Michael Stuart Kelly Posted November 23, 2016 Share Posted November 23, 2016 15 minutes ago, BaalChatzaf said: What is the widget that you and your nne partners have designed?i Bob, You only get to find out if you chip in. Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Stuart Kelly Posted November 23, 2016 Share Posted November 23, 2016 Let's have a little fun with racism and Trump-bashing. Poor Brooke Baldwin cried at the end. She couldn't believe it was the progressive being racist and blatantly lying to boot, not the conservative. Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jts Posted November 23, 2016 Share Posted November 23, 2016 44 minutes ago, william.scherk said: Every Objectivist knows government has no business doing any of those things. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
merjet Posted November 23, 2016 Share Posted November 23, 2016 2 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said: Merlin, Actually I did answer it. You just didn't see the answer. But... but... but... (you may say) I didn't address your calculations. The fact is, I don't feel like going into boring calculations based on a false premise for a problem that is incorrectly identified. Hogwash. You completely failed to answer my questions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
merjet Posted November 23, 2016 Share Posted November 23, 2016 1 hour ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said: Here's a quick calculation for the reader. I am going to build an infrastructure widget for $100. I, along with 9 other people, can only chip in $1 each because we don't make much. That comes to $10. Now we have $90 that still needs to be paid for. That is the basis of the calculations that the WSJ above uses. And they scream to the high heavens that the plan won't work. And they calculate this and calculate that and pile on all kinds of irrelevant stuff with long convoluted math. And they conclude one can't build any more infrastructure widgets because the math doesn't work. Now here's what they leave out. Suppose I and the other 9 people start making a lot more money, a hell of a lot more. We can then chip in $10 each. That comes to $100. And guess what? The infrastructure widget's cost is still $100. So we paid for it. Voila! Now let's take this further. Suppose 90 other people show up and they can chip in $10 each because they all make a hell of a lot of money. Why, my goodness. That comes to $1,000. We can make 10 infrastructure widgets if we like and pay for them all. My goodness gracious. What are we going to do with all those extra infrastructure widgets? My goodness, what an embarrassment of riches. What a bone-headed analogy! I'm not talking about widgets that produce sales revenue when people buy them. I'm talking about things like repaving highways and repairing bridges that users/consumers do not buy and therefore don't produce sales revenue. The revenue for them is taxes, other government-imposed fees such as tolls, or governments issuing more debt. The first is voluntary. The second isn't. The WSJ did not do any convoluted calculations. It was the Trump advisers who did, including some irrelevant, convoluted math, yet leaving out a huge chunk of reality -- PI's revenues. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
william.scherk Posted November 23, 2016 Share Posted November 23, 2016 (edited) Muh roads! Muh bridges! ▤ 1 hour ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said: 1 hour ago, william.scherk said: 3 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said: don't feel like going into boring calculations based on a false premise for a problem that is incorrectly identified. What is this 'false premise' of Merlin's, Michael? And what is the 'problem' you believe Merlin has incorrectly identified? Static economy. Maybe you think Merlin is unqualified to offer opinions of the challenges of funding a new round of private-sector infrastructure investment. I see no evidence that Merlin is a fool about economic matters ... but opinions can differ. Will you please answer the second question I posed? -- "a problem that is incorrectly identified"? I will rewrite your 'widget' fantasy analogy to make it more down to earth, outside of imagination. I will pick a widget bridge in Cook County that has been identified as structurally deficient. This example is where Lakeshore Drive crosses over Wilson Avenue. A couple of snaps from Google: This bridge was built in 1933 and is over-ripe for replacement, or refurbishment/repair. I will put the total estimated budget for the necessary engineering work at $100. 