[ldrews]

 cherdano, on 2017-March-11, 17:24, said:

Also, ldrews thinks it's a great idea to tell great things about your healthcare plans during the campaign, and after the election, and at the state of the union, then endorse a completely different plan two weeks later.

I guess to Trump fanboys, it's only a lie or betrayal when a non-Trump politician says or does it. Their unwavering admiration for The Leader is so cute and charming.

I don't remember saying any such thing. Are you practicing to enter fiction writing as a career?

As I keep repeating, but some folks seem unable to hear, I watch what he does, not what he says. I do note that he seems to be attempting to keep his campaign promises. Areas that he has authority over he has issued Executive Orders to implement his campaign promises. For those items requiring congressional action/approval he has initiated actions or supported ongoing actions of congress. Of course he has no control over what congress does or does not do.

Of course there are some campaign promises he has not kept, most notably to put Clinton in jail. Are you complaining that he has not fulfilled that campaign promise?

[Al_U_Card]

 ldrews, on 2017-March-11, 20:55, said:

Of course there are some campaign promises he has not kept, most notably to put Clinton in jail. Are you complaining that he has not fulfilled that campaign promise?

Obama was straightforward in his promises to go full "boutique" for his faithful. The video I posted on another thread shows why 97% (sorry, couldn't resist) of counties voted Trump. Restricting the EPA to real pollution control and ceasing its enforcement of congressional purview items (instead of using legislation, as slow as that may have become) is a promise worth keeping. The vitriol pouring out is a case of influence-loser's angst. I am not a fan of the corporatizing of our society, be it indirect (Dems) or direct (Reps). Trump may be even worse for this but, as you say, time will tell and keeping an eye on him is a wise course in any event.

[kenberg]

 ldrews, on 2017-March-11, 20:55, said:

I don't remember saying any such thing. Are you practicing to enter fiction writing as a career?

As I keep repeating, but some folks seem unable to hear, I watch what he does, not what he says. I do note that he seems to be attempting to keep his campaign promises. Areas that he has authority over he has issued Executive Orders to implement his campaign promises. For those items requiring congressional action/approval he has initiated actions or supported ongoing actions of congress. Of course he has no control over what congress does or does not do.

Of course there are some campaign promises he has not kept, most notably to put Clinton in jail. Are you complaining that he has not fulfilled that campaign promise?

"As I keep repeating, but some folks seem unable to hear, I watch what he does, not what he says."
I have noted this. It is one place where we see things differently. I think that what a president says is very important. Or any leader. I believe it was Nixon who said "A great nation cannot bluff". I also think that routinely insulting people is a very bad approach. There was a very capable guy who was being considered for chair of our department. A good guy, a talented guy. But if he had a choice between responding "No" or "Go F yourself" he would invariably choose the latter. [OK, I am exaggerating. But not by much.] He was not chosen. Trump comes across as an impulsive irresponsible jerk. At some point he will need the country as a whole to back him in a moment of crisis. That's going to be tough. After 9-11 GWB suggested that we all go shopping. I did not care much for that, even if the intent was to keep the markets up, but that's a quibble. In general, I and the rest of the country were prepared to give him our support. Not carte blanche, but support. I would have trouble doing this with Trump/

Actions speak louder than words. True enough. But words are also a form of action.The Mexican president was a terrific guy, Mexico was wonderful, etc until there was a disagreement. Then he was a toad. I do not believe either that excessive public praise or excessive public contempt is the right route. Set general objectives, don't tweet, and get to work resolving differences. That's what I would like to see him do.

[y66]

 Al_U_Card, on 2017-March-12, 03:27, said:

Obama was straightforward in his promises to go full "boutique" for his faithful. The video I posted on another thread shows why 97% (sorry, couldn't resist) of counties voted Trump. Restricting the EPA to real pollution control and ceasing its enforcement of congressional purview items (instead of using legislation, as slow as that may have become) is a promise worth keeping. The vitriol pouring out is a case of influence-loser's angst. I am not a fan of the corporatizing of our society, be it indirect (Dems) or direct (Reps). Trump may be even worse for this but, as you say, time will tell and keeping an eye on him is a wise course in any event.

