Donald Trump

[KorbenDallas]

12 minutes ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

Korben,

I doubt it.

Trump uses it too much to forget about it.

Michael

lol 

[Wolf DeVoon]

4 hours ago, KorbenDallas said:

Or, perhaps, Trump forgot about the First Amendment? [penalties for US flag burning]

I think that the issue is better appreciated in comparison to burning, say, a gay Rainbow flag, or a Black Lives Matter flag -- which would be deemed hate crimes. Expressing hatred for the United States is no less a crime to those who feel admiration for its tradition of citizen soldiers and common law.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

2 hours ago, wolfdevoon said:

I think that the issue is better appreciated in comparison to burning, say, a gay Rainbow flag, or a Black Lives Matter flag -- which would be deemed hate crimes.  Expressing hatred for the United States is no less a crime to those who feel admiration for its tradition of citizen soldiers and common law.

Wolf,

That's a great point.

Speaking of fire and symbol, what would all these outraged people think of the legality of burning a cross in front of a black person's house?

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

15 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

It means the costs of his programs will not be added to the deficit, but will be paid for as we go along. 

It's based on the principle of when you make more money, you can buy more. If you don't make more money, you hold back on buying until you do.

This is the contrary of the principle of piling on debt and "kicking the can down the road" that President Obama and his predecessors have been using to eventually bankrupt America if it doesn't stop.

I don't need advanced math to see that. It seems like only people with advanced math skills can't see it.

For some reason you [Merlin] don't think America will make more money. Trump does and so do I.

Newt is going to do an entire speech on the principles of Trumpism at the Heritage Foundation on Dec. 13. S good part will be devoted to how to pay for and implement the infrastructure plan.

Below, he gives a few highlights (go to 9:38 or so to get to this topic specifically).

Believe me, even though "pay as you go" is not the slogan and Hannity almost sounded like Merlin  , "pay as you go" is going to be the reality. Barring the bankruptcy mess of the casinos a couple of decades ago, Trump only uses debt when he has factored in how to pay for it in a timely fashion (and not through the magical thinking economics and numbers bullshit of current government accounting).

Notice how Newt's explanation covers several components that deal with reality, not just a word game of "but you said...," and he uses as examples things Trump has constructed.

Trump did not make his infrastructure promise imagining the US situation would be static and monolithic, as if someone like President Obama would oversee it with a half-assed government bureaucracy like he did the Healthcare website. President-elect Donald Trump knows construction better--far far far better--than any previous president. And he knows who to hire to get the jobs done from the financial part to pouring cement.

I would not be surprised to see, at the end of Trump's term of office, that the entire infrastructure overhaul of the US was not only "revenue neutral," and not only got done ahead of schedule and under budget, but it even generated profits.

Michael

[merjet]

21 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

....

[1] That's a hell of an assumption.

....

[2] It's kind of duh. It means the costs of his programs will not be added to the deficit, but will be paid for as we go along. 

....

[3] For some reason you don't think America will make more money.

..............

[1] No, it's your attempt to cram your words into my mouth.

[2] Duh! It means you swallow hole Trump's campaign-style rhetoric which can't be shown as true since it hasn't happened yet. It means you are making predictions at best backed by rosy assumptions. There are too many variables, including unknown ones, for me to make such a rosy prediction. If the infrastructure spending precedes any higher tax revenues allocable to it, that guarantees it won’t be deficit-neutral.

You could tell us now if Trump's administration is going to raise/ not raise the federal fuel tax, which is allocable to highways and bridges. A huge hike (e.g. tripling it) would provide a rational basis for forecasting that the highways and bridges part of the the infrastructure plan would be deficit-neutral. Of course, the rest of it would remain unaddressed.  

My first post (Nov. 22) on this topic had some questions. Your answer remains 'blank out' or 'blah blah blah'. 

[3] I didn't say anything like America won't make more money. But I don't conflate the federal government with the USA as a whole the way you do. My focus has been on the federal government, a big part of which will be headed by Donald Trump come January 20.

 

[merjet]

22 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

Trump to Announce Carrier Plant Will Keep Jobs in U.S.

