Donald Trump

[merjet]

18 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

Yet that's all that Merlin cares about. He want's to know how Trump will make the Ponzi keep working and not explode. He mocks Trump for not wanting to do that (he frames it as Trump can't because he's too stupid).

It looks like Merlin prefers the thieves.

I think, maybe, he wants me to explain how Trump is going to use Obama's structure to fix Obama's mess.

I nominate these for the Dishonesty Hall of Fame.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

1 minute ago, merjet said:

I nominate these for the Dishonesty Hall of Fame.

I'm OK with that.

What do you want your trophy to look like?

 

Michael

[Brant Gaede]

1 hour ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

I'm OK with that.

What do you want your trophy to look like?

 

Michael

I can only dream.

--Brant

nutz

[william.scherk]

On 1/13/2017 at 4:12 AM, Emphases added by WSS to what Merlin said:

At his press conference Jan. 11 Trump said: "And if our politicians had what it takes, they would have done this years ago and you'd have millions more workers right now in the United States, that are 96 million really wanting a job and they can't get. You know that story. The real number. That's the real number." Link. (The quote is at about 47:25 in the video.)

Here's the transcript of that portion of Trump's remarks (from here):

So if you want to move to another country and if you want to fire all of our great American workers that got you there in the first place, you can move from Michigan to Tennessee and to North Carolina and South Carolina, you can move from South Carolina back to Michigan, you can do anywhere, you've got a lot of states at play, lot of competition, so it's not like, oh, gee, I'm taking the competition. You've got a lot of places you can move. And I don't care as long as it's within the United States. The borders of United States.

There will be a major border tax on these companies that are leaving and getting away with murder. And if our politicians had what it takes, they would have done this years ago and you'd have millions more workers right now in the United States, that are 96 million really wanting a job and they can't get. You know that story. The real number. That's the real number. So that's the way it is. OK, 

Quote

The Bureau of Labor Statistics tracks a number Not in Labor Force that is about 96 million now (link). However, the people counted are not "really wanting a job and they can't get [one]." Not in the labor force is defined here, from which I quote: "Since the mid-1990s, typically fewer than 1 in 10 people not in the labor force reported that they want a job."

I needed to read the "not in the labor force" explainer to get at the issue Merlin points out:

Who is not in the labor force?

As mentioned previously, the labor force is made up of the employed and the unemployed. The remainder—those who have no job and are not looking for one—are counted as not in the labor force. Many who are not in the labor force are going to school or are retired. Family responsibilities keep others out of the labor force. Since the mid-1990s, typically fewer than 1 in 10 people not in the labor force reported that they want a job.

A series of questions is asked each month of persons not in the labor force to obtain information about their desire for work, the reasons why they had not looked for work in the last 4 weeks, their prior job search, and their availability for work. These questions include the following (the bolded words are emphasized when read by the interviewers).

1. Do you currently want a job, either full or part time?

2. What is the main reason you were not looking for work during the last 4 weeks?

3. Did you look for work at any time during the last 12 months?

4. Last week, could you have started a job if one had been offered?

These questions form the basis for estimating the number of people who are not in the labor force but who are considered to be marginally attached to the labor force. These are individuals without jobs who are not currently looking for work (and therefore are not counted as unemployed), but who nevertheless have demonstrated some degree of labor force attachment. Specifically, to be counted as marginally attached to the labor force, they must indicate that they currently want a job, have looked for work in the last 12 months (or since they last worked if they worked within the last 12 months), and are available for work. Discouraged workers are a subset of the marginally attached. Discouraged workers report they are not currently looking for work for one of the following types of reasons:

• They believe no job is available to them in their line of work or area.

• They had previously been unable to find work.

• They lack the necessary schooling, training, skills, or experience.

• Employers think they are too young or too old, or

• They face some other type of discrimination.

___________________________________

On 1/13/2017 at 9:13 AM, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

Since the Bureau of Labor Statistics itself is a ridiculous sinecure division of the government which has the sole practical purpose of employing useless bureaucrats ([...], any statement--left, right or center--based on statistics and/or other statements coming from that Bureau is ridiculous.

Substance-wise, it's almost like citing Alice in Wonderland as grounds for a statement about macro-economics.