I misclicked the +1 button. What do you mean by "real pollution control"? And what do you mean by full "boutique" for the faithful? If anything, Obama was to the right of center on issues that mattered most to Dems until November 2014 when he finally woke up to the fact that this was a hopeless strategy. What you describe as vitriol pouring out looks like a lot of other people finally waking up to me.

[ldrews]

 kenberg, on 2017-March-12, 09:00, said:

"As I keep repeating, but some folks seem unable to hear, I watch what he does, not what he says."
I have noted this. It is one place where we see things differently. I think that what a president says is very important. Or any leader. I believe it was Nixon who said "A great nation cannot bluff". I also think that routinely insulting people is a very bad approach. There was a very capable guy who was being considered for chair of our department. A good guy, a talented guy. But if he had a choice between responding "No" or "Go F yourself" he would invariably choose the latter. [OK, I am exaggerating. But not by much.] He was not chosen. Trump comes across as an impulsive irresponsible jerk. At some point he will need the country as a whole to back him in a moment of crisis. That's going to be tough. After 9-11 GWB suggested that we all go shopping. I did not care much for that, even if the intent was to keep the markets up, but that's a quibble. In general, I and the rest of the country were prepared to give him our support. Not carte blanche, but support. I would have trouble doing this with Trump/

Actions speak louder than words. True enough. But words are also a form of action.The Mexican president was a terrific guy, Mexico was wonderful, etc until there was a disagreement. Then he was a toad. I do not believe either that excessive public praise or excessive public contempt is the right route. Set general objectives, don't tweet, and get to work resolving differences. That's what I would like to see him do.

Believe me, I wish we had a better person for President, but Trump was the only one promising the changes that I think are sorely needed. Since he seems to be following through on those promises, I continue to support him while cringing all of the time.

[awm]

Okay, let's look at things Trump has actually done. I believe the following show a lack of basic ethics and/or governing competency, regardless of your opinion of his positions:

Appointed a national security advisor who was working as an agent of a foreign government, who then had to resign. Claimed he didn't even know about it (so much for "extreme vetting.")
Discussed a response to a North Korean missile test over dinner in his resort (so much for security).
Received a number of (weirdly expedited) trademarks from the Chinese government and suddenly changed his opinion on One China policy.
Spent taxpayers' money for vacations at a record-setting pace... and unlike Obama a lot of the taxpayer money for his security goes right into his pocket.
Rolled out his "Muslim ban" in a way that was so confusing that border agents did not know whether it applied to citizens, green-card holders, etc.
Still has a huge number of unfilled posts in his government, apparently because he can't find anyone loyal enough to him to fill the positions.
Appointed his son-in-law to a high position in government, has his daughter sit in on meetings with foreign leaders.
He's already being sued for using the presidency to financially benefit himself.

In terms of his campaign promises, he seems to be well on his way to fulfilling the worst of them:

His racist, anti-Latino approach to immigration is well underway, with parents being separated from children, pillars of their community being removed from the country, and DREAMers being rounded up.
His racist, anti-Muslim approach to entering the country has been ordered twice already.
Appointed a white-nationalist to the national security council.
His promise to create jobs has (so far) lead to a series of orders permitting oil, gas, and coal companies to pollute our environment.. as well as one month's job totals which were lauded by Republicans despite being exactly the same as Obama's job totals for the same month each of the last two years.

While the ones that potentially make some sense are pretty much nowhere:

His promise to "drain the swamp" has pretty much gone by the wayside, as he appointed a cabinet full of billionaires and Goldman-Sachs execs.
His promised infrastructure bill is nowhere to be seen.
His promise to replace Obamacare with "something great" where "everyone is covered" has become an endorsement of the House Republican plan which throws millions off their insurance in order to provide tax cuts to the 1%.