I expected that MSK would post about the Carrier news. Of course, he probably thinks it's all huuuugely spectacular. Following are some other views with links about it.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

UT = United Technologies = Carrier's parent company

"By admission, then, roughly half of the workforce that was slated to be cut and shipped off to Mexico is still destined for the chopping block.
    UT had planned to offshore its Indiana manufacturing, saving $65 million in labor costs in the process. We don’t know the precise terms of the “inducements” Pence offered Carrier, but they are likely taxpayer-provided enticements in the form of tax incentives. UT, a defense contractor, already collects approximately $5.6 billion in revenue from the federal government."  (Crony Capitalism, GOP Style). 

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

"He also could be swinging a hammer of government."

"This is a sliding scale of government interference in the market."

"At one end of it, Trump would be acting like a lot of governors, who throw state subsidies at companies that announce plans to skip the state."

"Tyler Cowen sketched such a scenario in a column this week on how Trump might move to block companies from moving capital overseas" (The huge unanswered questions about Trump’s deal to save Indiana jobs).

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

"In other words, the Trump program for protectionism could go far beyond interference in international trade. It also could bring the kind of crony capitalist nightmare scenarios described by Ayn Rand in her novel “Atlas Shrugged,” a book many Republican legislators would be well advised to now read or reread." 

"On Thanksgiving, Trump claimed to be negotiating with Carrier Corporation to forestall plant closure and keep jobs in the United States. Expect a Trump victory, as the parent company of Carrier, United Technologies, is one of the nation’s largest military contractors. Bernie Sanders already has advised Trump to use these defense contracts as a means of leverage" (Trump's Disastrous Pledge to Keep Jobs in the U.S.). 

I recommend reading Cowen's entire article. He is a pro-free market economics professor at George Mason University.

[merjet]

20 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

Here are a couple of the doofuses who don't have a clue about the meaning of "revenue neutral," or are ass-kissers who will work to hide Trump's woeful incompetence.

How do you know they don't know the meaning of "revenue neutral" when the video doesn't discuss it? How do you get something out of nothing? 

Mr. Trump might not take kindly to your calling him woefully incompetent and two of his cabinet picks doofuses and ass-kissers.    

Image 1    Image 2    

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

1 hour ago, merjet said:

Mr. Trump might not take kindly to your calling him woefully incompetent and two of his cabinet picks doofuses and ass-kissers.

Merlin,

Are you serious?

You don't know anything about rhetoric?

I was speaking sarcastically as if this were your view.

Come on, man.

The hunger for winning through gotcha can't be that strong that you don't see it.

You sound like some of the mainstream press that has taken Trump's quips literally, then been laughed at by the public.

Michael

[merjet]

19 minutes ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

Are you serious?

What was the 2nd emoticon -- now the 4th -- was intended to go with what you quoted.

[merjet]

I present some "back of the envelope" numbers about Mr. Trump's infrastructure proposal. 

Federal income taxes for the fiscal year ended 9/30/2016 are $2.1 trillion. Make Trump's rosy assumption that GDP will be 6% higher. That suggests -- with the same tax rates -- federal income taxes of about $0.126 (=2.1 x 0.06) trillion, or $126 billion higher.

Mr. Trump's proposal is to spend $1 trillion over the next 10 years, equivalent to $100 billion per year. So the boost in income taxes appears to cover the infrastucture spending ($126 billion versus $100 billion). But hold on. There are two obvious problems with that. What if GDP is only 4% higher, which is still optimistic? Then the boost in income taxes is only $84 billion, which implies a deficit. Second, both the $126 billion and $84 billion assume no lower tax rates, and Trump wants to cut income taxes. How much does it mean in dollars? Who can know with the multiple plans Trump proposed during the campaign? And his Treasury pick has yet other ideas (link to Forbes).

His Treasury pick said he believes the U.S. economy can grow at a sustained rate of 3 percent to 4 percent (link), which suggests a deficit at the get-go. If actual GDP growth is lower yet, that suggests an even bigger deficit.
 
Of course, before anything can be implemented, it all goes through the "sausage factory". And who knows what the sausage will be like?

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

2 hours ago, merjet said:

I expected that MSK would post about the Carrier news. Of course, he probably thinks it's all huuuugely spectacular.

