abroad. Working people understand that after NAFTA, CAFTA, PNTR with China we have lost millions of decent paying jobs. Since 2001, 60,000 factories in America have been shut down. We're in a race to the bottom, where our wages are going down. Is all of that attributable to trade? No. Is a lot of it? Yes. TPP was written by corporate America and the pharmaceutical industry and Wall Street. That's what this trade agreement is about. I do not want American workers to competing against people in Vietnam who make 56 cents an hour for a minimum wage.

    Q: So basically, there's never been a single trade agreement this country's negotiated that you've been comfortable with?

    SANDERS: That's correct.

    Source: Meet the Press 2015 interview moderated by Chuck Todd , Oct 11, 2015

  164. [164] 
    michale wrote:

    Prove me wrong.. Duplicate the jpg completely.. :D

    Done.

    https://drive.google.com/file/d/0Bw5RlKBX2EcGQUJ5N095RUJWcW8/vie

    I meant duplicate it on the website...

    Not duplicate it by copying my JPG.. :D

    It doesn't really matter as my point is proven. You won't accept any facts that dispute the reality of the bubble you live in...

    144

  165. [165] 
    michale wrote:

    Trump's America. Incendiary fake news. Guns. Stupidity. A bad combination.

    As opposed to Obama's America of race riots, fake news and stupidity...

    Your point??

    145

  166. [166] 
    michale wrote:

    The problem here is that the majority of ya'all define "fake news" as any news that doesn't support the Left Wingery agenda...

    Trump will become president.. = Fake news....

    Gang Rape On College Campus by Rolling Stone Magazine = Real news....

    146

  167. [167] 
    neilm wrote:

    I meant duplicate it on the website...

    Not duplicate it by copying my JPG.. :D

    Why, because jpgs can be faked?

    Name a state, any state.

  168. [168] 
    michale wrote:

    Here is the problem for the Democratic Party..

    They think that money... ie fund raising... is more important than actually talking to ALL Americans.. ie GOTV....

    That conclusion is supported by the fact that the Democrats retained Nancy Pelosi as their leader... Pelosi's raison D'être is fundraising...

    So, the Democratic Party obviously thinks that all it takes is money to win an election..

    A notion that was blown out of the water by President Elect Trump...

  169. [169] 
    michale wrote:

    Why, because jpgs can be faked?

    Name a state, any state.

    It's pointless... You won't believe anything because your ideology forbids you from believing anything not supported by the Party.....

    I know I called it... You do to, you just can't admit it.. :D

    148

  170. [170] 
    neilm wrote:

    The problem here is that the majority of ya'all define "fake news" as any news that doesn't support the Left Wingery agenda..

    The problem is that fake news is fake news.

    Take your dummied up jpg - you try to claim it proves your point, but all it does is shows you have Photoshop or some cheap equivalent.

    The NPR investigation showed that fake news predominantly works on the right wing psyche, like yours.

    You'll believe anything that fits your predefined agenda - take climate science for example. No amount of proof can convince you of the simple reality that a thermometer demonstrates.

  171. [171] 
    neilm wrote:
  172. [172] 
    michale wrote:

    From your comments, Neil, you are obviously an astute stocks type guy..

    Speaking *strictly* from a business/stocks/economics perspective....

    Would YOU invest in a company that has shown the track record that the Democratic Party has shown??

    The tone deafness, the denial of reality, the constant losses???

    Would you think that would be a worthy investment??

    Strictly from a profit/loss point of view...

    I don't think you would. I don't think ANY sane investor would...

    149

  173. [173] 
    neilm wrote:

    I know I called it... You do to, you just can't admit it.. :D

    I know you called it too, you just can't prove it.

    Annoying, isn't it when somebody won't believe the simple truth.

  174. [174] 
    neilm wrote:

    **cough** climate science **cough**

  175. [175] 
    michale wrote:

    The problem is that fake news is fake news.

    Give me an example of fake news that would turn an Obama voter into a Trump voter...

    Take your dummied up jpg - you try to claim it proves your point, but all it does is shows you have Photoshop or some cheap equivalent.

    Something you have absolutely no facts to support. You want access to my FTP so you can see the date that the JPG was uploaded???

    Of course you don't... Because that would force you to admit that you were wrong and that I called the Electoral vote dead on ballz accurate...

    You'll believe anything that fits your predefined agenda - take climate science for example. No amount of proof can convince you of the simple reality that a thermometer demonstrates.

    Sorry, friend. You are talking about yourself there.. :D

    I take into account ALL the science which proves that YOUR theory of humans causing climate change is not valid..

    It's you who only support the "science" that supports your agenda. Your "science" is all marketing and focus-groups....

    150

  176. [176] 
    neilm wrote:

    Would YOU invest in a company that has shown the track record that the Democratic Party has shown??

    You bring up a good point.

    No. I would be very wary of investing in any business run by the current crop of politicians. Just as I'd avoid getting dental work done by somebody with only bartender experience or regret it if a real-estate developer became President.

  177. [177] 
    neilm wrote:

    Something you have absolutely no facts to support. You want access to my FTP so you can see the date that the JPG was uploaded???

    Yes please. I'd love your FTP username and password ;)

  178. [178] 
    neilm wrote:

    It's you who only support the "science" that supports your agenda. Your "science" is all marketing and focus-groups....

    Well you've convinced me. I can't believe I fell for that old John Tyndall headfake - can you believe he had the foresight in 1859 to 'prove' that CO2 absorbs infrared.