[ldrews]

 awm, on 2017-March-12, 09:56, said:

Okay, let's look at things Trump has actually done. I believe the following show a lack of basic ethics and/or governing competency, regardless of your opinion of his positions:

Appointed a national security advisor who was working as an agent of a foreign government, who then had to resign. Claimed he didn't even know about it (so much for "extreme vetting.")
Discussed a response to a North Korean missile test over dinner in his resort (so much for security).
Received a number of (weirdly expedited) trademarks from the Chinese government and suddenly changed his opinion on One China policy.
Spent taxpayers' money for vacations at a record-setting pace... and unlike Obama a lot of the taxpayer money for his security goes right into his pocket.
Rolled out his "Muslim ban" in a way that was so confusing that border agents did not know whether it applied to citizens, green-card holders, etc.
Still has a huge number of unfilled posts in his government, apparently because he can't find anyone loyal enough to him to fill the positions.
Appointed his son-in-law to a high position in government, has his daughter sit in on meetings with foreign leaders.
He's already being sued for using the presidency to financially benefit himself.

In terms of his campaign promises, he seems to be well on his way to fulfilling the worst of them:

His racist, anti-Latino approach to immigration is well underway, with parents being separated from children, pillars of their community being removed from the country, and DREAMers being rounded up.
His racist, anti-Muslim approach to entering the country has been ordered twice already.
Appointed a white-nationalist to the national security council.
His promise to create jobs has (so far) lead to a series of orders permitting oil, gas, and coal companies to pollute our environment.. as well as one month's job totals which were lauded by Republicans despite being exactly the same as Obama's job totals for the same month each of the last two years.

While the ones that potentially make some sense are pretty much nowhere:

His promise to "drain the swamp" has pretty much gone by the wayside, as he appointed a cabinet full of billionaires and Goldman-Sachs execs.
His promised infrastructure bill is nowhere to be seen.
His promise to replace Obamacare with "something great" where "everyone is covered" has become an endorsement of the House Republican plan which throws millions off their insurance in order to provide tax cuts to the 1%.

I think you have valid criticisms. Trump is obviously inexperienced as a politician. He has/is making a number of rookie mistakes.

That said, he is also addressing what I think are sorely needed changes:

• Limiting access to the US by potential terrorists
  
• Improving/enforcing immigration laws
  
• Renegotiating adverse trade agreements
  
• Appointing cabinet members whose job it is to reduce/improve agencies
  
• Initiate programs to reduce/eliminate regulations
  
• Modernize the military
  
• Replace a failing health care system
  
• Initiate new approaches to the educational systems
  
• etc.

As long as he continues to make these kinds of changes, I will continue to support him.

I would also be happy to support any other candidate who has a better persona and better political experience who will also address these issues in a strong manner. Do you have a prospect?

[Winstonm]

One thought on the market/private enterprise model verses government-intervention model is that markets and private enterprise have no power to compel compliance. It is problematic that the mentally ill cannot be compelled by markets or churches to take medicines, nor can churches or markets incarcerate the mentally ill for lengthy stays for their good and the good of societies.

There are some things markets do best and other things governments do better. The trick is figuring out which is which. To do so requires responding to data, facts, rather than reliance on intuition or ideology.

[Al_U_Card]

 y66, on 2017-March-12, 09:40, said:

I misclicked the +1 button. What do you mean by "real pollution control"? And what do you mean by full "boutique" for the faithful? If anything, Obama was to the right of center on issues that mattered most to Dems until November 2014 when he finally woke up to the fact that this was a hopeless strategy. What you describe as vitriol pouring out looks like a lot of other people finally waking up to me.

CO2 is only a pollutant by EPA ruling. It is essential to life and beneficial at much greater concentrations than present levels. Obama committed large sums to "green" (feel good but do no good) projects that only enriched banks and investors. Bankruptcies (Solyndra) and wasteful "environmentally friendly" subsidized processes have destroyed lives and weakened the energy security of the nation. At least they are awake then....now if only they can pay attention.
And p.s. what do you mean by hopeless....it worked for Trump...lol

[barmar]

 ldrews, on 2017-March-12, 10:21, said:

Replace a failing health care system

So all that matters is that he's replacing a system you don't like? It doesn't matter that the proposed replacement has extremely serious problems of its own, and doesn't actually fulfill his campaign promise of healthcare for everyone?