Merlin,

You got that right.

It's just a harbinger of the massive success to come, but what a PR score!

And, ah me... the nay-sayers who live in the land of words only...

I got really tickled by the following quote you posted from Cowan (I presume it was Cowan):

2 hours ago, merjet said:

"It also could bring the kind of crony capitalist nightmare scenarios described by Ayn Rand in her novel “Atlas Shrugged,” a book many Republican legislators would be well advised to now read or reread."

The assumption that the globalism trade agreements currently in effect are not already crony capitalism, but will become crony capitalism by poking the cronies, is a howler.

There's only one way a person could make a mistake that big. He hangs around cronies or is a crony himself. In other words, he doesn't live where the problems are that the cronies cause, thus he doesn't believe the problems exist. Another way to say what Cowan said was articulated much more gracefully in earlier times during a famine and attributed to Marie Antoinette when told the people had no bread to eat: "Then let them eat cake."

 

Michael

[merjet]

3 minutes ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

You got that right.

It's just a harbinger of the massive success to come, but what a PR score!

MSK's messiah has arrived! 

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

1 hour ago, merjet said:

And who knows what the sausage will be like?

Merlin,

Don't you worry your pretty little heart about that. It will look a hell of a lot better than Obama's "shovel ready" accomplishments. It won't even be close.

Oh... what accomplishments?

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

3 minutes ago, merjet said:

MSK's messiah has arrived! 

Merlin,

Not a messiah.

A president who finally knows what the hell he is doing.

One who will not need much advanced math to get things done.

   

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Here ya' go.

Trump supporters are laughing their ass off about this, but you might enjoy it:

Michael

[william.scherk]

4 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

I got really tickled by the following quote you posted from Cowan (I presume it was Cowan):

7 hours ago, merjet said:

"It also could bring the kind of crony capitalist nightmare scenarios described by Ayn Rand in her novel “Atlas Shrugged,” a book many Republican legislators would be well advised to now read or reread."

The assumption that the globalism trade agreements currently in effect are not already crony capitalism, but will become crony capitalism by poking the cronies, is a howler.

"Crony capitalism" is a pretty elastic concept in some hands. How does one differentiate among economic activities that deserve the label and those that do not?  What are the edge conditions, or detection thresholds that help determine what are and what aren't?

cro·ny

ˈkrōnē/

noun

informalderogatory

noun: crony; plural noun: cronies

1. a close friend or companion.

   "he went gambling with his cronies"

   synonyms:

   friend, companion, bosom friend, intimate, confidant, confidante, familiar, associate,accomplice, comrade; More

The word "crony" adds a derogatory cast to a close relationship; crony does not cover all your relationships. Your business partner could be a 'crony' seen from outside the relationship, depending on attitude and perspective.

I think the derogatory inference is that the 'close companions,' the intimates and confidants, the comrades -- all are 'accomplices' or complicit. If it were a mob or a cartel, a 'members-only' club that gave benefits only to the club, which stood united against interests outside the crony nest.

Maybe an example that both Merlin and Michael can agree upon, even if only in imagination.  In other words, use ostensible definitions -- point to a person engaged in crony capitalism, point to a public figure whose business successes owe more to cronyism than to independent variables of personal drive, talent and gumption.

Should we look to Wall Street for an infestation of cronyism, or to the regulatory bodies that oversee banking and investment houses? In the latter case, we can point to the revolving door between Wall Street and oversight agencies. Or should we remain on the industry/capital/stock market beat, to see which 'cronies' have outwitted or evaded Leviathan on the Potomac?  Or who have leapt from business into government aided by the personal 'pull' of cronies or crony?

I'll leave that there to be further elaborated in discussion, and go think about how to make 'crony capitalism' a good working label for sorting out the faces and interests being 'rewarded' in the Trump administration.  It could be that there will be no  crony-capitalism 'rewards' doled out by the administration, no favours or powers bestowed on confidants or intimates or accomplices (in the non-hinky sense or accomplishment not crime). 

4 hours ago, merjet said:

MSK's messiah has arrived! 

