14

Trump Triumph

Posted by Herb7734 1 month, 1 week ago to Politics
133 comments | Share | Best of... | Flag

Has any president, or world leader ever succeeded to the degree Trump has against suchch unrelenting opposition.


Add Comment

FORMATTING HELP

All Comments Hide marked as read Mark all as read

  • 10
    Posted by  $  allosaur 1 month, 1 week ago
    Me dino doesn't think so. Reagan had opposition but I don't recall such spews of raw hatred,.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by  $  Suzanne43 1 month, 1 week ago
      You're right. At the time of Reagan's presidency, the Democrats called him stupid, But the raw hatred wasn't there. Reagan had a sense of humor that the Democrats couldn't get past, and that helped him. Case in point, while trying to set him up to sound stupid, he was asked by the press how a visit with Bishop Tutu went, He replied, "So-so." Now the Liberals are so filled with hate that they are the ones who are stupid. And Trump is running rings around them.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • 10
        Posted by  $  WilliamShipley 1 month, 1 week ago
        What is significantly different here is that while the liberals hated Reagan and Bush, and still hate them, with Trump they also hate everyone who voted for him or has the temerity to support anything he is doing. They are determined to make a MAGA hat be equivalent to a KKK hood.

        This is a scorched earth, all inclusive hate.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by  $  Suzanne43 1 month ago
          And they are succeeding. I ordered a MAGA hat, and some friends said that I have to be careful where I wear it. The left's intimidation policies are working. I shouldn't have to be afraid of any hat that I choose to wear. This is the USofA not Cuba.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by JuliBMe 1 month ago
            If you are unafraid and can defend yourself, WEAR IT! However, there are a couple of places/circumstances where I would refrain from wearing it. One is a restaurant. You cannot defend against someone spitting or otherwise sabotaging your food in the kitchen. The other is if you have kids. Don't wear it at their school or other functions where your kids might have to deal with any loony leftist craziness.

            It's a sad commentary on the devolvement of our society at this time. However, it is what it is right now. Hopefully, we will start seeing SERIOUS punishment for leftist hate, intimidation, and crime. There will be no cure otherwise.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by  $  Suzanne43 1 month ago
              Sadly, you are right. As a rather frail old white lady, I am just what these bullies would consider a deserving victim of their hate and their intimidation. My dream is for every Trump supporter to wear a MAGA hat to show them that we unafraid.
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Posted by JuliBMe 1 month ago
                If all the Trump supporters wore their MAGA hats all the time while out and about, that would certainly make it harder for the cretins to act stupidly, wouldn't it? :-)
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                • Posted by  $  Suzanne43 1 month ago
                  I'd like to see it tried. You would think that the cretins would decide that since there are so many of us that it wouldn't be worth it, but then they are cretins, so who knows
                  Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by 1 month ago
              I will wear what I want where and when I want but I won't participate in any violence if I can avaoid it, but I will defend myself. Of course I have the advantage of being an old guy using a walker.
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by 1 month ago
      Reagan had a grandfatherly charm and humor that let him get away with almost anything. Trump is blasted for the very same issues but he retaliates no matter what the issue. No charm but plenty of grit.He is the living example of "Don't tread on me."
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by JuliBMe 1 month ago
        I actually think President Trump has TONS of charm. It's just an acquired taste. He's HILARIOUS and scrappy. I LOVE that in a man. LOL!
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by 1 month ago
          But.....he's not running for husband of the year. As some one previously mentioned, he's an aquired taste. But it's his actions that count. If he's typical of crazies, all I can say is we need more crazies in Washington.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by  $  Dobrien 1 month ago
        Don’t forget Reagan was an actor by profession.
        Hinkley , whose family was very good friends with the VP at the time virtually ended Reagan’ s presidency. IMHO President Reagan was way out of his league.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by bsmith51 1 month ago
          Have you seen or read Bret Baier's, Three Days In Moscow? The theme seems to be that Reagan, against the advice of all of his advisors and "experts" of the time, caused the USSR to repeatedly back down, ultimately leading to the Berlin Wall coming down and breakup of the Soviet Union.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by ewv 1 month ago
      Remember the TV interviews when he almost died from the assassination attempt and the left cheered it on, saying he deserved it? Does that count as spews of raw hatred?
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by  $  Olduglycarl 1 month, 1 week ago
    The demoncraps are just as ineffectual as the amateur russian hacks that tried to effect the election on twitter and fasist book.