2 hours ago, Consortium Contractor Magician said: My company plus partner companies is going to rebuild the Lakeshore/Wilson bridge for $100. My company, along with nine other companies, will budget $1 each because each of our companies doesn't have enough ready capital. That totals $10. Now my consortium of companies still need to amass the remaining $90 of estimated project cost. Suppose my company and the other 9 members of the consortium start making more money, a hell of a lot more**. The consortium members can then chip in $10 each. That comes to $110. The bridge construction cost is still $100. So the consortium can pay for the cost and any budget overruns on this project. Suppose 90 other companies show up** and want to join my consortium and each can chip in $10 each because they all make a hell of a lot of money**. That comes to $1,010. The expanded consortium can theoretically rebuild/repair another ten similar decaying bridges and pay for them all. Well, that makes sense -- if there is money flowing like honey into the consortium. What makes even more magical sense is 'how the investment is recouped.' In other words, the consortium has (at Wilson/Lakeshore) spent up to $110 for the project. The question remaining for money-magicians is "Now that we have spent the money on the bridge, how do we get our investment back?" I mean, the money is spent, the bridge is safe for another 50 years, but the question remains ... "how do we profit?" A libertarian might say 'by installing electronic tolling technology.' That makes sense. Newly built highway bridges (such as the new Fraser crossing in Vancouver) are tolled until the investment is returned. And it is surely not technologically-impossible to 'read' license plate numbers and send a bill to the licence-holder for each little bridge like the Wilson/Lakeshore crossing. The consortium will 'own' that bridge (not the public) and will price its tolls to return investment over a period of time. It seems to me that a new avenue for individual advancement is opened: the Objectivish among us (in Cook County) can start making money, a hell of a lot more, by becoming bridge contractors! +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ ** -- insert magic. ▤ -- Transportation & Infrastructure The American people have been burdened by a transportation system that has been neglected far too long. From traffic jams, poorly maintained farm/ranch-to-market roads, airport and airline delays and crowded subways, our system is literally falling apart. Americans deserve a reliable and efficient transportation network and the Trump Administration seeks to invest $550 billion to ensure we can export our goods and move our people faster and safer. We will harness technology and make smarter decisions on how we build and utilize our infrastructure. Our roads, bridges, airports, transit systems and ports will be the envy of the world and enhance the lives of all Americans. We will build the roads, highways, bridges, tunnels, airports, and railways of tomorrow. Edited November 23, 2016 by william.scherk Tone, tone, tone. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Stuart Kelly Posted November 23, 2016 Share Posted November 23, 2016 22 minutes ago, merjet said: What a bone-headed analogy! Merlin, That's so odd because I think ignoring a revenue stream from economic growth (especially when it's been in Trump's plans since the beginning) is a boneheaded way to reason economically. Economists have been doing this crap for years to justify tax increases, so maybe it's just a ruse... When smart people do very stupid things and get nasty when questioned on it, I wonder what they are really getting at... 22 minutes ago, merjet said: The revenue for them is taxes, other government-imposed fees such as tolls, or governments issuing more debt. The first is voluntary. The second isn't. And what, pray tell, does that have to do with the point? If there is more pie, people can have more pie. If there is less pie, people are forced to do with less pie. It doesn't matter whether the government takes its slice by force or voluntarily. How much pie it can take will depend on how much pie there is to take. Since you have difficulty in this thread navigating analogies, let me state it differently. Under the present system (where tax is involuntary), when the economy grows and American citizens and companies get more money, the government automatically gets more money. Why? Because there is more money in the economy to take from. I know it's hard to conceive... It's a reality thing... Dealing with mixed economy ventures does not alter this reality. Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Stuart Kelly Posted November 23, 2016 Share Posted November 23, 2016 10 minutes ago, william.scherk said: Maybe you think Merlin is unqualified to offer opinions of the challenges of funding a new round of private-sector infrastructure investment. William, With all due respect, I did not see an intelligent opinion from Merlin. I saw a crapload of snark about a pied piper and the fools who follow him, while ignoring huge chunks of reality--economic growth, Trump's proven ability to get things done, etc. This reminds me of the gotchas the left is doing because some of the Mexican wall Trump is going to build might technically be a fence. They think Trump didn't mean whatever works for a strong border (including a wall) when he said wall. And not one of them understand borders or construction. I think Merlin is quite qualified to offer an intelligent opinion. I think he just doesn't want to so he can pat himself on the back on his side of the computer monitor and enjoy the silence of one hand clapping. I might be wrong, but the alternative is to imagine he is stupid. And I don't think he is stupid. Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