There's a dispute: MSK denotes BLS as a ridiculous sinecure division ... with the sole practical purpose of employing "useless bureaucrats" ... so any statement based on statistics from the BLS is ridiculous, to his eye. 

It makes me think. If the BLS is believed to be a fount of ridiculous information, with a ridiculous mandate and/or ridiculously untrustworthy information, what is the basis for that belief? The belief in itself isn't evidence,  and uttering that belief is mere assertion. 

Wikipedia:

Quote

The Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) is a unit of the United States Department of Labor. It is the principal fact-finding agency for the U.S. government in the broad field of labor economics and statistics and serves as a principal agency of the U.S. Federal Statistical System. The BLS is a governmental statistical agency that collects, processes, analyzes, and disseminates essential statistical data to the American public, the U.S. Congress, other Federal agencies, State and local governments, business, and labor representatives. The BLS also serves as a statistical resource to the Department of Labor, and conducts research into how much families need to earn to be able to enjoy a decent standard of living.

There is a disjunct:

On 1/13/2017 at 9:13 AM, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

Substance-wise, it's almost like citing Alice in Wonderland as grounds for a statement about macro-economics.

I don't get this. What is the warrant for this contention? I mean, has the BLS been publishing utter and complete bullshit since 1885? How do you build a persuasive case to support the BLS == Fantasy claim?

From Wolf's CNBC link:

 

On 1/13/2017 at 11:37 AM, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

go out and use your eyes and ears. Look at how people have to live and talk to them.

Any scientist [...] will tell you that observation is fundamental. Math has to connect to reality if you want to deal with reality. And you don't prove something is real with math. You prove that fundament with observation.

After all, if one is going to purport to collect stats on all these people and claim this to be the truth, observing them [...] is a great start.

This is somewhat puzzling -- the basis for the BLS estimates of not in the labour force are  'observations' of real people responding to the Household Survey.

The problem with this line is that it assumes something not in evidence: the utter ridiculousness of the whole BLS enterprise.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

2 hours ago, william.scherk said:

There's a dispute: MSK denotes BLS as a ridiculous sinecure division...

William,

Fancy that.

And some people think Trump is ridiculous despite everything he has achieved and is still achieving.

What will it take to get all these people to look at stuff and stop opining to the contrary, I wonder I wonder?... 

(Welcome to the world of online discussions.  )

Michael

[william.scherk]

On 1/13/2017 at 11:16 AM, 'Wrong as hell and playing on the Losing Team' said:

If you don't like the BLS's statistics, here is an alternative. His primers are free. **

The primer on BLS's employment surveys methods and biases and margins-of-error is incisive and brief; the author notes the two essential surveys conducted -- The Household Survey and the Payroll Survey -- and how the raw data is stratified into differing metrics. 

Why give a gander to this analysis? To learn more about design and defects of current BLS reporting (hint-hint how the 'discouraged' are slated,and how some of the non-employed are slated out of the several metrics).  Turd.

For example, the U-3 is the most cited of unemployment figures, but there are five others available (from a wonkish site that offers a decent dashboard for all things statistical in these areas):

U-1 Unemployment Rate

U-2 Unemployment Rate

U-3 Unemployment Rate

U-4 Unemployment Rate

U-5 Unemployment Rate

U-6 Unemployment Rate

It also has interactive graphing.  Eg U-3 and U-6:

 

So, analyses of officially-collected interview data as collated and stratified by the Bureau of Labor Statistics,  by a non-governmental 'critical eye' ... a helpful guide to comprehending the statistic cited (by the President-elect), in context. 

My take-away from these few brief inquiries is that interpreting the numbers rationally and critically is useful -- "interrogating the numbers" is also fun.

Bearing in mind that the largest figure of 96 million 'not in labour force' is a different metric from 'U-3" and "U-6,"  I think Mr Trump made a rhetorical point -- by conflating a couple of metrics.  As I wrote above, that can lead to some useful inquiries into the state of work in America, despite the error.

Here is a bit from the first turd-wonk site, dated 2004, analyzing BLS 'fiddlesticks' of the Clinton era:

Suggesting that the household survey is more accurate than the payroll survey, however, does not mean household survey accurately depicts unemployment. While its measures have definable statistical accuracy, the accuracy is related only to the underlying questions surveyed and to the universe of people surveyed.