    Just so, 160 years or so later he could give "librals" an excuse to raise your taxes with the help of a Chinese government hoax team.

  179. [179] 
    michale wrote:

    You bring up a good point.

    Thank you. I have my moments. :D

    No. I would be very wary of investing in any business run by the current crop of politicians. Just as I'd avoid getting dental work done by somebody with only bartender experience or regret it if a real-estate developer became President.

    Sorry, ya'all lost the moral high ground on "experience" when we elected a community organizer in 2008.. :D

    At the time, I thought Obama might be another Jack Ryan...

    This time around I feel the same about Trump but Trump is even MORE perfect for the role..

    151

  180. [180] 
    neilm wrote:

    Give me an example of fake news that would turn an Obama voter into a Trump voter...

    Oh, I don't know, maybe if people were getting more fake news stories than real ones the might just be some impact

    http://www.vox.com/new-money/2016/11/16/13659840/facebook-fake-news-chart

    Or if Trump supporting some gun nut believed an obvious fake news piece about Hillary and a pizza parlor and shot the place up?

  181. [181] 
    neilm wrote:

    I'd like to hear more from you about this giant climate science conspiracy.

    We know some basic facts:

    i/ the most evil man in all of history is John Tyndall who started the whole thing off in 1859. He obviously had contact with Confucius (eerily similar to Confuse-us - ah ha!) even though Confucius lived almost 2000 years before - the Chinese angle.

    But how did Tyndall get thousands and thousands of scientist around the world to keep the secret for over a hundred years?

    Your the climate science expert - can you help me with that bit, I mean, because otherwise I might think Trump is just a fool who believes anything, and we know that isn't true ... right?

  182. [182] 
    neilm wrote:

    ii/ How on earth did Tyndall doctor all those thermometers and infrared detectors and other instruments after his death?

    How?

  183. [183] 
    neilm wrote:

    iii/ Obviously the Chinese were in on it - maybe they manufacture the thermometers with the jobs they stole from us?

  184. [184] 
    michale wrote:

    Or if Trump supporting some gun nut believed an obvious fake news piece about Hillary and a pizza parlor and shot the place up?

    Is that an example of an Obama voter??

    I don't think so..

    My point is, is that what you call "fake news" is nothing more than news that doesn't support the Left Wingery agenda...

    There is absolutely NO factual evidence to support the claim that fake news had ANY impact on the election..

    NONE... ZERO.... ZILCH.... NADA....

    The "fake news" issue, like the Comey issue, like the Russian issue.... all of that is just a way to avoid the one fact from this election..

    Hillary was a lousy candidate.. She was the ESTABLISHMENT candidate in an election that hinged on ESTABLISHMENT vs NON-ESTABLISHMENT....

    I've said it for the past year and it turned out to be dead on ballz accurate...

    152

  185. [185] 
    neilm wrote:

    another Jack Ryan..

    OK, you know Jack Ryan is a fictional (that means fake) character, right?

  186. [186] 
    neilm wrote:

    A stopped clock is right twice a day. You've been right once in 18 months, get over yourself.

    You've also been spectacularly wrong, take your climate science conspiracy, for example.

  187. [187] 
    michale wrote:

    Ya'all just have to ask yourselves..

    What happens to identity politics when, under President Trump, black unemployment falls to the same level as the national unemployment??

    What happens to identity politics when the hispanic Americans, in a Trump administration, start seeing some real tangible benefits to President Trump??

    They will abandon the Democratic Party quicker than you can say MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN...

    Give Trump's success in business, it's entirely possible, even probable, that these scenarios could actually play out..

    In 2020, it will make 2016 be like a family fun day at the beach by comparison...

    The Democratic Party needs to start thinking of 2020 NOW... not in 2018...

    Again, I am just trying to help out here... :D

    153

  188. [188] 
    neilm wrote:

    The Democratic Party needs to start thinking of 2020 NOW... not in 2018...

    I know. But what if the Democratic Party had the majority of voting Americans on their side? Do you think that might be a good place to start?

    Or what if the Democratic Party was in control of 2/3 of the economic MSAs?

    If only there was a strong platform of voters and money to base a recovery on!

  189. [189] 
    michale wrote:

    OK, you know Jack Ryan is a fictional (that means fake) character, right?

    But the qualities that Jack Ryan epitomizes are NOT 'fake'...

    At least they are not to anyone that doesn't have a '-D' after their name...

    You've also been spectacularly wrong, take your climate science conspiracy, for example.

    Which conspiracy was that?? I have simply stated that humans do not have the technological capability to affect the planet's climate in any meaningful way...

    I also point out that there has NEVER been an accurate prediction made by the Global Warming fanatics....

    No conspiracy whatsoever... Just a con-job of galactic proportions...

    154

  190. [190] 
    neilm wrote:

    But the qualities that Jack Ryan epitomizes are NOT 'fake'...

    List fake Jack Ryan's top three qualities, and why you think a fictional character's strengths are great.

  191. [191] 
    michale wrote:

    I know. But what if the Democratic Party had the majority of voting Americans on their side? Do you think that might be a good place to start?

    If this country elected it's President based on the vanity vote then yes... I would agree it's a GREAT place to start..

    But it doesn't so I don't..

    The problem for the Democratic Party is that they talk a good talk.. But they have a real big, a YYUUGGEEEEE problem with walking the walk...