    I think, Cave Men, by comparison, were much smarter and more human.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by  $  25n56il4 1 month ago
      I am a total Optimist. I cannot put my head around all this hate business, and free business! A young lady today being interviewed on TV said she grew up in a Socialist (Communist) country. She said they had 'equal' everything. Equality to have no hot running water. Equality to starve. Equality not to have any money. That's why she fled that country, it was so equal it collapsed! She loves America! I bet she's registered to vote!
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by  $  exceller 1 month, 1 week ago
    No.

    But it is not only Trump the left is united against.

    It is a global phenomenon.

    If you look at what's happening in the EU, it is the same pattern, maybe even worse.

    Often I have the notion that the left is borrowing its inane slogans and methods from the European liberals.

    Just to mention one example: there is a party in Hungary that is proposing to keep a list on all Jews in the country. They claim it is not anti-Semitic.

    Ilhan Omar introduced the same scenario here and if left unchecked, the left would run with it.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by 1 month ago
      (Yawn) What else is new? Scapgoating Jews has been a European pastime for 100 years and every time after all the suffering and death they come out stronger than before. I'm sure they could do without the suffering and death part, but talk about indominatible.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by DrZarkov99 1 month ago
        Jew-hating has been going on a lot longer than just the last century. One of the main points of the Spanish Inquisition was the demand that Jews convert, depart, or die. The play "Fiddler on the Roof" was all about the pogroms the Russians carried out against the Jews in the 1800s. Muslims have hated and persecuted Jews since the founding of Islam in the 600s. Zionism grew out of recognition that Jews had to have a national standing in order to survive.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by 1 month ago
      I personally have advocated our system without parties. Of course, that has been dismissed, but think about it, you'd never would have heard of Nancy Pelosicy.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by ArtIficiarius 1 month ago
        An amendment to the Constitution to abolish factional perquisites? Hell YES.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by  $  blarman 1 month ago
          It would take an amendment (or two), but I believe it could be done.

          The first would be to revise the Twelfth Amendment and eliminate party-line voting for President and Vice-President. Return the vote to its original idea: that the highest vote-getter becomes President and second-highest becomes Vice-President. That's really the only way a third party becomes viable.

          The second is a campaign finance-type law which says that only voter-aged, legal citizens may contribute money towards political campaigns - and that only within their respective voting district, i.e. if you can't directly vote for a person, you can't donate to them. Period. Say goodbye to unions and PAC's - including national political party committees. I think it would also eliminate these ridiculous fund-raising mandates coming from parties in order to get put in as a Committee Chair.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by ArtIficiarius 1 month ago
            Superlatively said. A reminder: The POTUS & VPOTUS votes are by the members of the Electoral College. I agree with the return to the original idea.

            How about only real individuals (persons) may purchase political advertisements. Abolish the purchase of political advertising by artificial persons or agents of either real or artificial persons.

            Convention of States, anyone?
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by ewv 1 month ago
              People do not lose their rights when they join a voluntary association. There are no "artificial persons": Doing something in the name of an organization does not make its supporters "artificial persons". That is why organizations are recognized as having rights of persons. Understanding that requires understanding the meaning of the abstract concepts. It does not mean that there are "artificial persons" running around as reified floating abstractions.

              It has nothing to do with a "convention of states", which mantra does not recognize the nature of the problem in bad ideas widely accepted. This has been discussed here previously. Repeating the slogan is not helpful.
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by ewv 1 month ago
            Say goodbye to freedom of speech "if you can't directly vote for a person, you can't donate to them. Period. Say goodbye to unions and PAC's..."