The popularly followed unemployment rate was 5.5% in July 2004, seasonally adjusted. That is known as U-3, one of six unemployment rates published by the BLS. The broadest U-6 measure was 9.5%, including discouraged and marginally attached workers.

Up until the Clinton administration, a discouraged worker was one who was willing, able and ready to work but had given up looking because there were no jobs to be had. The Clinton administration dismissed to the non-reporting netherworld about five million discouraged workers who had been so categorized for more than a year. As of July 2004, the less-than-a-year discouraged workers total 504,000. Adding in the netherworld takes the unemployment rate up to about 12.5%.

 

On 1/13/2017 at 1:45 PM, merjet said:

were 96 million people looking for a job but can't find one [?]

No, but wouldn't it be nice if 96 million jobs popped into existence over the next four years?

___________________________________

**  ShadowStats Newsletter

"John Williams’ Shadow Government Statistics" is an electronic newsletter service that exposes and analyzes flaws in current U.S. government economic data and reporting, as well as in certain private-sector numbers, and provides an assessment of underlying economic and financial conditions, net of financial-market and political hype.

Turd-polisher. 

Edited January 15, 2017 by william.scherk
De-italicized, corrected attribution to Wrong as Hell

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

55 minutes ago, william.scherk said:

No, but wouldn't it be nice if 96 million jobs popped into existence over the next four years?

William,

Here's what you see.

No, but wouldn't it be nice if 96 million jobs popped into existence over the next four years?

It doesn't matter if it's a job or whatever. The important thing is the number qua number. And Trump better get that gosh-darn number right.

Here's what Trump and his supporters see:

No, but wouldn't it be nice if 96 million jobs popped into existence over the next four years?

This, to them, is not just a field on a spreadsheet. This word represents reality. One they live that insiders do not.

So it doesn't matter if the millions of jobs that have been lost under Obama and will be regained are 96 million, 50 million, 1 million or 150 million, to these out-of-work people. The fact is a lot of people are going to be able to exercise a productive life under Trump's economic policies without competing against an unfair bully like the government running Ponzi scams and hairbrained redistribution schemes (that somehow all end up in the pockets of the same 8 folks around the world).

I speak as one who finds turd-polishing disgusting.

Michael

[william.scherk]

Hoopla.  

Quote

 TOP ITEMS: 

 Peter J. Boyer / Esquire:

Exclusive: The Trump Administration May Evict the Press from the White House  —  “They are the opposition party,” a senior official says.  —  The upset to the existing order caused by the presidential election has been acutely felt by no one, perhaps, so much it has by the national press.

–

Discussion:

Michael M. Grynbaum / New York Times:   Trump Team Considers Moving Press Corps, Alarming Reporters

David Atkins / Washington Monthly:   Trump Wants to Ban the Press Corps from the White House.  That Might Actually Be a Good Thing for Journalism.

Callum Borchers / Washington Post:   He's with her: Donald Trump revives Hillary Clinton's idea about kicking media out of White House

Charles Johnson / Little Green Footballs:   Now Trump Wants to Evict the Press From the White House

Ali Dukakis / ABC News:   Trump Team May Move Press Briefing Room Out of White House: Reince Priebus

Brian Stelter / CNNMoney:   Is Trump White House preparing to treat press as ‘opposition party’?

Lou Colagiovanni / Occupy Democrats:   The Trump Team Just Revealed It May Evict the Press From White House

The White House:   Eisenhower Executive Office Building

Frank Camp / Daily Wire:   Journalists React Negatively to Possible Moving of White House Press Room

Chas Danner / New York Magazine:   Trump May Kick the White House Press Corps Out of the White House

Oliver Laughland / The Guardian:   Talk radio hosts and bloggers may be included in White House press briefings

Hannah Gold / The Slot:   Donald Trump Is Reportedly Considering Kicking the Press Out of the White House

Esme Cribb / Talking Points Memo:   Report: Trump Administration May Evict Press Corps From White House

Josh Feldman / Mediaite:   New Report Says Trump Admin May ‘Evict’ Press Corps from the White House