    They proved that when they conspired against Sanders to assure that Hillary was the Dem nominee...

    155

  192. [192] 
    michale wrote:

    On another note...

    Neil, can ya take it easy on me.. I am going to end up donating MILLIONS to cw.com!! :D

    Heh

    Gods help me if any of the regulars show back up...

    :D

    156

  193. [193] 
    neilm wrote:

    No conspiracy whatsoever... Just a con-job of galactic proportions...

    A con-job of galactic proportions that is definitely not a conspiracy.

    Let me see, lots of people for almost 200 years have in no coordinated manner been conspiring randomly coming up with a Chinese hoax to raise your taxes.

    It all makes complete sense!

  194. [194] 
    neilm wrote:

    Neil, can ya take it easy on me.. I am going to end up donating MILLIONS to cw.com!! :D

    That never crossed my mind ;)

  195. [195] 
    neilm wrote:

    Gods help me if any of the regulars show back up...

    I think we've bored them to death. That was the other reason I blocked you before, I get a bit compulsive when I argue. But only when I'm right.

  196. [196] 
    neilm wrote:

    Was Clinton a good candidate for the Democrats?

  197. [197] 
    michale wrote:

    A con-job of galactic proportions that is definitely not a conspiracy.

    You say POE-TAY-TOE, I say FRENCH FRIES

    Let me see, lots of people for almost 200 years have in no coordinated manner been conspiring randomly coming up with a Chinese hoax to raise your taxes.

    Global Warming has been an issue for 200 years???

    That can't be right. Because I know that "scientists" were warning us about global COOLING in the 70s....

    I think we've bored them to death.

    Naaw, I think they just haven't come to grips with President Trump...

    157

  198. [198] 
    neilm wrote:

    Global Warming has been an issue for 200 years???

    The science behind it has. You haven't read the supporting science?

  199. [199] 
    neilm wrote:

    Naaw, I think they just haven't come to grips with President Trump...

    I don't think Trump has come to grips with President Trump.

    But it isn't like he is doing anything crazy like riling up the Chinese pointlessly or appointing somebody with absolutely no experience to lead HUD. Right?

  200. [200] 
    neilm wrote:

    Or paying off victims of his crimes with a $25M check ...

  201. [201] 
    neilm wrote:

    Or making a fool of himself and the office be being thin skinned over SNL ...

  202. [202] 
    michale wrote:

    Just watched the latest episode of Supernatural...

    My gods, Rick Springfield is OLD..... :D

    158

  203. [203] 
    michale wrote:

    But it isn't like he is doing anything crazy like riling up the Chinese pointlessly or appointing somebody with absolutely no experience to lead HUD. Right?

    Again with the "no experience" card..

    You lost the right to play that card when you supported Obama for the last 8 years... :D

  204. [204] 
    michale wrote:

    I think we've bored them to death. That was the other reason I blocked you before, I get a bit compulsive when I argue. But only when I'm right.

    Well, I am glad you changed your mind.. I mean that sincerely..

    If you hadn't, what with everyone else not having the cajones to show up and take their well-deserved licks, I would be lucky if I could crack 200 comments by New Years.....

    160

  205. [205] 
    neilm wrote:

    Obama was a senator. Nice try, but false equivalency is one of your staples that you think may work, but don't.

  206. [206] 
    John M wrote:

    Michale wrote:

    "All the while, the American people have been screaming JOBS!!!! JOBS!!!! JOBS!!!!"

    Remember Boehner and Republicans supposed "laser like" focus on jobs??? How many multiple House votes did we get on anti-abortion legislation instead???

  207. [207] 
    John M wrote:

    Michale and Elizabeth:

    "Have you seen this preview for Guardians of the Galaxy, vol.2 ...
    https://youtu.be/dW1BIid8Osg"

    Doesn't the whole scene between Rocket and Baby Groot over the atomic bomb button remind you of Trump??? With Trump AS Baby Groot!

    Michale:

    "I did.. Ohmygods, it's hilarious!!! I cannot wait for that movie.. Definitely on my MUST SEE list!! I might even spring the $80+ bucks to go see it with my lovely wife.. :D"

    80 bucks!!! What theatre are you attending??? I go to the movies with my two friends, and for the 3 of us it only costs us 50 bucks. Don't you even get the SENIOR discount Michale??? heh :-D

  208. [208] 
    neilm wrote:

    Breitbart is an acknowledged platform for the racist alt-right (source: Trump advisor Steve Bannon).

    It is also Trump's main source of news.

    This man lives in the bubble. The whole Taiwan incident shows both astounding incompetence and how easily Trump is led. We need some real adults around this clown at all times.

    https://www.buzzfeed.com/charliewarzel/trumps-information-universe?utm_term=.av5x26ArOB#.pu9nAo8qG4

  209. [209] 
    michale wrote:

    Obama was a senator. Nice try, but false equivalency is one of your staples that you think may work, but don't.

    Obama was a Senator for what?? All of two years???

    That's a stretch to call that "experienced"...

    Remember Boehner and Republicans supposed "laser like" focus on jobs??? How many multiple House votes did we get on anti-abortion legislation instead???

    Boehner and Republicans aren't Trump...

    80 bucks!!! What theatre are you attending??? I go to the movies with my two friends, and for the 3 of us it only costs us 50 bucks. Don't you even get the SENIOR discount Michale??? heh :-D

    Bite me! :D heh I tend to eat a lot at the movies.. :D

    Breitbart is an acknowledged platform for the racist alt-right (source: Trump advisor Steve Bannon).

