[helene_t]

On a related note, Trump's top black strategist was thrown out of a Trump rally: http://www.dailynews...ng-black/25767/

Oh well, maybe Daily Newsbin isn't a reliable source. I couldn't find the report on mainstream media. Anyone who knows if the story is true?

[PassedOut]

 kenrexford, on 2016-August-23, 13:25, said:

Regarding the word seriously. You included infrastructure as a trump policy as if that was a bad thing. I guess I misunderstood your point. Hence seriously.

I simply listed all the policies that I remembered Trump advocating. It's funny that you viewed that as a list of bad things...

 kenrexford, on 2016-August-23, 13:25, said:

If the issue is how to pay for that then I have some news for you. Under Obama the national debt has doubled. We have added about 10 trillion in debt in eight years. Nobody pays for anything anymore. Do you think Clinton is going to balance the budget?

That said the question regarding taxes is getting into particularly deep Theory. That's a whole lot of discussion. Too much for completion in any intelligible post.

My own biggest issues for many years have been staying out of stupid wars and maintaining fiscal responsibility. In recent years, addressing climate change has joined the list. Although, like everyone else, I have opinions on many other things, those lesser issues mainly address things that we do to ourselves, so we rightly live with the consequences no matter which route we take.

Militarily, I expect Clinton to continue pretty much along the lines of the last administration, although she's likely a bit more hawkish than Obama. I've tried to figure out what Trump might do, but he's given such mixed messages that I've been unsuccessful. His go-it-alone approach, though, is an obvious loser.

On climate change, Trump has said he'd rescind our agreement with the rest of the world. That places him squarely inside the know-nothing camp.

Fiscal responsibility is a matter of numbers and facts and no "particularly deep Theory" is necessary. Since WWII, the US has had three fiscally irresponsible adminstrations: Reagan's and the two Bushes. Before they took office, every administration -- democrat or republican -- reduced the national debt as a percentage of GDP. When Bill Clinton took office, the US was on track to take down the debt completely.

After Clinton, Bush II campaigned on restoring fiscal irresponsibility and fulfilled that pledge, his final budget leaving the highest deficit ever recorded. Every year since then (except 2014), during the Obama years, the yearly budget deficit has been reduced -- although the total debt has indeed still been growing. (As a matter of total dollars, that always happens with a budget deficit. Rational folks look at those numbers as a percentage of GDP.)

Clinton's proposals have been thought out in an organized way, and you can find out how she plans to pay for her proposed $275 billion in infrastructure improvements, if you are interested. Where Trump plans to get $4 trillion (or whatever he's saying lately) for his infrastructure proposals, I don't know. But when a candidate campaigns on returning to fiscal irresponsibility -- as Trump is now -- he's not getting my vote.

[Al_U_Card]

 PassedOut, on 2016-August-23, 14:29, said:

On climate change, Trump has said he'd rescind our agreement with the rest of the world. That places him squarely inside the know-nothing camp.

That places him squarely inside the having taken a closer-look camp.

fyp

[kenrexford]

I understand a lot of what you were saying. That said I think you are missing something. Maybe I am naive. But here's my position anyway.

A lot of the complaints about Republicans are complaints I agree with. the bush approach seems to be a neocon ideal of lots of military intervention in order to create some utopian world where economic power is centralized Within a corporate oligarchy. Governments are to be minimalized largely because they get in the way of the corporations who really know what's best for everyone. the military is the arm of government that acts as an enforcer of corporate wisdom. The free market is a means of somehow ensuring that corporations evolve into ideal and results.

The Democrat View seems to me to be very similar to neocon views but with a heavy emphasis on puppet mastering. More of a psychotic chess game with all kinds of pieces moving all over the place restrained to some degree by a perceived need to have a group effort and to follow certain Rules of Engagement unless those Rules of Engagement involve the general rule to not be sneaky for calculating as to who you support.

The Democrats also want to enable a strong corporate Powerhouse. however they would seek to control it. they need the strong corporate Powerhouse in order to fund an increasing number of citizens on government payrolls as a power source in elections.

It completely third idea seems to be emerging. Some call it populism. Some call it nationalism. One aspect of this is to reduce International meddling. Fewer all out Wars. Less creepy puppet mastering. Maybe isolationist but leaving others to resolve their own problems. Threatening to the neocons. Threatening to the diplomacists.

The Nationalist populists seek to enable the workers to fend for themselves in a free Market not controlled by corporations and rules designed to benefit them. Not beholden to a government pay out.