Lindsey Pulse / AOL:   Report: White House press corps may no longer be in the White House

Chris Enloe / TheBlaze:   Report: Trump administration considering plans to ‘evict’ press corps from White House

Juliegrace Brufke / The Daily Caller:   Report: Trump Considering Evicting Press Corps From White House

Alexandra Jaffe / NBC News:   Reince Priebus: Press Access to White House 'Hasn't Been Determined'

Bonnie Kristian / The Week:   Reince Priebus says talk of a new presidential press conference space is ‘getting way out of whack’

Cristiano Lima / Politico:   Pence, Priebus dispute booting press out of White House

Ann Althouse / Althouse:   “They are the opposition party. I want 'em out of the building. We are taking back the press room.”

more at Mediagazer »

» All Related Discussion

RELATED:

 Rebecca Savransky / The Hill:

WH Correspondents' board responds to Trump on media access  —  The White House Correspondents' Association Board said Sunday it will continue to support the briefing room being open to all reporters who request access.  —  In a statement released Sunday afternoon, WHCA President Jeff Mason …

–

Discussion:

Susan Wright / RedState:   White House Correspondents Not Happy About Possibly Being Evicted From the White House

 Rebecca Savransky / The Hill: 
Trump team considers evicting press from White House: report

–

Discussion:

Susan Wright / RedState:   Trump is Considering Moving the Press Out of the White House

Jazz Shaw / Hot Air:   Latest hot rumor: Trump to boot the press corps from the White House

Mike DeBonis / Washington Post:   News conferences could be moved from White House, Priebus says

alan.com:   Esquire: Trump may evict press from White House

more at Mediagazer »

Wrong as hell and playing on the Losing Team

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

7 minutes ago, william.scherk said:

Wrong as hell and playing on the Losing Team

William,

Funny, I didn't see the following headline reflected in the headlines you posted:

Trump Team May Move West Wing Briefings to Expand Capacity

And that's from Bloomberg, not exactly a Trump-friendly publication.

The impression you gave is that Trump is evicting the press to get rid of them.

But the reality--without that spin--is the opposite. He's actually EXPANDING the number of press people who will have access to him. 

So it looks like the Ruling Class Press Elite really is wrong as hell and playing on the Losing Team.

Because Trump is their opponent?

Nope.

Because it looks like the competition among press professionals is about to get fierce. That means the Ruling Class Press Elite are going to have to earn their money the same way everybody else does: on the open market.

God, I hope they don't suffer too much among the hoi polloi.

Lots more people are coming into the game.

Hoopla.  

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

For readers who have been following this discussion, the following meme sums up the different mentalities perfectly:

This not only applies to the Fed, it applies to a crapload of bloated unnecessary crappy divisions and pockets of federal sinecures in all kinds of areas.

How the tactics play out will be seen since there are a lot of hostile folks on the take in the government, but this is Trump's strategy approach.

Michael

[william.scherk]

17 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

The fact is a lot of people are going to be able to exercise a productive life under Trump's economic policies without competing against an unfair bully like the government running Ponzi scams and hairbrained redistribution schemes [...].

From RedState. I can't figure out if this is part of playing possum or just a diversionary tactic. Health Insurance “For Everybody” And The “Government Will Pay” Says “Republican” Donald Trump. AGAIN.

Quote

This should not be big, surprising, new news. But somehow it is.

“We’re going to have insurance for everybody,” Trump said.

“There was a philosophy in some circles that if you can’t pay for it, you don’t get it. That’s not going to happen with us.” People covered under the law “can expect to have great health care. It will be in a much simplified form. Much less expensive and much better.”

– Excerpt from Washington Post interview with Donald Trump, published yesterday, Sunday the 15th of January, 2017.

Scott Pelley: Universal health care?

Donald Trump: I am going to take care of everybody. I don’t care if it costs me votes or not. Everybody’s going to be taken care of much better than they’re taken care of now.

Scott Pelley: The uninsured person is going to be taken care of how?

Donald Trump: They’re going to be taken care of. I would make a deal with existing hospitals to take care of people. And, you know what, if this is probably–

Scott Pelley: Make a deal? Who pays for it?

Donald Trump: –the government’s gonna pay for it.