Making fun of Michael's devotion to a cause and a change agent?  That is okay. It sure seems like a hot love affair or a cult affiliation at times. Don't say a word against the Leader. The Leader can do no wrong, so all critical attention is suspect.   That sets up discussion for failure. Far better to treat each other like reasonably intelligent people who may not understand the other's argument fully. 

4 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

Don't you worry your pretty little heart about that.

Yeah, like that.

So, the question asked of the two gentlemen and gentle readers.  Is there a danger of expanded crony capitalism under Mr Thompson? Under Mr Trump?  Under a Wall Street/Goldman Sachs crony of cronies?

I must go find an adequate definition of Crony Capitalism, one that all can agree on. Then we could examine items from a Crony List, and we can ask Cui Bono of some new government employees.   Will the new Commerce Secretary, for example, over-weight allegiance to his 'friends' and 'companions' and partners -- or simply to the Leader, that henceforth all other relationships are considered extinguished?

If Mr Thompson favoured a particular hotelier, for example, and that hotelier marketed to those wanting the ear of Mr Thompson, and Mr Thompson made economic edicts favouring a small set of those who got his ear ... who are the cronies, who are the capitalists, who are the governors, and who are the beneficiaries of Mr Thompson's ability to decree law? ... in this allegorical instance.

Who  is Steve Mnuchin? Who is John Galt?  Who is Midas Mulligan? Who is Ivanka Trump?

Who is in bed with whom?

Snatched from the jaws of Google!

 

In the news

In Carrier Deal, Trump Is Taking Credit for Some Blatant Crony Capitalism

The Nation.‎ - 21 hours ago

Donald Trump, who claimed to be uniquely positioned to fight special interests in ...

Crony Capitalism, GOP Style

Commentary Magazine‎ - 1 day ago

Carrier, Trump, and America's lurch into crony capitalism - AEI

American Enterprise Institute‎ - 2 hours ago

More news for Crony

 

 

 

 

Edited December 1, 2016 by william.scherk
Snatched from the jaws of Google ... twice

[Mikee]

The moves on the left (recounts, faithless elector reports, lawsuits intended to stop the electoral college and move the "election" to congress) make me wonder what would happen if they actually managed to install Hillary Clinton.  I looked it up:  If the election is overturned

Excerpt: "

• A huge malaise will fall all over the country as millions of people outside the Democrat strongholds will realize that the vote really does mean nothing, and this country has been sold out to the globalists.
• Across the country people will not work at any productive level because it doesn’t matter, there is nothing to work for or towards as anything can be taken away—their vote—their jobs.

"

Yep.

Excerpt #2: " At this point in the process, has anyone advocating this recount, or all the other attempts to overturn the election, considered any of the possible implications? Or is their blind lust for power so insatiable, that nothing matters except what they want? I’m not talking about decent Democrats who don’t like the election outcome, but aren’t trying to overturn it. I’m talking about the clandestine operatives who have no purpose other than the acquisition of power, by any means, regardless of what it will do to this country, and all the wonderful people in it who just want their country to work. I really question at this time the motivations of the recount crowd. "

[Peter]

William wrote: I must go find an adequate definition of Crony Capitalism, one that all can agree on. end quote

In the case of (a portion of) “The Carrier Corporation” staying in America has Trump just committed “crony capitalism?” He is certainly bragging about his success inhabiting “the bully pulpit”. And he sure pissed Obama off so that must be good, right? And the plant’s workers and the corporate owners are praising Trump’s success. But has he taken away government restrictions to get Carrier to stay or has he just given his cronies a handout? Robert Tracinski is laughing at Trump supporters by saying, did you really think he would drain the swamp? He hasn’t. He has merely replaced the old frogs with his frogs.

Peter 

[william.scherk]

34 minutes ago, Mikee said:

The moves on the left (recounts, faithless elector reports, lawsuits intended to stop the electoral college and move the "election" to congress) make me wonder what would happen if they actually managed to install Hillary Clinton.

Not gonna happen, sad for Them. 

A recount, though -- why is a recount bad, in itself?  I mean, in the way that an audit could be bad, as an abuse of process?