Trump speaks this language. He might be full of crap. He may have just realized that others are thinking this way and is riding that train. I can't speak to his genuine nature.

What I do know is that this is how I feel now. I am not going to vote for the person either in the Democrat Puppet Master strain war in the neocon corporatist strain. Both of them have gotten us into a holy mess internationally and have converted booming manufacturing cities into major recipients of welfare checks. I want to read one day that Johnny and Jamar and Juanita and Akbar and Chen have negotiated a fair wage for themselves without competition enabled for the benefit of the corporates to allow the corporates to be taxed to pay for the same people to receive welfare instead of those jobs. I would like those people to go home to their families and not have to watch the news with their children about the United States being involved in 12 separate bizarre International crises or involved in one huge senseless War. I want them all to feel safe then taking their children to the fireworks on Independence Day.

[PassedOut]

Thanks. I understand your position a lot better now.

[Al_U_Card]

 kenrexford, on 2016-August-23, 16:20, said:

A lot of the complaints about Republicans are complaints I agree with. the bush approach seems to be a neocon ideal of lots of military intervention in order to create some utopian world where economic power is centralized Within a corporate oligarchy. Governments are to be minimalized largely because they get in the way of the corporations who really know what's best for everyone. the military is the arm of government that acts as an enforcer of corporate wisdom. The free market is a means of somehow ensuring that corporations evolve into ideal and results.

The Democrat View seems to me to be very similar to neocon views but with a heavy emphasis on puppet mastering. More of a psychotic chess game with all kinds of pieces moving all over the place restrained to some degree by a perceived need to have a group effort and to follow certain Rules of Engagement unless those Rules of Engagement involve the general rule to not be sneaky for calculating as to who you support.

The Democrats also want to enable a strong corporate Powerhouse. however they would seek to control it. they need the strong corporate Powerhouse in order to fund an increasing number of citizens on government payrolls as a power source in elections.

It completely third idea seems to be emerging. Some call it populism. Some call it nationalism. One aspect of this is to reduce International meddling. Fewer all out Wars. Less creepy puppet mastering. Maybe isolationist but leaving others to resolve their own problems. Threatening to the neocons. Threatening to the diplomacists.

The Nationalist populists seek to enable the workers to fend for themselves in a free Market not controlled by corporations and rules designed to benefit them. Not beholden to a government pay out.

Trump speaks this language. He might be full of crap. He may have just realized that others are thinking this way and is riding that train. I can't speak to his genuine nature.

What I do know is that this is how I feel now. I am not going to vote for the person either in the Democrat Puppet Master strain war in the neocon corporatist strain. Both of them have gotten us into a holy mess internationally and have converted booming manufacturing cities into major recipients of welfare checks. I want to read one day that Johnny and Jamar and Juanita and Akbar and Chen have negotiated a fair wage for themselves without competition enabled for the benefit of the corporates to allow the corporates to be taxed to pay for the same people to receive welfare instead of those jobs. I would like those people to go home to their families and not have to watch the news with their children about the United States being involved in 12 separate bizarre International crises or involved in one huge senseless War. I want them all to feel safe then taking their children to the fireworks on Independence Day.

Is this not fascism vs. totalitarian communism? Populism being the French Revolution and we know where that went...Next step, King Donald the first.

[kenrexford]

 Al_U_Card, on 2016-August-23, 16:45, said:

Is this not fascism vs. totalitarian communism? Populism being the French Revolution and we know where that went...Next step, King Donald the first.

Not at all. It is fascism that attempts to keep a need to send from corporatism silent. The two party system in the United States has been split between liberal corporatist and conservative corporatists. All corporatists all globalists. It is only by the Takeover of the Republican Party that a non globalist agenda exists. Bernie failed to create an effective counter within the Democratic Party.

[kenberg]

 kenrexford, on 2016-August-23, 16:20, said:

I understand a lot of what you were saying. That said I think you are missing something. Maybe I am naive. But here's my position anyway.

A lot of the complaints about Republicans are complaints I agree with. the bush approach seems to be a neocon ideal of lots of military intervention in order to create some utopian world where economic power is centralized Within a corporate oligarchy. Governments are to be minimalized largely because they get in the way of the corporations who really know what's best for everyone. the military is the arm of government that acts as an enforcer of corporate wisdom. The free market is a means of somehow ensuring that corporations evolve into ideal and results.

The Democrat View seems to me to be very similar to neocon views but with a heavy emphasis on puppet mastering. More of a psychotic chess game with all kinds of pieces moving all over the place restrained to some degree by a perceived need to have a group effort and to follow certain Rules of Engagement unless those Rules of Engagement involve the general rule to not be sneaky for calculating as to who you support.