– Excerpt from transcript of CBS interview with Donald Trump, September 27th, 2015.

Do you see the problem with treating this weekend’s “revelation” that Donald Trump is fundamentally pitching a universal coverage plan as new and, well, a revelation? That’s where we are, though.

He has before and is now offering the promise that every American will be covered, whether they can pay or not, and that if they cannot pay, the government will pay. Does that sound familiar to you?

 

[merjet]

20 minutes ago, william.scherk said:

From RedState. I can't figure out if this is part of playing possum or just a diversionary tactic. Health Insurance “For Everybody” And The “Government Will Pay” Says “Republican” Donald Trump. AGAIN.

MSK: "He said I didn't explain it. I think, maybe, he wants me to explain how Trump is going to use Obama's structure to fix Obama's mess. But Trump ain't going to do that" (link).

Oh, my. It looks like Trump wants to do exactly what MSK says Trump ain't going to do. It looks like MSK has some explaining to do. 

 

 

[william.scherk]

25 minutes ago, merjet said:

50 minutes ago, william.scherk said:

From RedState. I can't figure out if this is part of playing possum or just a diversionary tactic. Health Insurance “For Everybody” And The “Government Will Pay” Says “Republican” Donald Trump. AGAIN.

MSK: "He said I didn't explain it. I think, maybe, he wants me to explain how Trump is going to use Obama's structure to fix Obama's mess. But Trump ain't going to do that" (link).

Oh, my. It looks like Trump wants to do exactly what MSK says Trump ain't going to do. It looks like MSK has some explaining to do. 

Hater.

I figure the least bizarre 'splaining could be something like this: "So he's saying any old thing right now to keep the sabotage danger low."  Plus possum. Possum Sabotage Laying-Low Diversion Sinecure Turd-Fix Any Old Thing.

 

[Peter]

merjet wrote: Oh, my. It looks like Trump wants to do exactly what MSK says Trump ain't going to do. It looks like MSK has some explaining to do. end quote

Did the mirror just crack? To paraphrase Thomas Sowell, “Is DoctorTrump going to replace a cancer with another cancer?” When the inauguration parties are over, will President Trump be working on Saturday? I would really like to see the details of what he is going to do.

Petroglyph

[william.scherk]

From Memeorandum ... hoopla.

 Robert Costa / Washington Post:

Trump vows ‘insurance for everybody’ in Obamacare replacement plan  —  President-elect Donald Trump said in a weekend interview that he is nearing completion of a plan to replace President Obama's signature health-care law with the goal of “insurance for everybody,” while also vowing …

Discussion:

Ron Pollack / Vox:   Tax cuts undermine Trump's pledge that his Obamacare replacement will be “great”

Tierney Sneed / Talking Points Memo:   Trump Promises O'Care Replacement With ‘Insurance For Everybody’

Esther Yu Hsi Lee / ThinkProgress:   Thousands rally across the country to stop Republicans from dismantling Affordable Care Act

Hansi Lo Wang / NPR:   Trump Pressures Congress To Replace Obamacare Quickly

Juliegrace Brufke / The Daily Caller:   Charlie Dent Says He Agrees With Trump's Instincts On Obamacare Repeal

Joan McCarter / Daily Kos:   Donald Trump promises beautiful insurance for everybody, Republicans wince

Tami Luhby / CNN:   Trump promises his Obamacare replacement plan will cover all: Report

Dave Blount / John Hawkins' Right Wing News:   Insurance for Everybody  —  Despite its infamous fecklessness …

Scott Lemieux / Lawyers, Guns & Money:   Not Without A Fight

James Barrett / Daily Wire:   Trump: Obamacare Replacement Almost Done: ‘Insurance For Everybody’

Steve M. / No More Mister Nice Blog:   NO, WE ARE NOT TO GET SINGLE PAYER UNDER DONALD TRUMP

Michael Dorstewitz / BizPac Review:   ‘Insurance for everybody,’ says Trump as ‘Trumpcare’ is ‘down to final strokes’

Chris Enloe / TheBlaze:   Trump vows to provide ‘insurance for everybody’ in Republican health care replacement plan

Margaret Hartmann / New York Magazine:   Trump Promises ‘Insurance for Everybody,’ Won't Give Any Specifics

Ed Morrissey / Hot Air:   Trump: My plan is — insurance for everyone

Ali Meyer / Washington Free Beacon:   Trump: Obamacare Replacement Plan Will Insure All

Jessica Hullinger / The Week:   Donald Trump promises ObamaCare replacement plan will provide ‘insurance for everybody’

ACASignups.net:   A warning to those thinking Trump might end up enacting progressive policies...