If a forensic audit is sued for in, eg Pennsylvania and Virginia, or if a GOP entity sought a hand-recount of particular counties said to be at risk of electoral fraud -- how does one add 'good' and 'bad' stickers to the proceedings? (not to mention the procedural routes available to investigate the 3,000,000 votes in states X, Y, and Z that Mr Trump says were illegal, null, void, rigging, criminal)

In the case** of Wisconsin, the rules for recounts are fairly transparent. Whether the request was buttressed by actual claims of "irregularities,"  that process is available to any partisan formation supporting an individual on the ballot. 

Another recount 'move' is in North Carolina, which has not yet certified a victor. 

Quote

After the State Board of Elections effectively rejected Republican protests about ineligible voters, Durham County is the last point of contention in the unresolved governor’s race – and the N.C. Republican Party said Tuesday that a recount there could resolve the election within days.

The board will meet Wednesday afternoon to review a request for a recount of early votes in Durham County.

As the final absentee and provisional ballots are tallied this week, Democrat Roy Cooper had a lead of around 9,800 votes late Tuesday over Republican Gov. Pat McCrory. McCrory is entitled to a statewide recount if the margin remains under 10,000 votes.

Cooper got 79 percent of the vote in Durham County, and the Democratic stronghold has been a frequent target of Republican election complaints.

Republicans want about 90,000 Durham ballots to be recounted by hand, arguing that they were counted by faulty machines on Election Day. The Durham County Board of Elections, which like all county election boards is controlled by Republicans, rejected the request, saying there was no evidence of irregularities or misconduct.

“We have an opportunity to bring the 2016 election to a close within the next few days,” NC GOP executive director Dallas Woodhouse said at a news conference Tuesday morning. “Durham County is going to recount its votes, or the entire state will if that is an option.”

Woodhouse also rejected speculation that the state legislature might intervene and use its power to decide the governor’s race. “That will never happen,” he said, adding that suggestions to the contrary are “demagoguery at the highest order.”

 

_______________

** [22,177 votes separate Clinton and Trump]

A recount is different than an audit and is more rigorous, Haas explained.  More than 100 reporting units across the state were randomly selected for a separate audit of their voting equipment as required by state law, and that process has already begun.  Electronic voting equipment audits determine whether all properly-marked ballots are accurately tabulated by the equipment.  In a recount, all ballots (including those that were originally hand counted) are examined to determine voter intent before being retabulated. In addition, the county boards of canvassers will examine other documents, including poll lists, written absentee applications, rejected absentee ballots, and provisional ballots before counting the votes. 

Haas noted that the Commission’s role is to order the recount, to provide legal guidance to the counties during the recount, and to certify the results.  If the candidates disagree with the results of the recount, the law gives them the right to appeal in circuit court within five business days after the recount is completed.  The circuit court is where issues are resolved that may be discovered during the recount but are not resolved to the satisfaction of the candidates. 

“Wisconsin has the most decentralized election system in the United States,” Haas said. “The system has strong local control coupled with state oversight, resting on the partnership between the Wisconsin Elections Commission, the 72 county clerks, and the 1,854 municipal clerks. State law clearly gives each county’s Board of Canvassers the primary authority to conduct the recount, and to decide which ballots should and should not be counted.  Recounting votes is an open, transparent process in which each of the candidates may have representatives present to raise objections, and where the public may be present to observe.” 

[Mikee]

15 minutes ago, william.scherk said:

Not gonna happen, sad for Them.  [??]

A recount, though -- why is a recount bad, in itself?  I mean, in the way that an audit could be bad, as an abuse of process?

I really don't have a problem with recounts or any kind of objective quality control with regard to the election process.  I do have a problem with abusing the election process and costing taxpayers millions of dollars to no purpose.  If you imagine actually finding wrongdoing in the election process is the goal of the democrat party I think you are very naive or else lying about it.  The left has this game down cold and have been honing their skill at it for many decades.  I lived in Berkeley and Oakland CA in the 70's and early 80's.  I was politically active in the Libertarian party at that time, but had many conversations, discussions, arguments with leftists, including radicals, anarchists, Marxists, socialists and who knows what.  My impressions of those years are most Libertarians are well meaning and honest, some are very thoughtful scholars and well read.  Leftists of all stripes laugh in delight at the thought of any new nefarious scheme to steal votes.  Any means to their end, the ethical sense of sewer rats.  They want power, all of it, and are self righteous about it.  Libertarians just want to be left alone.  Conservatives want peace, prosperity, security, an intact Constitution and otherwise to be left alone.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

3 hours ago, william.scherk said:

"Crony capitalism" is a pretty elastic concept in some hands. How does one differentiate among economic activities that deserve the label and those that do not?  What are the edge conditions, or detection thresholds that help determine what are and what aren't?