    Yea??? Prove it...

    It is also Trump's main source of news.

    Assumes facts not in evidence..

    This man lives in the bubble. The whole Taiwan incident shows both astounding incompetence and how easily Trump is led. We need some real adults around this clown at all times.

    Yea?? Like Obama???

    Yea, he's done REALLY well as an alleged "adult"...

    We need COMPETENCE in the White House... Not some bubble-living moron who couldn't fight his way out of a paper bag.... :D

    And, judging from the Carrier deal, competence WILL be back in the White House come 20 Jan 2017.... :D

    It's like welcoming Reagan back into the White House...

    The whole Taiwan incident

    Wasn't that refreshing?!? A little bit of HONESTY... Taiwan is it's own country.. It should be treated as such...

    The idea of appeasing communist China and furthering their own delusions is nauseating and personally insulting to me..

    I am GLAD Trump inadvertently gave China the finger..

    I hope he runs with it and tells the Chinese where they can stick their delusions..

    It's time we had some reality in government, as opposed to politically correct fueled delusions..

    161

  210. [210] 
    John M wrote:

    Michale wrote:

    "Wasn't that refreshing?!? A little bit of HONESTY... Taiwan is it's own country.. It should be treated as such..."

    While I do support a Democratic Taiwan, I have to point out that it is not recognized as an independent country overwhelming by ANYBODY except for a small few tiny Pacific island and Central American nations.

    It is also NOT a good idea to provoke an unnecessary conflict with a major nuclear power over an issue that is not strategically important to U.S. National security on a whim, despite the "feel good" temporary nature of it. Especially when it also seems like a cavalier change of 35 years of bipartisan foreign policy.

  211. [211] 
    neilm wrote:

    Breitbart is an acknowledged platform for the racist alt-right (source: Trump advisor Steve Bannon).

    Yea??? Prove it..

    Um, Bannon himself regards Breitbart as a "platform for the alt-right"

    http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2016/08/stephen-bannon-donald-trump-alt-right-breitbart-news

  212. [212] 
    neilm wrote:

    The idea of appeasing communist China and furthering their own delusions is nauseating and personally insulting to me..

    Odd you've never mentioned your concern about the China-Taiwan relationship before. Mind you, neither has Trump.

    Do you know Trump is trying to build a hotel in Taiwan? That his team in Taiwan set up the call and he knew about it two hours beforehand? (So the "CALLED ME" tweet is just another lie).

    Do you know why Taiwan became an independent country, and why the U.S. adopted the One China policy in the 1970's?

  213. [213] 
    John M wrote:

    "Especially when it also seems like a cavalier change of 35 years of bipartisan foreign policy."

    That's a naive move on Trump's part, and not a carefully thought out and well planned execution of a major change in American foreign policy by a seasoned professional with everyone on board. What other inadvertent more consequential actions might happen with even far more unseen ramifications in the future? Something more dire other than a minor row over a tempest in a teapot?

    Just saying.....

  214. [214] 
    neilm wrote:

    We need COMPETENCE in the White House... Not some bubble-living moron who couldn't fight his way out of a paper bag.... :D

    Yet you voted for Trump instead of Hillary.

  215. [215] 
    neilm wrote:

    And, judging from the Carrier deal, competence WILL be back in the White House come 20 Jan 2017.... :D

    Har har. Giving away $7M and then only saving 1/2 the jobs is hardly a sign of competence.

    Telling Pakistan that he'd help solve their problems, when there problems are things that, if solved, would be really bad for us, is not competence, it's dangerous stupidity. Plus, I though he was meant to ignore all those other country's problems and focus on Making America Great Again?

  216. [216] 
    John M wrote:

    neilm wrote:

    "Har har. Giving away $7M and then only saving 1/2 the jobs is hardly a sign of competence."

    Neilm has a point. I thought Trump, by his own words, was supposed to punish companies moving jobs overseas by some kind of penalty, like taking AWAY their tax breaks or putting a tariff on their goods, and not by BRIBERY at the taxpayers expense???

  217. [217] 
    neilm wrote:

    Returning to the discussion on globalization and automation, check out Amazon Go:

    https://www.cnet.com/au/news/amazon-go-grocery-store-no-checkout/

    No need for checkout staff. And it isn't ridiculous to think that robots could stock the shelves.

    A friend of mine high up in a tech company works in machine learning and thinks one of the biggest challenges isn't the technology but the impact on society as more and more classes of jobs become obsolete.

  218. [218] 
    michale wrote:

    JM,

    While I do support a Democratic Taiwan, I have to point out that it is not recognized as an independent country overwhelming by ANYBODY except for a small few tiny Pacific island and Central American nations.

    Yea, like I said.. Political correctness, not reality...

    The REALITY is that Taiwan is a separate country..

    But to be politically correct and appease China, most of the world won't say this and have to go along with the delusion that Taiwan is part of China...

    It is also NOT a good idea to provoke an unnecessary conflict with a major nuclear power over an issue that is not strategically important

    If it's not strategically important, then what's the fuss??

    So, you are saying we should deny reality to appease China??

    Sounds like the Obama approach...

    Especially when it also seems like a cavalier change of 35 years of bipartisan foreign policy.