william.scherk Posted November 23, 2016 Share Posted November 23, 2016 More detail from the Trump org ... Quote DONALD J. TRUMP’S VISION Transform America’s crumbling infrastructure into a golden opportunity for accelerated economic growth and more rapid productivity gains with a deficit-neutral plan targeting substantial new infrastructure investments. Pursue an “America’s Infrastructure First” policy that supports investments in transportation, clean water, a modern and reliable electricity grid, telecommunications, security infrastructure, and other pressing domestic infrastructure needs. Refocus government spending on American infrastructure and away from the Obama-Clinton globalization agenda. Provide maximum flexibility to the states. Create thousands of new jobs in construction, steel manufacturing, and other sectors to build the transportation, water, telecommunications and energy infrastructure needed to enable new economic development in the U.S., all of which will generate new tax revenues. Put American steel made by American workers into the backbone of America’s infrastructure. Leverage new revenues and work with financing authorities, public-private partnerships, and other prudent funding opportunities. Harness market forces to help attract new private infrastructure investments through a deficit-neutral system of infrastructure tax credits. Implement a bold, visionary plan for a cost-effective system of roads, bridges, tunnels, airports, railroads, ports and waterways, and pipelines in the proud tradition of President Dwight D. Eisenhower, who championed the interstate highway system. Link increases in spending to reforms that streamline permitting and approvals, improve the project delivery system, and cut wasteful spending on boondoggles. Employ incentive-based contracting to ensure projects are on time and on budget. Approve private sector energy infrastructure projects—including pipelines and coal export facilities—to better connect American coal and shale energy production with markets and consumers. Work with Congress to modernize our airports and air traffic control systems, end long wait times, and reform the FAA and TSA, while also ensuring that American travelers are safe from terrorism and other threats. Incorporate new technologies and innovations into our national transportation system such as state-of-the-art pipelines, advancements in maritime commerce, and the next generation of vehicles. Make clean water a high priority. Develop a long-term water infrastructure plan with city, state and federal leaders to upgrade aging water systems. Triple funding for state revolving loan fund programs to help states and local governments upgrade critical drinking water and wastewater infrastructure. Link increased investments with positive reforms to infrastructure programs that reduce waste and cut costs. Complete projects faster and at lower cost through significant regulatory reform and ending needless red-tape. KEY ISSUES Infrastructure investment strengthens our economic platform, makes America more competitive, creates millions of jobs, increases wages for American workers, and reduces the costs of goods and services for American consumers. America’s infrastructure is a linchpin of private sector growth but, today, much of our infrastructure is crumbling. More than 60,000 bridges are considered “structurally deficient.” Traffic delays cost the U.S. economy more than $50 billion annually. Most major roads are rated as “less than good condition.” An investigation this year by USA Today “identified almost 2,000 additional water systems spanning all 50 states where testing has shown excessive levels of lead contamination over the past four years.” This included 350 systems that supplied drinking water to schools or day care facilities. According to the National Association of Manufacturers (NAM), without major improvements to our transportation systems, “the United States will lose more than 2.5 million jobs by 2025” (NAM, Build To Win, 2016). NAM estimates a “ten-year funding gap” of approximately $1 trillion. The Trump Infrastructure Plan is aimed at achieving a target of investment to fill this gap. NAM also found that $8 billion in infrastructure tax credits would support $226 billion in infrastructure investment over 10 years. Innovative financing programs also provide a 10-to-1 return on investment. [...] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Stuart Kelly Posted November 23, 2016 Share Posted November 23, 2016 13 minutes ago, william.scherk said: [FROM QUOTED TRUMP VISION] ... public-private partnerships... William, This is called mixed economy ventures. If you calculate them as private ventures only, or if you calculate them as government ventures only, you are calculating the wrong thing. Brazil ran on these mixed economy ventures (public-private partnerships) the entire time I was down there. Economic growth easily pays for the government's part. That's the foundation in Trump's plan. Believe me, there are going to be companies cutting each other's throats to partner with the US government in these infrastructure projects. And they are going to do a great job, at least while Trump is in office. That will be undeniable concrete evidence of how much they listen (meaning not at all) to Trump's critics about how little they think he knows about economics and construction. We have to wait and see, but I am 100% sure there will be a butt-load of this concrete evidence... Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter Posted November 23, 2016 Share Posted November 23, 2016 The “Israeli Times” has said Bannon is not anti Jewish. Quite the contrary, so the lie is exposed and it’s practically official, he loves everybody except leftists. And the new UN lady, Nikki, is also pro Israel. Though I spoke harshly about him not liking the Ayn Rand elements of Capitalism, at least Bannon knew who she was. I was thinking about that show, “Designated Survivor.” Peter From Quora. What happens if the President and Vice-President elect both die between being elected and the inauguration? Say, in a freak accident. Eric C. Turnble answered. Written 4 June: The answer depends heavily upon whether they have died BEFORE or AFTER the Electoral College has met and designated an official “POTUS-elect” and “VPOTUS-elect”. If the Electoral College has met, and they officially have elected a President and Vice President to be, then any death of either or both of the two of them triggers the 20th (and possibly 25th) Amendments’ provisions, and then the Presidential Succession Act (as codified in 3 US Code Section 19). In this scenario, the Speaker of the House, as elected by the new session of Congress starting Jan 3rd, assumes the Office of the President, and appoints a new V.P. with consent of the majority of both houses of Congress (per the 25th Amendment, Section 2). Should the President and/or Vice President-elect die BEFORE the Electoral College votes on designating them as President/Vice President-to-be, the electors who were to vote for the deceased person are free to vote for anyone else (subject to their state’s rules on who “anyone else” means). This means that someone other than the nominal “winner” of the actual election will be designated President and Vice President elect. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Stuart Kelly Posted November 23, 2016 Share Posted November 23, 2016 Lookin' good (from The Detroit News): Trump picks Betsy DeVos for education secretary post EDIT: And this: Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KorbenDallas Posted November 23, 2016 Share Posted November 23, 2016 1 hour ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said: Economic growth easily pays for the government's part. That's the foundation in Trump's plan. I'm skeptical. Off the top of my head, here are the areas that Trump has said his economic growth would pay for: Rebuilding the military Taking care of the vets Negating losses in medicare and SS (while he is in office) Infrastructure Paying off the national debt in 8 years That's a lot to pay for, the math is looking real fuzzy.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KorbenDallas Posted November 23, 2016 Share Posted November 23, 2016 56 minutes ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said: Believe me, there are going to be companies cutting each other's throats to partner with the US government in these infrastructure projects. And they are going to do a great job, at least while Trump is in office. With $1 trillion dollars on the table there will be a lot of dishonesty, fraud, waste, and abuse. It's inevitable, cutting each other's throats sounds about right. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
merjet Posted November 23, 2016 Share Posted November 23, 2016 17 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said: Economic growth easily pays for the government's part. That's the foundation in Trump's plan. It doesn't follow. Government spending comes from taxes, fees, and issuing more debt. Trump wants to cut income taxes substantially, which could easily offset the effect of economic growth. I don't take anything Trump says about reducing the national debt seriously. He loves borrowing, and the CBO projected more future national debt under Trump than under Hillary (link). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