The Democrats also want to enable a strong corporate Powerhouse. however they would seek to control it. they need the strong corporate Powerhouse in order to fund an increasing number of citizens on government payrolls as a power source in elections.

It completely third idea seems to be emerging. Some call it populism. Some call it nationalism. One aspect of this is to reduce International meddling. Fewer all out Wars. Less creepy puppet mastering. Maybe isolationist but leaving others to resolve their own problems. Threatening to the neocons. Threatening to the diplomacists.

The Nationalist populists seek to enable the workers to fend for themselves in a free Market not controlled by corporations and rules designed to benefit them. Not beholden to a government pay out.

Trump speaks this language. He might be full of crap. He may have just realized that others are thinking this way and is riding that train. I can't speak to his genuine nature.

What I do know is that this is how I feel now. I am not going to vote for the person either in the Democrat Puppet Master strain war in the neocon corporatist strain. Both of them have gotten us into a holy mess internationally and have converted booming manufacturing cities into major recipients of welfare checks. I want to read one day that Johnny and Jamar and Juanita and Akbar and Chen have negotiated a fair wage for themselves without competition enabled for the benefit of the corporates to allow the corporates to be taxed to pay for the same people to receive welfare instead of those jobs. I would like those people to go home to their families and not have to watch the news with their children about the United States being involved in 12 separate bizarre International crises or involved in one huge senseless War. I want them all to feel safe then taking their children to the fireworks on Independence Day.

I will first speak to the easiest part: "Trump speaks this language. He might be full of crap. He may have just realized that others are thinking this way and is riding that train. I can't speak to his genuine nature."

Especially the last sentence of it. "I can't speak to his genuine nature.". Indeed, nobody can. I believe I largely understand Hillary Clinton and I believe I largely understand Ted Cruz. I don't particularly like either one of them, but I have a rough idea of what they will or won't be doing. With Trump. I have absolutely no idea. He is re-thinking immigration. Well, he probably won't phrase it as a re-thinking. The wall will be explained away as sarcasm or metaphor or something we just didn't understand correctly. Not that such denial is all that new. Missile gap? Did I say missile gap? But with Trump we are asked to buy a person, far more than any discernible philosophy other than random off the cuff belligerence. No sale.

Much of the rest of what you say centers on concern over the power of corporations. I don't dispute the concern. Trump is not my guy for dealing with it. Clinton? No, of course not. So I find myself like this: Clinton will not be taking on Corporate America. Maybe a little fixing around the edges, but no overhaul. I can imagine better, I am ok with her as she is. Good enough is not great, but it is good enough. And maybe she will surprise me (in a positive way). Trump scares the crap out of me. This won't change.

It is said that older white guys support Trump. I'm an older white guy. I am not remotely tempted.

[kenberg]

PS
I was sippping my grande at Starbucks and browsing through a USAToday. I read
http://www.usatoday....ngton/89215548/

This may be (is it?) along the same lines as, or supplemental to, what KR is saying. Addressing the corporate power issue at any rate.

[Cyberyeti]

 Al_U_Card, on 2016-August-23, 15:34, said:

That places him squarely inside the having taken a closer-look camp.

fyp

It puts him agreeing with less than 10% of climate scientists rather than 90%+. Those who deny man made input to climate change have about as much support among the scientific community as creationism does.

[hrothgar]

 Cyberyeti, on 2016-August-24, 11:52, said:

It puts him agreeing with less than 10% of climate scientists rather than 90%+. Those who deny man made input to climate change have about as much support among the scientific community as creationism does.

Not too surprisingly, it's often the same group of idiots espousing both theories

[olegru]

 Cyberyeti, on 2016-August-24, 11:52, said:

It puts him agreeing with less than 10% of climate scientists rather than 90%+. Those who deny man made input to climate change have about as much support among the scientific community as creationism does.

It is true.
97% of climate scientists believe humans are causing global warming.
By the way, not less then 97% of priests believe in existence of God. Could we consider it as a proof or closer look maybe useful?

[kenberg]

 olegru, on 2016-August-24, 12:52, said:

It is true.
97% of climate scientists believe humans are causing global warming.
By the way, not less then 97% of priests believe in existence of God. Could we consider it as a proof or closer look maybe useful?

My own view would be that if you think religious reflection is the best way to come to correct beliefs then you should listed to priests, if you think that science is the best way to come to correct beliefs then you should listen to the scientists.