Carl Hulse / New York Times:   ‘Repeal and Replace’: Words Still Hanging Over G.O.P.'s Health Care Strategy

Here & Now:   Trump Opens Inauguration Week With Lewis Attacks And Obamacare News

Justin Baragona / Mediaite:   Trump Says There Will be ‘Much Lower Deductibles’ in His Plan Providing ‘Insurance For Everybody’

David Ferguson / Raw Story:   'They'll be beautifully covered': Trump won't talk specifics of new health plan but says it's ‘great’

Alex Johnson / NBC News:   Trump Signals ‘Insurance for Everybody’ in Health Care Replacement

Dan Diamond / Politico:   Trump promises ‘insurance for everybody’

Taegan Goddard / Political Wire:   Trump Promises ‘Insurance for Everybody’

 

A Trump-whisperer 'splains:

Trump promises Obamacare replacement will cover all, report says: https://t.co/FAcjvO0bhe @RepCharlieDent discusses. https://t.co/bIrUFk6K9Q

— New Day (@NewDay) January 16, 2017

Edited January 16, 2017 by william.scherk
"What I think he means" ... Trump-whisperer video

[BaalChatzaf]

We shall soon see....

[Peter]

1 hour ago, BaalChatzaf said:

We shall soon see....

Que sera, sera, what will be will be, the future’s not ours to see, que sera, sera.

From the net: Thousands of bikers are planning to come to Washington D.C. for Trump’s inauguration in support of the president-elect. Chris Cox organized a rally for his group of more than 5,000 “Bikers for Trump” that will include “musical . . . end quote

Say, I thought all the totalitarian lefties were going to boycott the election. Why would President Trump need protection? And why haven't those leftist dirt bags left for Canada yet? They promised! I hope the bikers don't complicate things.

Peter 

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

3 hours ago, Peter said:

Did the mirror just crack? To paraphrase Thomas Sowell, “Is DoctorTrump going to replace a cancer with another cancer?” When the inauguration parties are over, will President Trump be working on Saturday? I would really like to see the details of what he is going to do.

Peter,

Are you taking the mainstream media seriously again?

Haven't you learned by now?

   

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Four more days...

God, time passes slowly.

Michael

[Peter]

6 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

Peter,

Are you taking the mainstream media seriously again?

Haven't you learned by now?

   

Michael

I take the quotes seriously. But I did not hear President Trump saying them so it is possible those words about socialized medicine are not what he said. I hope.

How else can you take it?

Peter

[Peter]

It is interesting that 77 percent of recipients say Medicare is great, according to the latest issue of the AARP Magazine. So, why not extend Medicare to Veterans who are already receiving medical benefits through the VA and who want medical care closer or better than the VA? Why not include widows and orphans in Medicare? Why not include everybody?

It is a tough question for someone like me who assumes he paid his fair share to receive Medicare. But then I find out I will be receiving far more in benefits than I paid in and it is the same for SSI. So if a majority of Americans want to continue Medicare and Social Security then the best person for the job of President is someone who has had to meet a budget, believes in self reliance, and is named Trump. It’s not Randian but even Ayn received SSI.

Peter

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

1 hour ago, Peter said:

How else can you take it?

Peter,

Oh... I don't know.

I recall these fine folks talking about Russians hacking the election right after they said nobody could hack the election, more recently, prostitutes peeing on a bed, and so on...

Oh yeah...

I forgot...

Donald Trump is secretly a Hillary plant... Donald Trump is a racist (misogynist, homophobe, etc. etc. etc.) ... Donald Trump is not going to build the wall... There is no way Donald Trump is going to get companies to make more jobs in America... Donald Trump will never receive the nomination... Donald Trump will never win the election... etc. etc. etc.

Now they're saying Trump is essentially going to keep Obamacare, if not the law, then what the law does.

