News & Current Events
bkmitchell — 2017-08-15T03:16:12-04:00 — #1
In your opinion is President Trump doing a good, a netural, or a bad job? And why do you think so?
wolfgang_schneider — 2017-08-15T03:21:32-04:00 — #2
He's lost against the deep state, and has been the victim of a coup instigated by the deep state who have almost totally regained their control as in the Obama/Cheney/Clinton regimes in order to pursue their global agendas ....
Here's an interesting article shedding some light on this as it takes a look at what has been happening over the weekend in Charlottesville
Cp. the following excerpt from the article:
The campaign to drive Trump out of office has been going on 24/7 since Trump confounded the pundits and won the election. For the liberal/progressive/left Trump is the enemy against whom they are conducting war, and as in war, truth is crowded out by propaganda. The liberal/progressive/left gets away with this abuse of news reporting because Trump’s intent to reduce tensions with Russia is seen as threats to the income and power of the military/security complex and the hegemonic ideology of the neoconservatives. Powerful material interests, ideology, and media together comprise a very strong force against which a mere president hasn’t a chance
bill_coley — 2017-08-15T16:32:15-04:00 — #3
In July, President Trump gave a politically partisan and, in one anecdote, sexually suggestive speech before the Boy Scout Jamboree held in West Virginia, a speech that angered parents and for which the Boy Scouts subsequently apologized.
In my view, a president whose appearance prompts an apology from an iconic organization that values trustworthiness, loyalty, helpfulness, friendliness, courtesy, kindness, obedience, cheerfulness, thriftiness, bravery, cleanliness, and reverence, is, almost by definition, doing a bad job.
gao_lu — 2017-08-15T18:15:07-04:00 — #4
First, I don't agree with everything Trump said in his speech or some of his style. However...
No, he didn't. Being a President and all some "politics" slipped through, but nothing is wrong with that considering these were young men and future American citizens. In fact, the speech was quite engaging with great response, much cheered and lauded by the Scouts.
No, he didn't. Journalists drummed that up by connecting unclean imagination (always trust the media) with some incident about being on a yacht he referred to.They would have invented such a story out of saluting the flag--because that is standard edition for the media. Most of the boy scouts would have never thought of anything but sea-adventures if a dirty minded press had not flashed them their own garbage.
No, it didn't. Some parents, at media instigation, faked anger to politicize the event.
No, they didn't. I never heard of a single scout who apologized, although surely the media or one of the fake-angry parents coerced some innocent kid. A scout leader apologized--but that was clearly to politicize the event. Nothing about the apology was sincere or truthful that I could detect--not good coming from a scout leader.
It was a political job by the media and a scout leader and a few Trump/America hating parents. They have no business in the scouts who are an iconic organization that values trustworthiness, loyalty, helpfulness, friendliness, courtesy, kindness, obedience, cheerfulness, thriftiness, bravery, cleanliness, and reverence.
A much-loved and appreciated speech given to honor the boy scouts (however maligned by little haters) is no reflection of Trump's track record so far. But that is just my view.
bill_coley — 2017-08-15T19:22:24-04:00 — #5
I don't have the time to document all the claims of my previous post that you disputed, Gao Lu; but it's important to contend with at least one of your critiques. I've chosen the first one, that the president did not give a "politically partisan speech" to the Boy Scout Jamboree.
FROM A TRANSCRIPT OF THE PRESIDENT'S SPEECH TO THE BOY SCOUT JAMBOREE (TRANSCRIPT AVAILABLE HERE)
You know, I go to Washington and I see all these politicians, and I see the swamp, and it's not a good place. In fact, today, I said we ought to change it from the word "swamp" to the word "cesspool" or perhaps to the word "sewer."
But it's not good. Not good. And I see what's going on. And believe me, I'd much rather be with you, that I can tell you.