william.scherk Posted November 23, 2016 Share Posted November 23, 2016 (edited) 1 hour ago, william.scherk said: More detail from the Trump org ... Here is a link to the ten-page Trump team report cited in the WSJ article ... from the website of Peter Navarro. It contains the numerical detail that undergirds Merlin's analysis. Warning: numbers, numbers, arithmetic. Even some mathematics ... http://www.peternavarro.com/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderfiles/infrastructurereport.pdf A wee excerpt: Quote For those who might think that the only two alternatives in re Merlin Jetton are he is stupid or he is a preening jerk ... please read Navarro/Ross with an open mind and consider a third and fourth alternative. The Navarro/Ross work forms the basis for critical commentary. Critical commentary and analysis is not on its face irrational. If you are of the opinion that nothing whatsoever of Trump infrastructure plans should be probed or criticized, then you are assigning a pope-ish quality of infallibility to The Leader and his staff. You know? Maybe critical analysis is required. Sweeping it off the table does no one any good -- except perhaps those whose love for The Leader knows no bounds. Fall into line with the politically-correct state of obeisance, Merlin, or f**k off to the Lake? Edited November 23, 2016 by william.scherk To the Lake! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Stuart Kelly Posted November 23, 2016 Share Posted November 23, 2016 38 minutes ago, KorbenDallas said: That's a lot to pay for, the math is looking real fuzzy.. Korben, That's because you are replacing the principle with math. (Don't worry, you're not the only one who does this.) The principle is rich folks can buy a lot more than poor folks. Ergo, a rich country can buy a lot more than a poor country. Make the country rich and the math follows any way you want it to. If that's not clear, enough Trump supporters to have elected him understand it. Just enjoy the wealth when it starts. Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
turkeyfoot Posted November 23, 2016 Share Posted November 23, 2016 Well, well. Not even 2 1/2 weeks into the President elects transition and hes changed his mind on several items. He isnt interested in prosecuting Clinton. Hes open-minded about climate-change science, No longer in favor of waterboarding terror suspects. Plans to keep the good parts of Obamacare instead of jettisoning it whole. And Trump also told the New York Times that they don’t need to worry about changes in libel laws. I certainly never expected he had a real chance at repealing ACA. His emotional discharge over prosecuting Clinton has no teeth. Never did. Big miscalculation. Now he wants his detractors to understand he wants to bring America together while he pushes the ideas of those who elected him off the table. My point is prior to taking power hes simply another politician who says stuff. I dont know which is worse, an ignorant person who makes definitive declarations or a person who makes them with no intent of keeping his promises but realizes the ideas sell to a portion of the electorate. I just cant keep a straight face over the components of his platform that he is now so willing to pull out. So far hes dispensing with more of what were rhetorical promises than ones we know of that he may keep. Where it really hurts me is the honesty and integrity department. Hes lost some shinola to his hyperbolic sh$t. Stay tuned, the waffling will continue. His open mind is a sieve for lost ideas. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Stuart Kelly Posted November 23, 2016 Share Posted November 23, 2016 2 minutes ago, turkeyfoot said: Not even 2 1/2 weeks into the President elects transition and hes changed his mind on several items. Geoff, Did you get all that off the mainstream media? Well, it must be true... The "Trump betrayed us" meme is a Soros creation. Saw exact same thing after Brexit. Obvious effort to drive a wedge. Don't fall for it.— Paul Joseph Watson (@PrisonPlanet) November 23, 2016 and Post-election media narratives are an exact copy of Brexit, including notion that Trump has no clue what he's doing. Fake news. pic.twitter.com/07ijbaF9nW— Paul Joseph Watson (@PrisonPlanet) November 23, 2016 Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