    And, what part of, THAR'S A NEW SHERIFF IN TOWN do you not understand??

    Um, Bannon himself regards Breitbart as a "platform for the alt-right"

    You said "racist" alt-right before... Did Bannon himself say that Breitbart was a "platform for the racist alt-right"???

    No, he did not. You just thru that in for your own spin...

    Yet you voted for Trump instead of Hillary.

    Yes, because we need COMPETENCE in the White House, not someone like Hillary Dodging-Sniper-Fire-In-Bosnia-Doesn't-Have-A-Single-Accomplishment-To-Her-Name Clinton...

    Har har. Giving away $7M and then only saving 1/2 the jobs is hardly a sign of competence.

    I know you can't admit it, but since the alternative was MORE Americans losing their jobs, it was competence..

    Apparently much more than Obama has shown or NONE of those jobs would be leaving..

    Funny how none of ya'all ding Obama for THAT...

    It's all partisan ideology... Nothing else..

    http://www.politico.com/story/2016/12/electoral-college-rogues-trump-clinton-232195

    On another note.. it's funny.. All these people with their recounts and faithless electors is keeping the election alive..

    So, instead of Hillary Clinton losing once, she loses over and over and over again...

    For someone who is Party agnostic, it's hilarious... :D

    162

  219. [219] 
    neilm wrote:

    I know you can't admit it, but since the alternative was MORE Americans losing their jobs, it was competence..

    Apparently much more than Obama has shown or NONE of those jobs would be leaving..

    You must have been really pleased when Obama saved the U.S. car industry and got paid back and more then.

  220. [220] 
    neilm wrote:

    This country creates and destroys over a million jobs per month. Currently we are creating hundreds of thousands more jobs than we are destroying, getting unemployment down to 4.6%. Trump is running around patting himself on the back for paying to keep under 1,000.

    Time for a perspective check. Just because your hero did something useful, if not quite what he promised, is not going to change the overall picture. I'm happy for the people who kept their jobs, and upset for the ones Trump couldn't keep.

  221. [221] 
    michale wrote:

    The phone call with President Tsai Ing-wen was reportedly carefully planned, and Trump was fully briefed before the call, according to The Post. It’s not that Trump was unfamiliar with the “Three Communiques” or unaware of the fiction that there is “One China.” Trump knew precisely what he was doing in taking the call. He was serving notice on Beijing that it is dealing with a different kind of president — an outsider who will not be encumbered by the same Lilliputian diplomatic threads that tied down previous administrations. The message, as John Bolton correctly put it, was that “the president of the United States [will] talk to whomever he wants if he thinks it’s in the interest of the United States, and nobody in Beijing gets to dictate who we talk to.”
    https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/trumps-taiwan-call-wasnt-a-blunder-it-was-brilliant/2016/12/05/d10169a2-bb00-11e6-ac85-094a21c44abc_story.html?utm_term=.fbcdf0521862

    You see the point??? Trump is not going to be bound by the political correctness/moronic-ness of past administrations..

    There is a NEW SHERIFF in town...

    That's the message Trump sent Beijing...

    And I say it's about frakin' time!

    163

  222. [222] 
    neilm wrote:

    Trump and the 35% tariffs:

    Company A: based in Germany, manufactures AC units in Mexico at a cost of $700/unit and sells 10,000/month for $1,000 ($300/unit profit)

    Company B: based in the U.S., manufactures AC units in Indiana at a cost of $900/unit and sells 10,000/month for $1,000 ($100/unit profit)

    Company A decides to corner the market and squeeze Company B, so lowers its price to $895/Unit. Now it hopes to sell all 20,000 and make a bigger profit.

    Company B decides to move to Mexico to save its business, but Donald Trump comes along and says - if you move the jobs I'll hit you with a 35% import tax.

    Company B goes out of business.

    Thanks Donald.

  223. [223] 
    michale wrote:

    This country creates and destroys over a million jobs per month. Currently we are creating hundreds of thousands more jobs than we are destroying, getting unemployment down to 4.6%. Trump is running around patting himself on the back for paying to keep under 1,000

    Considering he has done that without even being sworn in yet, I would say it's a pretty back-patting worthy event..

    And you would agree with me if Trump had a '-D' after his name...

    :D

    164

  224. [224] 
    neilm wrote:

    If you are falling for that made up story from the Trump team, you really need to look at this bridge I've got for sale.

  225. [225] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    You see the point??? Trump is not going to be bound by the political correctness/moronic-ness of past administrations..

    Except, apparently, the moronic-ness (your word) of the ill-fated Bush administration.

    The message Trump sent Beijing was: "I have no idea what I'm doing."

    Neilm [219-220] Spot on! Trump (er-Pence)pays off a company to keep less than half of the jobs it plans to send to Mexico and is hailed by the right as a wonder boy. Obama brought unemployment down from deep recession levels, saved the financial system and the auto industry, and all he gets is a lousy T-shirt.

  226. [226] 
    michale wrote:

    Trump’s call with Taiwan’s president was a smart, calculated move designed to send a clear message: The days of pushing the United States around are over.

    Ooorrraaaaaaa

    Company A decides to corner the market and squeeze Company B, so lowers its price to $895/Unit. Now it hopes to sell all 20,000 and make a bigger profit.

    Since Company A isn't playing fair, Donald Trump decides to help Company B maintain it's market share and slaps a tariff on Company A's imports. Company A can't compete with the tariff and gives their market share to Company B...