Secretary Tom Price is also here today. Dr. Price still lives the Scout oath, helping to keep millions of Americans strong and healthy as our secretary of Health and Human Services. And he's doing a great job. And hopefully he's going to gets the votes tomorrow to start our path toward killing this horrible thing known as Obamacare that's really hurting us.
CROWD: USA! USA! USA!
TRUMP: By the way, are you going to get the votes? He better get them. He better get them. Oh, he better. Otherwise I'll say, "Tom, you're fired." I'll get somebody.
He better get Senator Capito to vote for it. He better get the other senators to vote for it. It's time.
You know, after seven years of saying repeal and replace Obamacare we have a chance to now do it. They better do it. Hopefully they'll do it.
By the way, just a question, did President Obama ever come to a Jamboree?
Now, with that, I have to tell you our economy is doing great. Our stock market has picked up since the election, November 8th -- do we remember that day? Was that a beautiful day?
What a day.
Do you remember that famous night on television, November 8th where they said, these dishonest people, where they said, there is no path to victory for Donald Trump. They forgot about the forgotten people.
By the way, they're not forgetting about the forgotten people anymore. They're going crazy trying to figure it out, but I told them, far too late; it's far too late.
But you remember that incredible night with the maps, and the Republicans are red and the Democrats are blue, and that map was so red it was unbelievable. And they didn't know what to say.
And you know, we have a tremendous disadvantage in the Electoral College. Popular vote is much easier. We have -- because New York, California, Illinois, you have to practically run the East Coast. And we did. We won Florida. We won South Carolina. We won North Carolina. We won Pennsylvania.
We won and won. So when they said, there is no way to victory; there is no way to 270. You know I went to Maine four times because it's one vote, and we won. We won. One vote. I went there because I kept hearing we're at 269. But then Wisconsin came in. Many, many years. Michigan came in.
So -- and we worked hard there. You know, my opponent didn't work hard there, because she was told...
She was told she was going to win Michigan, and I said, well, wait a minute. The car industry is moving to Mexico. Why is she going to move -- she's there. Why are they allowing it to move? And by the way, do you see those car industry -- do you see what's happening? They're coming back to Michigan. They're coming back to Ohio. They're starting to peel back in.
And we go to Wisconsin, now, Wisconsin hadn't been won in many, many years by a Republican. But we go to Wisconsin, and we had tremendous crowds. And I'd leave these massive crowds, I'd say, why are we going to lose this state?
The polls, that's also fake news. They're fake polls. But the polls are saying -- but we won Wisconsin.
So I have to tell you, what we did, in all fairness, is an unbelievable tribute to you and all of the other millions and millions of people that came out and voted for make America great again.
And I'll tell you what, we are indeed making America great again.
I call that "politically partisan;" you call it "some politics slipp(ing) through." We disagree...strongly.
From the transcript I encourage you to read the president's anecdote about William Levitt. It is HE - the president - not journalists, who "drummed up" unclean connections. Here's the relevant part of the transcript (emphasis added):
And he went out and bought a big yacht, and he had a very interesting life. I won't go any more than that, because you're Boy Scouts so I'm not going to tell you what he did.
Should I tell you? Should I tell you?
You're Boy Scouts, but you know life. You know life.
So look at you. Who would think this is the Boy Scouts, right?
I call that "sexually suggestive" because of what the president said and how the scouts reacted. You claim "most boy scouts would never have thought of anything but sea-adventures." Again we disagree...strongly.
I could similarly document all of the claims I previously made. But these two examples will stand as evidence of the available support.
gao_lu — 2017-08-16T00:19:10-04:00 — #6
Indeed we do. You read something into that very differenty from what I read from it.
Thanks for offering your best. I will stick by my comments.
bill_coley — 2017-08-16T00:56:53-04:00 — #7
For my information, please share what you read from the interaction between the president and the gathered scouts I quoted in my last post, when the president says of William Levitt, "... and he had a very interesting life. I won't go any more than that, because you're Boy Scouts so I'm not going to tell you what he did." And then after the scouts chant and applaud in request of information about what Levitt did, the president says "So look at you. Who would think this is the Boy Scouts, right?"