william.scherk Posted November 23, 2016 Share Posted November 23, 2016 Further to the danged mainstream media suggesting Trump is 'flexible' on some of his major policy positions ... the NYT transcribed its on-the-record interview: Quote Following is a transcript of President-elect Donald J. Trump’s interview on Tuesday with reporters, editors and opinion columnists from The New York Times. The transcription was prepared by Liam Stack, Jonah Engel Bromwich, Karen Workman and Tim Herrera of The Times. ARTHUR SULZBERGER Jr., publisher of The New York Times: Thank you very much for joining us. And I want to reaffirm this is on the record. DONALD J. TRUMP, President-elect of the United States: O.K. SULZBERGER: All right, so we’re clear. We had a very nice meeting in the Churchill Room. You’re a Churchill fan, I hear? TRUMP: I am, I am. SULZBERGER: There’s a photo of the great man behind you. TRUMP: There was a big thing about the bust that was removed out of the Oval Office. SULZBERGER: I heard you’re thinking of putting it back. TRUMP: I am, indeed. I am. SULZBERGER: Wonderful. So we’ve got a good collection here from our newsroom and editorial and our columnists. I just want to say we had a good, quiet, but useful and well-meaning conversation in there. So I appreciate that very much. TRUMP: I appreciate it, too. SULZBERGER: I thought maybe I’d start this off by asking if you have anything you would like to start this off with before we move to the easiest questions you’re going to get this administration. [laughter] [...] The Times also produced a forty-five minute melange of opinion/summation and scraps of his output: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Stuart Kelly Posted November 24, 2016 Share Posted November 24, 2016 1 hour ago, william.scherk said: The Times also produced a forty-five minute melange of opinion/summation and scraps of his output: William, Earlier today I listed to a few minutes of it and couldn't listen to any more, even with the Trump parts. It's probably because of my experiences producing pop music in Brazil. I get nauseous when journalists tout their own self-importance and power among themselves. I don't know how many times I heard journalists say they make and break people at their pleasure. Just like these NYT lede-monkeys were doing. During a time, I used to be an alcoholic in Brazil and I liked one of the journalists' haunts as my watering hole (police reporters at that--man, do I have some stories ). But, also, during a famous show I produced, these idiots were always in the way and it was hard to get anything done without tripping over one. (Not the police reporters, instead the politics and entertainment reporters since my artist was a protest singer.) What's worse, they were incompetent on top of being vain. And liars. I know that for a fact because I did stuff, I did it right in front of the reporters, and read that I did differently in the news. Anyway, I just took a look at Rush Limbaugh's site. He has the same view I do of what Trump is and is not doing regarding the press. Contrary to Fake News Reports, Trump Didn't Waffle on Climate Change or Hillary Prosecution in NYT Interview From the transcript: Quote There is no fake news here. Well, that's not true. We do satires and parody, but it's obviously fake news. We don't do fake news. We don't lie. We don't make things up. We don't try to make you believe things that are not true. And that is exactly what the mainstream media has become. The mainstream media has become an enterprise designed to make you believe things which are not true. . . . Who defines fake news? The mainstream is defining fake news as anything that's effective that busts up their attempt to lie to people. That's all fake news is. Now, there are some people who actually practice in fake news, but it's all satire and parody. It's all to one extent or another an attempt to be funny. Sometimes it's rooted in reciprocity. The few instances of fake news that are there are a reaction to the Drive-By Media. Everything is a reaction to them and how they are the ones lying to people. Their business today is making you think things that are not true. The classic example is the mainstream media reporting of Trump's interview with the New York Times. What do you think of that meeting? In that meeting with the New York Times Trump changed his mind on climate change, he changed his mind on going after Hillary. And if you read the transcripts, he didn't. If you read the transcripts, he spoke like Trump always speaks. He didn't commit himself to anything, and some of his answers were innocuous. . . . He doesn't commit to anything. So the meeting is over, and they report Trump changing, Trump waffling, and he's not doing that. All he's doing is trying to satisfy these people, get in the meeting, get it, and get out. He doesn't have any more trust for the New York Times today or yesterday than before he went in the meeting. But this is classic what is happening. And the rest of the media picks it up and that's why you're seeing stories about Trump waffling on things like climate change and prosecuting Hillary. . . . Donald Trump has appointed