    Company B, flush with new found capital, hires 10,000 more American workers..

    Donald Trump's re-election is assured...

    :D

    See?? I can make shit up too... :D

    165

  227. [227] 
    neilm wrote:

    And you would agree with me if Trump had a '-D' after his name...

    I can tell you right now, I'd never have voted for Trump in November if he had an alphabet after his name.

    He is a buffoon. Trump U proves he is a crook. His business history shows him to be a con man.

    Unless Jesus Christ himself comes down from heaven and tells me Trump is the best qualified for the job, I'm sticking to what I know about him from decades of publicly available information.

    You only voted for him because he had a -R after his name however.

  228. [228] 
    michale wrote:

    The message Trump sent Beijing was: "I have no idea what I'm doing."

    That's your opinion based on ideological slavery and unsupported by any facts whatsoever...

    Except, apparently, the moronic-ness (your word) of the ill-fated Bush administration.

    Actually, Bush did the same thing with Taiwan after China hijacked a Navy P3 and kidnapped the aircrew...

    Bush awarded Taiwan a 35 BILLION dollar military package and China played nice with Bush..

    Once Obama got in, China has been dictating US policy since...

  229. [229] 
    neilm wrote:

    Since Company A isn't playing fair, Donald Trump decides to help Company B maintain it's market share and slaps a tariff on Company A's imports. Company A can't compete with the tariff and gives their market share to Company B...

    And Donald has just started a trade war with Germany and Mexico. They retaliate by slapping tariffs on a host of other U.S. companies. Donald loses it and starts putting tariffs on everything. The general public, who pay the tariffs are furious over double digit inflation and mounting job loses.

    This is reality sonny boy - Trump is a neophyte.

  230. [230] 
    michale wrote:

    and all he gets is a lousy T-shirt.

    And the scorn of patriotic Americans everywhere... :D

  231. [231] 
    michale wrote:

    And Donald has just started a trade war with Germany and Mexico. They retaliate by slapping tariffs on a host of other U.S. companies. Donald loses it and starts putting tariffs on everything. The general public, who pay the tariffs are furious over double digit inflation and mounting job loses.

    This is reality sonny boy - Trump is a neophyte.

    Yea, that's YOUR reality...

    But your reality was that Trump would NEVER be elected President...

    So, your reality has a tendency not to happen as you predict it will...

    Germany and Mexico will fall into line.. They need the US more than the US needs them..

    THAT's what is going to make the Trump administration so awesome....

    We don't have to worry about getting kicked around by pissant countries who depend on the US for their survival...

    168

  232. [232] 
    neilm wrote:

    Bush awarded Taiwan a 35 BILLION dollar military package and China played nice with Bush..

    But I thought Donald told us that China committed the greatest crime in the history of the world against the U.S. in the 2000's when Bush was in?

    U.S. China Trade Deficit:

    2000: ~$83B
    2008: ~$268B (growth of $185B in 8 years under Bush 2 = ~300%)
    2016: ~$360B (growth of $94B in 8 years under Obama = ~40%)

    So tell me again about that whippin' Bush gave the Chinese?

    And how things are so much worse under Obama?

    Source:

    http://www.census.gov/foreign-trade/balance/c5700.html#2000

  233. [233] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    Actually, Bush did the same thing with Taiwan after China hijacked a Navy P3 and kidnapped the aircrew...

    Bush awarded Taiwan a 35 BILLION dollar military package and China played nice with Bush..

    Um..that went down very differently than you describe it. In fact, it was very much a reality check for many of the same right wingers who are cheering Trump's diplomatic thrashing about today...

  234. [234] 
    neilm wrote:

    Have you ever studied trade wars? Fascinating. Find a good book on the subject, read it, and when you are finished send it to:

    Donald Trump
    Trump Tower
    5th Avenue
    NY, NY 10013

  235. [235] 
    neilm wrote:

    Once Obama got in, China has been dictating US policy since...

    You just make up so much nonsense. You really should read the article on fake news. The guy was making $10-30K/month from stories like this. You are paying $0.50 (which I personally want to thank you for, BTW - genuinely) per posting here.

    Here is the link again for you:

    http://www.npr.org/sections/alltechconsidered/2016/11/23/503146770/npr-finds-the-head-of-a-covert-fake-news-operation-in-the-suburbs

  236. [236] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    We don't have to worry about getting kicked around by pissant countries who depend on the US for their survival...

    oooooooo - wery macho. Sounded good to Bush, too, until the Iraq war began to look like a quagmire, Afghanistan started to bog down, and 'mission accomplished' became a taunt. That's when Bolton started Boltin' for the exit door..

    There's a reason the Bush's wouldn't back Trump.

  237. [237] 
    michale wrote:

    oooooooo - wery macho. Sounded good to Bush, too, until the Iraq war began to look like a quagmire, Afghanistan started to bog down, and 'mission accomplished' became a taunt. That's when Bolton started Boltin' for the exit door..

    There's a reason the Bush's wouldn't back Trump.

    According to you, Bush is a moron..

    So, since a moron won't back Trump, then Trump must be the best choice..

    You see how you can get tripped up by ideological slavery?? :D

    You just make up so much nonsense.

    As do you with your trade war fear mongering....

    Look at all the horrible things ya'all predicted would happen if Trump got elected...

    Look at all the horrible things ya'all predicted would happen if BREXIT passed...