In what way(s) does the president's reluctance to tell the scouts about Levitt's "very interesting life" on the grounds that they were Boy Scouts support your view that the chanting and applauding scouts were asking the president to tell them nothing but "sea-adventures"? Is it your view that the president felt concern over whether Boy Scouts should be told "sea-adventures" or similarly benign tales? Or perhaps that boys who chant and applaud in pursuit of such stories jeopardize the reputation of the Boy Scouts?
I genuinely do not understand your interpretation of that interaction or how it comports with your view of it. Please explain.
gao_lu — 2017-08-16T01:30:22-04:00 — #8
I may be naive, but I don't know what those "sea adventures" you allude to were. Maybe you do. I doubt that any single boy scout present knew.
The President was curtailing events 1) because of time and this was a speech 2) Because he was rousing the boys' curiosity about "sea adventures" on ships. I would have done the same thing, and I don't have any sea misadventures to share. I seriously think Trump's intent was totally benign and some dirty-minded old codgers tried to make something sick of it.
The boys chanted, as scouts often do because they were excited about the President being there. I highly doubt they were chanting to provoke the President to tell them dirty stories. I am sick at the thought of minds that would suggest such a thing.
gao_lu — 2017-08-16T06:07:14-04:00 — #9
And then the track record looks ever more attractive when you consider the alternative.
California’s San Diego County earns the enchilada grande. Its 138 percent registration translates into 810,966 ghost voters. Los Angeles County’s 112 percent rate equals 707,475 over-registrations.
California is a veritable haunted house, teeming with 1,736,556 ghost voters.
Who do you suppose those ghost voters are? Who do you think they voted for?
bill_coley — 2017-08-16T11:50:22-04:00 — #10
As you know from reading the transcript of the president's remarks at the Boy Scout Jamboree, when he told the scouts he wasn't going to tell them what William Levitt had done during his "very interesting life," he had not yet mentioned Levitt's yacht or the sailing with which the president said Levitt became "bored." So the exchange I asked you about - the one in which the president told the scouts we wasn't going to detail Levitt's "very interesting life" because they were Boy Scouts - had nothing to do with "rousing the boys' curiosity about "sea adventures" on ships," at least not in the minds of the scouts who chanted and applauded for more.
As for Levitt's "very interesting life," his Wikipedia profile reports his relationship with a "long-time mistress" whom he eventually married and then divorced. Perhaps in the president's mind, "long-time" mistresses make life "very interesting"?
And as for your suggestion that the reason the president demurred from detailing Levitt's life was limited time, I encourage you to read the transcript again. The president told the scouts he wasn't going to tell them more about Levitt's "very interesting life" because they were scouts. And when they chanted for the information anyway, the president didn't say, "We don't have time." He said "You're Boy Scouts, but you know life," and "Who would think this is the Boy Scouts, right?"
They chanted in direct response to the president's tease about Levitt's life, and the fact that he wasn't going to "go any more than that, because (they were) Boy Scouts." In my view, any objective reading of the transcript (even better, find it on YouTube) the first "mind that would suggest such a thing" was the president's.
Bottom line question: If the president didn't tell the scouts more about Levitt's "very interesting life" simply because of time or "sea adventures," then why did the president tell the scouts the reason he wasn't going to tell them more was that they were scouts? Is it your view that the president didn't believe scouts should hear about time limitations or "sea adventures"?
As you know from reading the article to which you linked, the numbers reported by National Review reference voter registration totals, NOT actual votes cast. It is well known and long-accepted that voter registration rolls in all parts of the country contain the names of voters no longer eligible to vote in the precinct(s) in which they're registered.