(yawn...)

With the mainstream press (especially RedState--one of the homes of the never-Trumpers, fer kerissakes), I take it in the same way I take all their reporting.

It's propaganda.

At least you said you didn't get a Trump quote yet.

So you know what I'm talking about...  

Whaddya trying to do?

Play possum like Trump?

 

Michael

[Brant Gaede]

8 hours ago, Peter said:

It is interesting that 77 percent of recipients say Medicare is great, according to the latest issue of the AARP Magazine. So, why not extend Medicare to Veterans who are already receiving medical benefits through the VA and who want medical care closer or better than the VA? Why not include widows and orphans in Medicare? Why not include everybody?

It is a tough question for someone like me who assumes he paid his fair share to receive Medicare. But then I find out I will be receiving far more in benefits than I paid in and it is the same for SSI. So if a majority of Americans want to continue Medicare and Social Security then the best person for the job of President is someone who has had to meet a budget, believes in self reliance, and is named Trump. It’s not Randian but even Ayn received SSI.

Peter

She received disability benefits?

I don't think so.

Because of the way Medicare has structured medicine and driven out a lot of private insurance for oldsters and run up costs don't start wondering about receiving it. Social Security is another matter. If you want to dip into guilt start there.

77 percent might not be heavily using Medicare so they think it's great, good or okay. What they might think when the SHTF--I wouldn't know.

The biggest Medicare cost is end of life costs. The last year or two of it.

Personally I have no problem of stealing from the government--in my head. But I don't; I'm too busy doing better things.I simply deny them my precious bodily fluids.

--Brant

but I don't drink distilled water--I want them minerals

 

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

8 hours ago, Peter said:

But I did not hear President Trump saying them so it is possible those words about socialized medicine are not what he said. I hope.

Peter,

Even if Trump did say them, haven't you learned his negotiating style yet? He asks for a lot more than he wants so when the other side compromises and gives him what he wants, it feels like a win to them.

This is sometimes called the bombastic offer. The process is clear in The Art of the Deal.

He's done this I don't know how many times, but the mainstream press fall for it every time.

What's important in Trump's words is not what he says when he opens, but that he says when he closes. But that's the case with all people who negotiate, no? Trump just does it better than most.

Michael

[Peter]

Brant, I remember Nathaniel Branden or some other insider saying Rand did receive Social Security and she did cash the checks.  President Trump. Sigh. What’s he going to do? Do you have a “wish list?”

Peter

Notes. A Holiday Wish by Steve Martin

Steve Martin: If I had one wish that I could wish this holiday season, it would be for all the children of the world to join hands and sing together in the spirit of harmony and peace.

If I had two wishes that I could wish for this holiday season, the first would be for all the children of the world to join hands and sing in the spirit of harmony and peace.. and the second would be for $30 million a month to be given to me, tax-free in a Swiss bank account.

You know, if I had three wishes that I could make this holiday season, first, of course, would be for all the children to get together and sing.. the second would be for the $30 million every month to me.. and the third would be for all encompassing power over every living being thing in the entire universe.

And if I had four wishes that I could make this holiday season, first would be the crap about the kids.. second would be for the $30 million.. the third would be for all the power.. and the fourth would be to set aside one month each year for an extended 31-day orgasm, to be brought about slowly by Rosanna Arquette and that model Paulina somebody, I can't think of her name, of course my lovely wife could come, too. She's behind me 100% on this, I guarantee you.

Wait a minute, maybe that sex thing should be the first wish! So, if I made that the first wish, because, you know, it could all go boom tomorrow, and then what have you got? No, no.. the kids singing would be great, that would be nice. No, no, who am I kidding! I mean, they're not gonna be able to get all those kids together! I mean, the logistics of the thing is impossible! It's more trouble than it's worth! So, we reorganize: here we go. First, the sex - we go with that; second, the money. No! We go with the power second, then the money, and then the kids. Oh, wait, oh geez! I forgot about revenge against my enemies! Okay.. revenge against all my enemies, they should die like pigs in Hell! That would be the fourth wish! And of course, my fifth wish would be for all the children of the world to join hands and sing in the spirit of peace and harmony. Thank you, everybody.