Is anything good as long as it's not Obamacare?

[Winstonm]

Here is a Republican I still find admirable: John Kasich

Quote

Asked how to get Democrats involved when the president is saying such things, Kasich lamented the politics of seemingly everything in Washington.

“Look, I believe the political parties are disintegrating before our very eyes. I think more and more people across this country see no purpose for political parties,” he said.

“There are more and more independents because of the squabbling,” he continued. “What's at risk here to Democrats is you can't turn your back on these people. And to Republicans, you need to invite Democrats in because we're talking about lives.”

Failing to work together to improve America’s health care system, Kasich added, could have dire consequences.

“All this consumption with who gains politically — you know, life is short,” Kasich said. “And if all you focus on in life is what's in it for me, you're a loser. You are a big-time loser. And this country better be careful we're not losing the soul of our country because we play politics and we forget people who are in need.”

[mike777]

 Winstonm, on 2017-March-12, 10:25, said:

One thought on the market/private enterprise model verses government-intervention model is that markets and private enterprise have no power to compel compliance. It is problematic that the mentally ill cannot be compelled by markets or churches to take medicines, nor can churches or markets incarcerate the mentally ill for lengthy stays for their good and the good of societies.

There are some things markets do best and other things governments do better. The trick is figuring out which is which. To do so requires responding to data, facts, rather than reliance on intuition or ideology.

You make an excellent point. In regards to this point one thing markets can provide is money, money to the government to pay for care. Another thing markets can provide are competing viewpoints and treatment options in this area. Governments tend to get locked into reliance on one set of ideas of treatment rather than let them compete against each other. Governments by their very nature tend to get locked into protection mode of what the are doing compared with markets who tend to be more open to destruction and replace.

[ldrews]

 barmar, on 2017-March-12, 14:15, said:

So all that matters is that he's replacing a system you don't like? It doesn't matter that the proposed replacement has extremely serious problems of its own, and doesn't actually fulfill his campaign promise of healthcare for everyone?

Is anything good as long as it's not Obamacare?

At this time it would appear so. But as you point out, the problem is coming up with an improved version. Given the ideological imperatives at work the definition of "better" is suspect. Depends on the ideology of the definer.

The current system seems to be imploding. The question becomes do you stick with the known but deteriorating system or do you take the gamble of trying a new system. The new system is not guaranteed to be "better" and given political realities can probably never be guaranteed to be "better".

To me it is similar to the recent election choice: stick with the status quo candidate or gamble with the change candidate. Depends on how much you think change is needed.

[Vampyr]

 Winstonm, on 2017-March-11, 13:16, said:

At least one study points to Comey as the reason for President Trump.

I thought this was known by pretty much everyone already.

 ldrews, on 2017-March-11, 20:55, said:

Of course there are some campaign promises he has not kept, most notably to put Clinton in jail. Are you complaining that he has not fulfilled that campaign promise?

In jail for what?

 ldrews, on 2017-March-12, 09:51, said:

Believe me, I wish we had a better person for President, but Trump was the only one promising the changes that I think are sorely needed. Since he seems to be following through on those promises, I continue to support him while cringing all of the time.

What changes?

[ldrews]

 Vampyr, on 2017-March-13, 00:47, said:

What changes?

You have got to be kidding!

[jogs]

Has anyone on the left noticed that the U.S. stock markets are up $4T? World markets are up trillions. If Trump is half as bad as the left claims, markets would be down.

[y66]

From 2017 Geneva Auto Show: Fast Cars and Diamond Dust

Quote

Ferraris that zoom to 211 mph. Royce-Royces with diamond-dusted paint. Dan Neil ponders the bubble economy as he tours the 2017 Geneva Auto Show.