I accept that certainty is impossible, but I go with science rather than religion on any choice that will have a practical impact on my life.

[olegru]

 kenberg, on 2016-August-24, 13:03, said:

My own view would be that if you think religious reflection is the best way to come to correct beliefs then you should listed to priests, if you think that science is the best way to come to correct beliefs then you should listen to the scientists.

I accept that certainty is impossible, but I go with science rather than religion on any choice that will have a practical impact on my life.

I agree with it with small deviation.
I would like to base my believes on scientific proofs, not on scientists believes.
There is no doubt and there is huge volume of scientific proofs of global warming, but when it comes to the claim that it caused by humans situation is much worse. As a main proof of that fact usually referred the meta-data analysis of scientists opinions performed by social science researcher.

[Cyberyeti]

 olegru, on 2016-August-24, 12:52, said:

It is true.
97% of climate scientists believe humans are causing global warming.
By the way, not less then 97% of priests believe in existence of God. Could we consider it as a proof or closer look maybe useful?

One is a logical decision distilled from available facts and research.

One is a not unbiased gut feeling based on a few anecdotes, they are not equivalent,

[PassedOut]

 olegru, on 2016-August-24, 13:13, said:

There is no doubt and there is huge volume of scientific proofs of global warming, but when it comes to the claim that it caused by humans situation is much worse.

The evidence for man-made climate change is very strong; that's why it has wide acceptance among scientists. Just one example: For a very long time, the earth's warming and cooling tracked closely the cycles of activity on the sun. Since mankind has started to pour large amounts of heat-trapping gases into the atmosphere, earth's warming is exceeding the warming that would be predicted by the sun cycles alone.

[kenberg]

 olegru, on 2016-August-24, 13:13, said:

I agree with it with small deviation.
I would like to base my believes on scientific proofs, not on scientists believes.
There is no doubt and there is huge volume of scientific proofs of global warming, but when it comes to the claim that it caused by humans situation is much worse. As a main proof of that fact usually referred the meta-data analysis of scientists opinions performed by social science researcher.

Fair enough. Proof that something is happening is always (almost always) going to be easier than proving the cause. And, for that matter, the real question is what effect some policy or other would have in the future. Tough, no doubt about it. This bumps up against the fact that at some point it could be too late, or at least far more difficult, to act effectively.

"I could be wrong" is perhaps the most important four words in the English, or with translation any, language. Nonetheless, life is such that we seldom get to wait until everyone agrees that obviously such and such is indisputably true. I'm fine with further research, I greatly favor keeping an open mind, I suppose just about everyone is fine with further research. But at some point I think we also have to begin acting on what we know, or on what the best evidence shows, so far.

[kenrexford]

On global warming you're forgetting one huge thing. A couple thousand years ago there was a flood. Noah made a very wise decision to get rid of any of the dinosaurs. Dinosaurs you see fart ridiculously. They also eat up lots of greenery which was killing the rainforests. So if anything humans are actually helping the global warming cause historically by getting rid of farting dinosaurs.

[blackshoe]

 awm, on 2016-August-22, 19:56, said:

But if Trump wins in 2016 I'm seriously leaving; my wife and I are Jewish (by descent, not belief) and we know not to stick around when the nazis come to power.

Godwin's Law in action.

I have no faith in Trump. I believe he'd be as bad a president as Clinton, though for different reasons. But he's not a Nazi.

[olegru]

 kenberg, on 2016-August-24, 13:48, said:

Fair enough. Proof that something is happening is always (almost always) going to be easier than proving the cause. And, for that matter, the real question is what effect some policy or other would have in the future. Tough, no doubt about it. This bumps up against the fact that at some point it could be too late, or at least far more difficult, to act effectively.

"I could be wrong" is perhaps the most important four words in the English, or with translation any, language. Nonetheless, life is such that we seldom get to wait until everyone agrees that obviously such and such is indisputably true. I'm fine with further research, I greatly favor keeping an open mind, I suppose just about everyone is fine with further research. But at some point I think we also have to begin acting on what we know, or on what the best evidence shows, so far.

Now I am agree with every word.
If human activity is a presumable cause for future catastrophe we have no choice but act today based on current knowledge and current assumptions.
In a same time we must continue research to make sure our assumptions are correct and our resources are not wasted in wrong direction.
What I found unacceptable is eagerness of liberals to put labels on people who dare to question common unproven believes. (Sorry, all above have nothing to do with Trump. I have no ideas about his position towards climate change and not really interested to learn more. Somehow I don't think there is a connection between what he is saying and what he is planning to do.)