    Ya'all are BIG on fear-mongering predictions...

    Yet NONE of them have EVER come to pass...

    Funny how that is, eh? :D

    169

  238. [238] 
    neilm wrote:

    According to you, Bush is a moron..

    Even the bluntest pencil in the box gets things right now and then. Take your election prediction for example ;)

  239. [239] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    Well, BREXIT is on (indefinite?) hold, and Trump hasn't been sworn in yet, Michale. Before getting all triumphal about it, you might want to wait for actual results.

    And I know, you'll be telling us for the thousanth time all about how we jumped the gun on Hillary's election, mia culpa. But, two wrongs do not make a right, especially when one of them is bright orange.

  240. [240] 
    neilm wrote:

    Yet NONE of them have EVER come to pass...

    Hmm. So your predicting that all of our predictions will be wrong.

    Here are a few about the U.K. (I have the guts to make predictions, I don't hide behind "what I feel in 4 years" excuses).

    If hard Brexit goes through, the pound will continue to sink as confusion over trade agreements grows. The baseline trade agreements are basically the default WTO ones (have you read them? Nasty biscuits!), and Britain has to try to create agreements with all its major trading partners overnight. The trading partners, many of whom have lost money due to Brexit, know that they can get anything they want by stalling until Britain gets so desperate it will take any deal.

    The hope is for a soft Brexit (i.e. Britain pretends it isn't part of the EU, but pays as much or more than before, gets none of the community funding back, and has to live with open immigration - the one thing that the "Leave" voters most wanted).

    One tiny sliver of hope is that the courts rule the referendum irrelevant and everybody goes home.

  241. [241] 
    neilm wrote:

    Officer Elsokary is a hero — and a native New Yorker to boot.

    She rushed into a burning Williamsburg building and rescued a baby and its grandmother in 2014, earning her a service award for her bravery.

    On Friday Police Officer Aml Elsokary dropped her 16-year-old son at the corner of Ridge Boulevard and 67th Street and then parked her car a little before 6 pm on Saturday. While she was parking, a guy started shoving her son, police said. The off-duty cop intervened, and the man called her an “ISIS b----” before threatening her life, police officials claim.

    “I will cut your throat. Go back to your country,” the man allegedly screamed at Elsokary — one of few Muslim officers who wears a hijab on duty, according to the department’s Muslim Officers Society.

    Oh, and there was a KKK Trump victory parade today.

    How are you liking Trump's America.

  242. [242] 
    michale wrote:

    Even the bluntest pencil in the box gets things right now and then. Take your election prediction for example ;)

    Ahhhh..

    So Bush was wrong about EVERYTHING *EXCEPT* the *ONE* thing that supports your partisan ideology...

    And you don't find that somewhat convenient..???

    Hmm. So your predicting that all of our predictions will be wrong.

    No, I am pointing out that ALL of ya'all's predictions to date have been wrong...

    So, it stands to reason that something else is governing the predictions...

    Could it be partisan ideology??

    Well, BREXIT is on (indefinite?) hold, and Trump hasn't been sworn in yet, Michale. Before getting all triumphal about it, you might want to wait for actual results.

    Yea, we said that with the election..

    Look what happened.. :D

    How are you liking Trump's America.

    Of course, all of what you stated afore had absolutely NOTHING to do with Trump...

    Funny how that is...

  243. [243] 
    michale wrote:

    How are you liking Trump's America.

    Let's ask 1100 Carrier employees how they like Trump's America...

    Personally, since I know that Trump wants NOTHING to do with the racist assholes, I *LOVE* Trump's America...

    It's 100 times better than Obama's America has EVER been.... :D

  244. [244] 
    neilm wrote:

    Of course, all of what you stated afore had absolutely NOTHING to do with Trump...

    Trump has singled out Muslims for special immigration treatment because he claims they are a threat to America.

    So yes, I do put the blame at the front door of Trump Tower.

    The good news is the the NYPD got the guy who attacked the cop's kid.

  245. [245] 
    neilm wrote:

    Puzder. Fox. Hen house.

    Be nice to your fast food workers, they are going to need it.

  246. [246] 
    neilm wrote:

    Also, Trump has just named Ben Carson to HUD. This is the man who specifically said he would not vote for a Muslim.

    Again, Trump and his cronies single Islam out for special treatment. His followers follow the path shown to them.

    http://www.chrisweigant.com/2015/09/28/will-someone-please-point-out-ben-carsons-religious-hypocrisy/

  247. [247] 
    neilm wrote:

    I mean, it isn't like people jump to the wrong conclusions based on lies told to them on the media. Here is the response from one person on the day of the Boston Marathon bombing:

    You mean, like a Saudi National in custody who had explosives residue on his clothing and was heard to remark immediately prior to the second device detonating, "I thought there would be a second explosion?"???

    THAT kind of "no evidence"...

    There was nobody in custody.

    There was no Saudi National with explosives residue on his clothing

    There was no statement about a second explosion.

    Yes, that kind of "no evidence" is what happens when hysteria is whipped up by rabble rousers like Trump.

  248. [248] 
    michale wrote:

    Trump has singled out Muslims for special immigration treatment because he claims they are a threat to America.

    Have NUMEROUS Muslims carried out numerous terrorist attacks against the US??

    Yes they have...

    Special treatment for Muslims is warranted..

    So yes, I do put the blame at the front door of Trump Tower.