Jeff Sessions to be the attorney general. Jeff Sessions is gonna head up the Department of Justice. Jeff Sessions is the guy you need to be asking whether there's gonna be a prosecution of Hillary. If Donald Trump comes out and says there will not be, or if Donald Trump comes out and says there will be, then immediately Jeff Sessions has been rendered a puppet. And I don't think Trump has any intention of doing that. . . . ... he'll say whatever he wants to say to them or whatever he thinks he has to say. And the thing they want to hear is he's not gonna prosecute Hillary and he's not gonna pull out of the Paris accords. So they gleefully write: after meeting with us, Donald Trump saw the light. That's the tone of their stories, that they have the all- powerful mechanisms of making sure this Luddite Trump finds out what really is going on out there. But for Donald Trump to come out and say one way or the other what's gonna happen to Hillary Clinton totally undercuts his attorney general. And I don't think he would do that. That's one of the things we got mad at Obama for. His attorney generals were puppets. Eric Holder and Loretta Lynch did whatever Obama wanted 'em to do. It's one of the reasons the Democrats were sent packing. I think if there is an intention at the Trump campaign right now, or the transition, to prosecute Hillary, the last thing they're gonna do is say so right now. Here's another consideration. If they want to prosecute Hillary and they say so, you think Obama might pardon her? And if Obama pardons her, bye-bye investigation. So why telegraph you're gonna investigate her if it would cause a pardon? Wouldn't the smart thing to do would be to say, "Ah, maybe not. You know, they've suffered a lot. I'd rather help her heal." . . . If I'd'a had my way, Trump would have demanded this meeting take place on the deck of the USS Missouri instead of at the Times headquarters. If you're gonna meet with 'em, if you're gonna go meet with the vanquished, if you're gonna go meet with the people that you've defeated, then do it on the deck of the USS Missouri. For those of you who are curious, that's where the Japanese signed the surrender papers in World War II. . . . If they could force Trump to capitulate on climate change that would almost be the equivalent of them winning the election. Because climate change has all the elements they believe in: Big Government, high taxes, limited liberty and freedom on the part of the people. The United States is guilty, the United States is to blame, the United States must bear the brunt of punishment. Everything that the left thinks about this country and everything they want to happen to this country is encapsulated in their beliefs and climate change. . . . Ladies and gentlemen, I really want you to try to do something, and that is to doubt everything that you see that has as its source the New York Times or NBC or CBS or ABC or CNN or the Los Angeles Times or USA Today. I can't tell you the number of stories I've seen with the theme, the premise, the narrative, "Trump walks back X." "Trump walks back views on Paris." "Trump walks back views on prosecuting Hillary." Trump isn't "walking back" anything yet. They have not changed. They tried to dispirit you during the campaign and depress you so that you wouldn't vote. They're trying to make you think Trump is selling you out now. It is who they are, and you are much better off disbelieving everything. If you end up being wrong, fine. But if you believe this and start acting accordingly and you're wrong, you may end up causing damage to things. Do not believe them! They simply have gone over the edge. . . . These are the people destroying things. These are the people this election just sent packing. Trump isn't walking back anything. . . . ... they're smart people here on the Trump side. And he's smart. They're not gonna telegraph their plans. How many times during the debate did you hear Trump whine and moan about Obama announcing military strategy against ISIS? He got into a knock-down, drag-out argument one of the debate moderators about this, Martha Raddatz, who tried to tell Trump he was an idiot. "Sometimes there's psycho-strategery, Mr. Trump! Sometimes you tell your... It's a head fake." Trump said, "Why in the world would you ever tell your enemy what you're gonna do before you do it! It's silly!" I don't believe Trump's changed on that. If he has plans, he's not gonna telegraph it to the New York Times or to the media or to his targets. . . . ... one of the reasons the Democrats are in trouble is 'cause everybody knows that Eric Holder and what's-her-face, Loretta Lynch, were just rubber-stamping what Obama wanted. The place became a lawless institution designed to advance the Democrat Party agenda. You couldn't have anybody better at DOJ to root out what you consider to be the swamp than Jeff Sessions, and Trump is gonna let him do his job. But he's not gonna undercut him right now, and he's not gonna convert him into a puppet. He's not gonna turn him into somebody useless. Presidents, when you get right down to it, don't decide these kinds of things anyway. Not really. They're not supposed to. Otherwise, we wouldn't have an attorney general. I posted excerpts, but read the whole thing. I don't have much to add because I agree with it. Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