William,

Ah me, here come the word games.

I once had a friend in Brazil who went to study at the Rimsky Korsakov Conservatory in St Petersburg (called Leningrad at the time). He came back a fully indoctrinated communist. In one of my arguments with him, I mentioned that one test of how oppressive a government is lies in how easy it is to leave the country. He said it was perfectly easy the leave the Soviet Union. All one had to do was reimburse the state for all the money the state had invested in the person since birth and that person could leave. I asked him where a person could work over there to get money that did not involve the state. He smiled and said something like that's a problem for the person to figure out.

Modern business is in a pretty similar situation. But I'll play for a bit. Crony capitalism is when there is collusion between the government and specific businesses to keep competitors off the market for insiders and, through different means (obscure and otherwise) siphon government funds into the coffers of those insider businesses.

When the government holds all the cards in highly regulated industries like real estate, an entrepreneur has no choice but to involve the government. But you can tell the cronies from the more honest "Rand-like" business people in the thirst they have for procuring government funds. The crony will not be satisfied with tax breaks, approval of paperwork, permits, and things like that. He will want at least two more things: (1) For the government to increase regulations that he can bear or be exempt from, but that throttle newcomers, and (2) Receive money that does not come from honest market competition, but instead from coercion and sleaze.

The "Rand-like" business people are in the position of the folks trying to leave the Soviet Union above. There is no way NOT to involve the government. But they would not involve the government in any of their business dealings if they had a choice. The fact is, they don't have a choice and it's cognitively wrong and even hypocritical to call them hypocrites for "choosing" to work with the government and survive it. How can one choose something where no choice is available? Did blacks of old choose to be slaves just because they preferred to live in chains rather than commit suicide?

Critics can look at what Trump is going to be doing over the next few months disentangling the current crony capitalism mess and call him a crony because he is not only involving the government, he is the leader of the government. And they are going to ignore that Trump can't NOT involve the government to fix it. The government is already involved.

In this case, I think it is wonderful he is not an ideologue. There's a ton of work to do and he just doesn't have time to get bogged down in word games and gotcha. Is he going to make some mistakes? Inevitably. He's a human being and an entrepreneur to boot. Failing is one component of the job description (especially of being human  ). But he is going to make tons and tons of successes. He'll worry about people bestowing or withholding their moral sanctions later. Right now he needs them out of his way. And... (this is the beautiful part)... since he is the leader of the government, he is simply going to sweep them out of his way as he rolls up his sleeves.

 

There is one ugly nasty thing the cronies want that Trump will take apart like yesterday. The cronies want endless unwinnable wars so they can profit with backstage deals where they collude with both sides of the wars and pay off who needs paying off. It's sweet work if you can get it because you get to literally and legally kill your competition if you can swing enough corrupt pull. Too bad about all those bloody kids from places like Aleppo that the crony-controlled press likes to fuss over with virtue signalling on steroids to get the public to approve of more endless unwinnable war. The bloody kids are just the cost of playing the crony game, but thank God, think the cronies, that the cronies and their families never have to pay that part. Thank God they were born to a superior class.

   

Trump is going to bring that particular crony game to a screeching halt. And man are these people going to howl. They can, too, since they control much of the press. But it won't make a damn bit if difference to the clean-up. The majority of the public thinks the press--the conry-controlled press--is propaganda and entertainment and nothing more. (And it is.)

That's just a little about crony capitalism. May I suggest a book to explain more?

It's called Atlas Shrugged by Ayn Rand.