Among the most common causes of this outcome is that people move to other cities/states, register to vote in their new location, but word of their move never reaches their previous residence's voter records keeper. As a result, they are registered, legally, in their new location, AND, incorrectly but also innocently, in their old location.
But in elections, the consequential issue is not how many "ghost voters" are registered, but rather how many "ghost voters" actually voted. The fact is there is NO evidence of thousands, or tens of thousands, or hundreds of thousands, or millions of "ghost voters" actually voting. In fact, I doubt there is evidence of even hundreds of such votes. The president has claimed that three million people cast votes illegally in the 2016 election. He has yet to provide any proof of his claim, perhaps in part because his claim is false.
As for "who(m) they voted for," I'll take a guess at that one as soon as you provide evidence that they voted at all.
gao_lu — 2017-08-16T18:10:44-04:00 — #11
Believe what you want based on the inside information you had for some reason already reasearched--which the boy scouts did NOT have (Unless they had all done previous reasearch homework on Levitt, mistresses and Wikipedia). Enough on that, I think my position is solid and clear. Making up sordid filthy stories around what actually happened could take up a lot more posts and a frame of mind I am done with.
Bunk. They did not know the story yet. Probably most still do not know except a few older ones who learned it afterwards from yucky adults.
- Perhaps you either initiated such awful thoughts or swallowed them from someone who did. Such a conclusion is based on a heap of evil assumptions.
- Of course scouts like to hear about adventures of any kind including sea adventures. I devoured such book about ages 8-12.
Huh? Please clarify your question if you can. It doesn't seem to match anything either of us said and I can't make sense of it. I suppose both could be useful, but sea adventures are something most boys enjoy--which is what President Trump was doing.
You have a curious justification for millions of non-existent votors who likely voted for a Democratic nominee. We don't yet have proof of how many fake-voters voted and may not be able to do so. I may not be so naive (I have never been famous for that) but for what reason would you even think of defending such a practice?
dave_l — 2017-08-16T18:30:50-04:00 — #12
The question I ask is whether President Obama did more to invite God's wrath on America than President Trump has, so far? I think this is a far more important matter than critiquing whether or not Mr. Trump can conjure up a smooth display of social skills.
bill_coley — 2017-08-16T19:22:53-04:00 — #13
Dave, please tell me that you're not categorizing the issues surrounding the president's response to Charlottesville - especially the views he expressed during Tuesday's off-the-rails press conference - as a question of whether he "can conjure up a smooth display of social skills." The moral equivalence he drew between the two groups of protesters was outrageous, disgusting, and morally reprehensible. Please tell me you acknowledge that truth.
bill_coley — 2017-08-16T20:11:33-04:00 — #14
I don't think we're communicating, yet.
I am not "making up sordid filthy stories around what actually happened." But I don't have to! The President of the United States went there for me. You have still not directly engaged the exchange between the president and the scouts to which I have referred in multiple posts. I'll quote it again, and again add emphasis:
And he went out and bought a big yacht, and he had a very interesting life. I won't go any more than that, because you're Boy Scouts so I'm not going to tell you what he did.
Should I tell you? Should I tell you?
You're Boy Scouts, but you know life. You know life. So look at you. Who would think this is the Boy Scouts, right?
Again I ask you, if the president's subject was benign and age-appropriate, then why did he tell the scouts that because they were boy scouts, he wasn't going to tell them what Levitt did in his "very interesting life"? Why do you think their being Boy Scouts convinced the president not to tell them more about Levitt's life?
As for my inside information, the only information I relied on for the paragraphs you quoted was the transcript of the president's remarks and a Wikipedia page, to both of which I provided a link. Nothing "inside" about them.
And neither was the observation I made about your suggestion that the scouts were energized by "sea adventures" in anyway "inside." I simply noted - again, without your reply - that when the scouts chanted for more info about Levitt's life because the president had teased it as "very interesting," the president had not yet mentioned Levitt's yacht or sailing, so their chanting and applause could not have been requests for sea adventure or sailing stories, as you suggested. That's not "inside information," Gao Lu. That's basic observation.