            All of these schemes evade the role of what people think, and the necessity of changing that to change an outcome for the course of the nation.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by  $  Dobrien 1 month, 1 week ago
    From Serialbrain2....
    - The Establishment against Trump
    Have you ever had this conversation with someone who thinks he has done enough research in what is commonly labeled as “conspiracy theory” to try to convince you that Trump was a hoax, was picked by the Establishment and that nothing will fundamentally change under his command? Some say he is a Zionist, others say he is an Illuminati, others, among the most sophisticated theorists, claim he is the Establishment’s Trump Card…

    Let’s get to the bottom of this.

    If someone challenges you about Trump being from the Establishment, one simple argument is this one: was Moses from the Egyptian Establishment? Wasn’t he a prince? How did his story end? So that’s that. Now let’s go further.

    Look at this picture, it was taken at Trump’s inauguration speech. Try to guess what these people have just heard: Imgur.

    They look devastated. Do you think their demeanor is fake? Would they be all acting perfectly at the same time? What did Trump say that made them all this angry and worried? This is what he said, look at their reaction at the end: video

    Did you catch it? Did you see how Bush was nervously trying to make eye contact with a lost in thought Obama while Hillary was agonizing drowning in her “private positions”? Here, I looped it for you: video.

    This is what I like about the BBC: their staff is full of high level intelligence officers. They know exactly where to look at any given time. You can check the BBC production team is the only one showing Obama, Bush and Clinton at this particular moment when Trump is violently deconstructing the treasonous globalist policy that has attacked America. These MI-n agents working at the BBC know this is the culminating point of Trump’s speech, they know this is the moment Trump has declared war against the Establishment they serve. Imgur

    “The Oath of Office I take today is an Oath of Allegiance to all Americans”. Do you realize what is going on here? Just like Kennedy, Trump is declaring war to all secret societies. He is implying: I am a free man, I have no allegiance to any secret society, no secret society trapped me to do any secret oath, my oath is public and unequivocal, I am an exclusive Servant of the American People. Whaaaaat? No 322 Skull and Bones or any similar gang involved? Are you kidding me? Let’s see what from-father-to-son-Skull-and-Bones George W Bush thinks about this: video

    “The Oath of Office I take today is an Oath of Allegiance to all Americans”. Trump is a free man. He intends to be a free POTUS. He is hereby establishing his political lineage with John F. Kennedy. You did not know Kennedy and Trump came from the same Spirit? Q told you, right here: Q703.

    Now that you know this amazing secret. Isn’t it easier for you to guess who would want to assassinate Trump? Do you now understand why the JFK file release had to be delayed and how it is skillfully used by Trump for leverage? Are you aware George H.W. Bush says he does not remember where he was the day Kennedy was assassinated? video. H.W Bush is now very old and has many health issues. Suppose Trump releases the JFK files and Bush is implicated. Suppose Bush dies a few days later. Do you imagine the political liability? These are the types of possible scenarios a skilled political advisor would point out to Trump... So? Relax.

    Let’s continue with Trump’s speech: Imgur After having established his political DNA with JFK, this is Trump now going all the way back to the Founding Fathers who understood very well and passed on the simple idea that the success of America was based on a strong middle class. By investing in skilled workers and protecting them from the pernicious consequences of free trade and other treasonous ideas concocted in secret society think tanks, the Founding Fathers were showing the recipe for a strong, free and prosperous America. It is in this very spirit George Washington told Congress on July 4th 1789 that it was necessary for the US to impose tariffs to protect American jobs and manufacturing Link. President Lincoln, Garfield, and McKinley were later killed trying to implement this same policy. When President Kennedy realized the real enemy trying to weaken America through the programmed destruction of its middle class was secret societies and their secret oaths, he was assassinated before he could do anything. Video.