    Of course you do.. But you DON'T put the blame at the front door of the White House when (O)BLM scumbags assassinate cops..

    Which proves beyond any doubt that you are partisan biased...

    The good news is the the NYPD got the guy who attacked the cop's kid.

    Who had absolutely NOTHING to do with Trump...

    And that just chaps yer arse, doesn't it... :D

  249. [249] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    you DON'T put the blame at the front door of the White House when (O)BLM scumbags assassinate cops..

    Of course not. Did you not hear Obama at the funeral for the cops in Dallas? We're on the same team, most of us. Good cops don't want their fellow cops gunning down blacks in the street, and good Americans don't want cops gunned down on the street.

    Good Americans don't want anyone gunned down. Ever.

  250. [250] 
    neilm wrote:

    And don't get me started on Flynn, who has called Islam “a cancer” and a “political ideology” masquerading as a faith.

  251. [251] 
    neilm wrote:

    Who had absolutely NOTHING to do with Trump...

    Firstly, how do you know? You just made this up, as usual.

    Secondly I don't expect Trump to call people like this up and tell them to attack kids on the street. That isn't how it works. It is the singling out of groups to blame for political advantage, labeling them as "terrorists" or "rapists". They usually have some double talk out (I was only calling Mexican rapists "rapists" - we'll gee thanks Donald).

    But with Muslims Trump is far more open in his hatred. He called for a complete ban on all Muslims - even out own citizens - coming into the United States. Only when it was pointed out to the moron that this would stop our Muslim military personnel coming in to their own country did he start to walk it back.

    Trump knew exactly what he was doing and it worked for him. Fanboys such as yourself can pretend you aren't racist, or bigoted, but you are branded by the leader you chose.

    A leader who tells people that all Muslins are suspected terrorists and so should be singled out for special treatment.

    A leader that people listen to and believe in.

    A leader whose followers chant his name when they attack minorities he singles out:

    http://abc7ny.com/news/nypd-men-yelled-donald-trump-tried-to-pull-off-victims-hijab-on-subway/1638675/

    This is Trump's America you are proud of.

  252. [252] 
    John M wrote:

    Michale wrote:

    "The REALITY is that Taiwan is a separate country.."

    NO. The REALITY is that Taiwan itself has NEVER declared its own independence from China. In Fact, the government in Taiwan, like the government in Beijing, still claims to rule and be the legitimate government of ALL of China, including the mainland.

    It would be like if, the government of the Confederacy, after losing the Civil War, moved from Richmond to Anchorage Alaska or Honolulu Hawaii, and both it and the government in Washington D.C. both claimed to be the one true legitimate government of all of the United States, forcing other nations to choose which one to recognize, while neither government actually controlled the other's territory, neither one actually declaring itself to be an independent nation separate from the other!

  253. [253] 
    michale wrote:

    Firstly, how do you know? You just made this up, as usual.

    Because if there was a connection to Trump, the Leftist media would have hysterically pointed it out to the high heavens..

    So, you assume there IS, just because you hate Trump..

    So, Trump is guilty until proven innocent, is that it??

    A leader who tells people that all Muslins are suspected terrorists and so should be singled out for special treatment.

    That's not what Trump said. Now you are putting false words in Trump's mouth (again) just to make your phony argument.

    But with Muslims Trump is far more open in his hatred. He called for a complete ban on all Muslims - even out own citizens - coming into the United States.

    No, he didn't...

    If you can't stick with the facts and reality, why even bother discussing it??

    173

  254. [254] 
    michale wrote:

    NO. The REALITY is that Taiwan itself has NEVER declared its own independence from China. In Fact, the government in Taiwan, like the government in Beijing, still claims to rule and be the legitimate government of ALL of China, including the mainland.

    You can be all politically correct you want until the cows come home..

    But the simple fact is, Taiwan is an independent country in every aspect that matters.

    THIS is the reality whether you want to admit it or not..

    THIS is the reality whether China wants to admit it or not...

    It's funny how you are siding with communist China on this issue..

    I guess the freedom of people's of the world only matter to you when Trump isn't involved and you have to give up a chance to bash Trump...

    174

  255. [255] 
    michale wrote:

    Of course not.

    Exactly...

    You blame Trump for anything that happens to muslims (or blacks or hispanics) even when there is absolutely NO CONNECTION to Trump..

    Yet Obama encourages the riots and the cop killings etc etc and you hold Obama blameless..

    Which proves that your blame of and attacks on Trump is NOTHING but a partisan agenda at work and has absolutely nothing to do with the facts or reality..

    Trump is going to be your President..

    Deal with it...

    175

  256. [256] 
    michale wrote:

    This is Trump's America you are proud of.

    No, that's YOUR assessment of Trump's America based on nothing but partisan ideology...

    I know that you are fully involved in that assessment and no amount of logic will change your mind..

    Off-duty San Antonio deputy dies after vehicle plunges into sinkhole
    http://www.foxnews.com/us/2016/12/06/off-duty-san-antonio-deputy-dies-after-vehicle-plunges-into-sinkhole.html

    Trump is obviously responsible for that Deputy's death because the sinkhole was obviously caused by Climate Change and Trump called Climate Change a hoax....

    So, Trump is completely and unequivocally to blame..

    Sounds pretty inane and moronic, eh??

    Also sounds real familiar.... :^/

    180

  257. [257] 
    michale wrote:
  258. [258] 
    michale wrote:
Comments for this article are closed.