STANDING AT THE TOP of the escalator between the two floors of Palexpo Hall 7, amid the crashing thunder and carbon-fiber lightning of the 87th Geneva International Motor Show, all I could see were bubbles, bubbles everywhere: delicate, iridescent, aching to pop.

The biggest is floating just across the ocean. The U.S. car market—upon whose riches these splendid European luxury brands now heavily depend—has grown steadily for seven years, with a record 17.5 million light-vehicle sales in 2016. In that time, low gas prices and low interest rates have combined to ease Americans into progressively larger, more expensive crossovers, trucks and SUVs, which also happen to be the vehicles most profitable to manufacturers.

GM sold 3 million vehicles in the U.S. in 2016 (10 million world-wide), had record earnings per share, and returned $4.8 billion to shareholders.

But there’s a lot of paper out—over $1 trillion in outstanding automotive loans in 2016, according to the credit-score company Equifax. About 20% of auto loan originations are subprime and delinquency rates have climbed steadily. And just like risky mortgages, delinquency-prone car loans are securitized, bundled and sold as asset-backed securities (ABS), which never worked out badly for anyone, ever.

Quietly, auto execs are worried sick about any contraction in auto-loan credit, but they would tear their tongue out before saying so on the record.

The Trump administration would like to keep the bubble floating, if possible.

The EPA is expected to undo future fuel-economy standards locked in during the last days of the Obama administration, the Corporate Average Fuel Economy standard, pegged to a nominal 54.5-mpg by model year 2025. EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt hasn’t committed to continuing the waiver by which California fuel-economy rules supersede the federal standards.

In force, such policies would act like automotive growth hormone, incentivizing sales of larger, thirstier vehicles by lowering the relative cost of compliance. That would help the domestic auto makers, certainly; it would also encourage European premium/luxury marques— Audi, Bentley, BMW, Mercedes-Benz, Land Rover and Volvo—to design and sell bigger vehicles in the States. Not that they need much encouragement. Each of these brands introduced new or enhanced crossover/SUV products at Geneva.

You may wonder what happens in the case of a sustained increase in the cost of gasoline, as occurred in the mid-2000s, when the average price of gas rose to more than $4 per gallon and people were literally trading Hummer H2s for Toyota Priuses. It was precisely GM’s wrongheaded product mix of big SUVs and trucks that popped its bubble and sent it fluttering into bankruptcy.

When the music of cheap gas stops, as it inevitably will, many of these fine, fat fellows will have nowhere to sit.

The U.S.’s reverse course on vehicle emissions reflects another sort of bubble. No other industrialized nation is considering looser standards on carbon emissions. In fact, fuel-economy and emissions rules in the European Union are getting tougher, with real-world driving tests and not simulated models. Cities from London to Paris to Beijing are preparing for low-emission and no-emission zones, which will be accessible only to battery-electric vehicles or plug-in hybrids.

Wrongheaded? A McLaren 650S and 4 rare steaks please.

[Winstonm]

 jogs, on 2017-March-13, 07:19, said:

Has anyone on the left noticed that the U.S. stock markets are up $4T? World markets are up trillions. If Trump is half as bad as the left claims, markets would be down.

Great for the oligarchs. Meaningless for the millions of poor and working poor. Nearly meaningless for what is left of the middle class.

And according to your analysis, George Bush was one of the worst presidents of all time as he was in office when the stock market collapsed.

[jogs]

 barmar, on 2017-March-12, 14:15, said:

So all that matters is that he's replacing a system you don't like? It doesn't matter that the proposed replacement has extremely serious problems of its own, and doesn't actually fulfill his campaign promise of healthcare for everyone?

Is anything good as long as it's not Obamacare?

Obamacare rates a F.
The current GOP plan is a D-.

[PassedOut]

One of the complaints of the Trumpkins is that "political correctness" makes contemporary life too bland. And it's true that you just don't see products advertised like these anymore:



I'm old enough to remember some of these, and happy that we've moved on.