That they didn't know the story yet was exactly the reason they chanted and applauded when the president asked "Should I tell you? Should I tell you?"
My question returned to the issue of why the president told the scouts that because they were scouts, he wasn't going to tell them more about Levitt's "very interesting life." If what he decided not to tell them was benign and age-appropriate - such as a sea adventure story - then your argument seems to me to suggest the president thought scouts shouldn't hear such stories. Why else would he tell them he wasn't going to tell them what Levitt did because they were scouts?
Re-read my previous post:
I offered no justification (or "defense") - curious or otherwise - for "ghost voters." I simply explained that voter rolls bloated with the names of people who have died or moved to other voting jurisdictions are common across the country. That's not a justification or defense; it's an explanation.
Before you can reasonably categorize those "ghost voters" as Clinton voters, you first have to demonstrate that they voted at all, a task which you basically acknowledge hasn't been done yet. There's a good reason it hasn't been done: There weren't thousands, or tens of thousands, or hundreds of thousands, or millions of "ghost voters." Of course you and others can claim there were! Just as I can claim to own the state of Utah. (I don't; but I can claim to!)
And I love it when Trump supporters double down on their speculation about the 2016 popular vote by claiming not only that there were millions of illegal or non-existent voters - for whose existence there is no evidence - but that somehow they know all the illegal voters voted for Hillary Clinton! Amazing.
gao_lu — 2017-08-16T20:37:05-04:00 — #15
I believe I answered your questions clearly and well. I don't want to continue to discuss endless arguments from a foul-minded frame of reference. Try a different world-view, a pure way of thinking and you may come up with a very different conclusion as well.
bill_coley — 2017-08-16T23:40:23-04:00 — #16
If you answered them, they must still be there. I'll keep looking.
I recommend that you FedEx your recommendation to 1600 Pennsylvania Ave in Washington D.C.
gao_lu — 2017-08-17T02:56:32-04:00 — #17
My recommendation is for those of us on the forum, specifically you and me.
dave_l — 2017-08-17T07:14:02-04:00 — #18
Hatred drives both groups. Protesters normally provoke violence. And sometimes violence results from both sides.
gao_lu — 2017-08-19T18:21:11-04:00 — #19
Maybe Trump's Administration bears some blame or maybe it's just where we are in time in America or maybe something else. Probably this article doesn't bode well for Trump. Economics is my area of least interest right near the bottom beside politics, which makes it all the more important to try to understand. Can anyone explain why...?
[Apologies in advance for the NYT's nasty unjournalistic caustic opinions at the end but that seems to be their new normal]
bill_coley — 2017-08-20T01:43:11-04:00 — #20
For the effects reported in the NY Times graphic, the Trump administration bears no responsibility, if for no other reason than that of the two years compared, the most recent is 2014, well before Trump assumed office.
The graph presents glaring evidence of the growing income inequality that many - typically, those more politically progressive - have been noting for many years.
In 1980, people in the lower strata of the economic continuum experienced a higher percentage long-term adjusted income gain than did those at the top of the continuum. Thirty-four years later, only those at the highest layers benefit.
From the graph on the Times' page, in 2014, not until you get to the top 40% of income earners, is the average adjusted annual income gain 1% or higher, while there is explosive growth within the final percentile. Whereas in 1980, the bottom 50% led all income percentiles, exceeding 2% annual growth, while the top 50% all were under 2%, and growth for the highest five (or so) percent declined as income increased.
The graph shows growing income disparity in the U.S. The rich are getting richer faster. The poor, middle, and upper-middle classes are not advancing, at least not all at the rates they did 37 years ago.
As for the "caustic comments" at the end of the piece, it's helpful to note that the article's author is an op-ed writer for the Times (check his bio). Opinions, caustic and otherwise, are part of the job description for such folks.
next page →