turkeyfoot Posted November 24, 2016 Share Posted November 24, 2016 4 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said: Geoff, Did you get all that off the mainstream media? Well, it must be true... The "Trump betrayed us" meme is a Soros creation. Saw exact same thing after Brexit. Obvious effort to drive a wedge. Don't fall for it. — Paul Joseph Watson (@PrisonPlanet) November 23, 2016 and Post-election media narratives are an exact copy of Brexit, including notion that Trump has no clue what he's doing. Fake news. pic.twitter.com/07ijbaF9nW — Paul Joseph Watson (@PrisonPlanet) November 23, 2016 Michael Michael, Well, I use an intermediary of sorts, as do you. Where I can find substantiating quotes indicating a position, I take it at face value knowing, of course, only he reserves the right to revise, change, and/or altogether reverse himself. http://www.breitbart.com/video/2016/11/22/kellyanne-conway-confirms-trump-doesnt-wish-to-pursue-hillary-charges/ Does he now realize that it is not him but the AGUS who would have discretion over these matters? Or was he counting on the AG appointment serving at his pleasure and doing his bidding regardless of legal issues. Just what did he mean when he said, “If I win, I am going to instruct my attorney general to have a special prosecutor to look into your situation,” http://www.cnn.com/2016/11/23/politics/waterboarding-trump-mattis/ We will see but if Mattis is hired, as Trump said he regards him highly. Is it not a moot point that he will likely take an experts opinion? http://www.forbes.com/sites/robertlaszewski2/2016/11/12/it-isnt-news-that-trump-wants-to-keep-the-pre-existing-condition-reforms-he-said-so-in-february/#2f8c1a6a7ccf https://www.donaldjtrump.com/positions/healthcare-reform "On day one of the Trump Administration, we will ask Congress to immediately deliver a full repeal of Obamacare." http://www.businessinsider.com/donald-trump-climate-change-global-warming-environment-policies-plans-platforms-2016-10 Heh, libel laws. What really can he do other than provide opinion? Are you suggesting Trump is going to carry through on the strict reading of all campaign pronouncements? Of course not. Because its understood that his say so is not enough. So there is no meaningful measure of the man in terms we can fully evaluate until he acts or fails to act on the statements he made prior to his election. And in at least a couple of instances hes changed his positions. Lets give it 157 days and evaluate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KorbenDallas Posted November 24, 2016 Share Posted November 24, 2016 6 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said: Korben, That's because you are replacing the principle with math. (Don't worry, you're not the only one who does this.) Only I didn't do that, I know the #*&'ing difference. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Stuart Kelly Posted November 24, 2016 Share Posted November 24, 2016 38 minutes ago, KorbenDallas said: Only I didn't do that, I know the #*&'ing difference. Korben, OK. In other words, some people hold to the principle that poor people buy more than rich folks, and the corollary that spending creates wealth--just so long as you hide these ideas with math. They say their math is as clear as crystal, too. And, man, can they posture about it. Trump says rich people buy more than poor folks and that's the way it's always been. That only a moron would think a poor person buys more than a rich person does. And he wants to make the country rich so the math for all his projects works on the balance sheet. Is that the fuzziness you refer to? Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Stuart Kelly Posted November 24, 2016 Share Posted November 24, 2016 1 hour ago, turkeyfoot said: Are you suggesting Trump is going to carry through on the strict reading of all campaign pronouncements? Geoff, The strict reading gotcha kind of mentality is not the way Trump works and it's not the way to build a skyscraper. Gotcha is a competitive social game, not a reality game. You can intimidate or irritate with gotcha, but you can't build doodley-squat with it. For turning a vision into reality, you have to solve problems that arise for real irrespective of what the situation looked like before the problem happened. You don't even think about the problems embedded in word games. Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now