 

If you crack that book open, see if you can detect the difference between the business practices of James Taggart and Orren Boyle as opposed to Dagny Taggart and Hank Rearden, especially the times Dagny and Hank had to bribe people just to keep their businesses open and avert major disasters in the face of oppressive laws. If you think both sides are playing the same crony game, I'm not sure I will be able to explain the difference between crony capitalism and free market capitalism.

In short, the cronies want and need the government to compete on the market because they need help to cheat. They are cheaters at root, not producers. The free market people are much happier without the government coercion when they can get it.

Obama recently issued thousands and thousands of pages more of regulations. And the economy shows it. That's a direction towards cronyism.

Watch what direction Trump takes the economy in (the free market direction). His first hands-on passes (like this Carrier deal) may not serve the standards of the on-off gotcha folks (especially as he takes apart the globalism cartel protections), but the reality will be beautiful--not for the elites, but for people like you and me if we want a piece.

If you get coerced money and want to buy cheap stuff, you will accuse Trump of not being in favor of free trade. You kinda forget the "free" part in the term "free trade" regarding the money you receive. If you produce your money from producing wealth (true free trade) and want cheap stuff, you will issue a big sigh of relief and finally be able to get to work without trying to navigate a bunch of shackles all over you.

 

Michael

[anthony]

Mike one and Mike two - take a bow.

[william.scherk]

1 hour ago, Mikee said:

If you imagine actually finding wrongdoing in the election process is the goal of the democrat party I think you are very naive or else lying about it.

You seem nice.

More seriously, that just seems like an on/off button. Naive or dishonest  Not my best look.

-- as to Wisconsin, Jill Steiniacs will pay the bill.  I think she is a conspiracy-ridden opportunist and a crank, and that her goals are attention if not mischief, but since I believe the recount will not change the result, it doesn't matter outside that effect, that certification of probity. In the end, the integrity of Wisconsin's election will be proofed. On/off.  That is a good thing to my eyes regardless of the half-baked commie insurgency-in-a-basement-suite that initiated it. Make a claim about my girlfriend being a skank, you better back it up, bitch. My girlfriend being the thousand and one responsible polities that ran the November 8 election in Wisconsin, bitch.

The audit will likely reveal a well-functioning machine. Or skankiness. Or perhaps something in between.

It [on-does] matters [off/not] that California, New Hampshire and Virginia have had their electoral integrity called into doubt (insert dimmer command here). The claim has been made from on high. Why those three particular claims have not coalesced into a Steinian strategy to forensically inspect the outcomes ... I don't know.  I think such claims should be put to the test of a transparent recount or comprehensive audit. Back it up, bitch.

Why not?  Surely some of Mr Thompson's cronies can pay for the proofing or put the plan to crowdsourced funding. I see no leadership here, no follow-through, just a lot of fizz and Alex Jones.

What happened that was fraudulent in Virginia? In New Hampshire? What electoral hijinks would be revealed by a transparent re-do of what happened when the polls closed in California?  Can riggedy-biggity be rooted out and punished?

Why not combat those claimed wholesale scams with the harshest scrutiny?

To all these questions, I think it depends on whose ox is being gored. Until I see some money where mouth is, I think any huffing about Stein-led mischief as especially awful is a two-faced tactic from Trumplandia. Ox on, ox off, put claims to the test. You yes, me no. She puts her claims to the test and she is a stupid commie bitch. I avoid putting my claims to the test and she is still a commie.

She, demented also-rans, and thousand points of commie pink blinking will get nothing but a triple 'crank' vote from me, but that still leaves the mischief from the trumpets of His Highness.  Or lèse-majesté ...

Or is it skank for the goose and something something for the gander?

Edited December 1, 2016 by william.scherk

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

49 minutes ago, william.scherk said:

What happened that was fraudulent in Virginia? In New Hampshire?

William,

Actually I wouldn't mind a recount there, too.

Stein's people aren't as enthusiastic about keeping our voting process honest and pure when that comes up.

Come on, admit it. You're kinda scraping the bottom of the barrel when you have to outright pardon 60,000 felons to win an election.

I gotta give the VA gov. credit for creativity, though.

Michael

[Jules Troy]

DJIA is over 19k and climbing and he hasn't even taken office yet...