    So you see it? Obama, Bush and Clinton were very worried when they heard Trump was announcing he would resurrect the heart of America: its middle class. That very middle class they tried to destroy to implement their New World Order. This nefarious plan started after WW2 but was publicly announced here by President H.W. Bush: video. Each US president after this speech played its scripted and treasonous role in the progressive military and economical weakening of the United States. This demonic plan, was about to enter its final stage.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by  $  25n56il4 1 month ago
      Wow! Nice Post guy! Of course we all remember exactly where we were and what we were doing when the President was murdered. I was very young but horrified. I tried to reach my boss (I was an Exec. Secy), he was in a closed meeting. When he came to the office, he walked past me and closed his door. Finally he called me in and commented that he knew I had been crying and he was sorry we were all going through such a sad situation. He assured me he too was suffering. The very thought of this Act was intolerable to us both. If someone says they don't remember, I say they are a liar!
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by ycandrea 1 month ago
    President Trump is the never tiring hero of our times. He has faced never-ending, arduous forces working against our country. The man never sleeps! I have never, in my life-time, witnessed a President who has worked so hard and so tirelessly.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by bsmith51 1 month ago
    My question is: has there ever been a time when so many politicians and high government officials were clearly in position not for the benefit of their nation, but for themselves?
    Take "Mad Maxine" for example. Many say she's nuts, but by regularly throwing red meat to her highly ignorant constituency, she gets consistently reelected. As a result, she's rich and powerful, now head of the House Banking Committee, which means she can extort money from Wall Street. With great pay and lifetime benefits, she's got a pretty good gig most of us can only dream of. So don't call her stupid. She's got a formula that works for her, so long as she's comfortable with her "to hell with America" attitude.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by  $  Thoritsu 1 month ago
    I wonder if any president every had such raw hatred, malice and undermining against him.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by  $  Dobrien 1 month ago
      The hate him because he is destroying them. An example of Mainsream media’s bias..
      ABC news Ex producer Ian Cameron married to Susan Rice.
      CBS president David Rhodes brother of Ben Rhodes
      ABC news corespondent married Jay Carney
      ABC news corespondent Mathew Jaffe married to Katie Hogan Obama aide
      ABC President Ben Sherwood Brother to Obama advisor Elizabeth Sherwood
      CNN President Virginia Mosley married to Clinton Deputy Secretary Tom Nides
      Netflix Director Susan Rice.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by term2 1 month ago
      The hatred is directed to all conservatives. I feel it and have absolutely no good feelings towards ANY leftists
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by  $  Thoritsu 1 month ago
        I don't know if it is that wide. Maybe if one wears it on their sleeve.

        It seems easy to avoid the acid, if you are a Libertarian vs a Conservative. Just identify the common ground, and point out the silliness.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by term2 1 month ago
          There is no common ground between leftists and the rest of us. If a thief comes to your door and threatens to take your stuff, how do you negotiate? The negotiation could only be just what portion of your stuff you willingly give up. This is what the leftists are doing and why it’s a stalemate and will continue that way
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by  $  Thoritsu 1 month ago
            hmmm. I'm good with marijuana and gay relationships. Think that is common ground.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by term2 1 month ago
              interesting. I was really commenting on the political stalemate that we currently face, and how its NOT going away until the government can no longer take from one and give to another.
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Posted by  $  Thoritsu 1 month ago
                Oh, that is definitely an issue where there isn’t common ground.

                I was speaking of personal conversations. I regularly meet people who identify with Democrats, but fail to see how making things mandatory is a problem. It isn’t usually that hard to get them off the mandatory kick
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                • Posted by term2 1 month ago
                  I applaud your ability to change their thinking. I would have to say that a democrat suffers from emotion vs reason decision making, and their emotional conclusions arent reachable by arguments based on reason.
                  I hope that the situation in venezuela will show emotional democrats that no matter how they "feel" for the people of venezuela, they would see that it was socialism that brought them to their current situation, as it always does.
                  Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by Sp_cebux 1 month ago
    ◦ PlannedParenthood - fully funded, and given extra.
    ◦ Amnesty granted to anyone with a 'relation' to anyone in the country.
    ◦ Ivanka about to force paid maternal leave on all producers.
    ◦ Still no wall. Mexico hasn't paid for it. We are.
    ◦ Kavanaugh is NOT a conservative judge - by any stretch of the imagination.
    ◦ Subsidized farming. Our family got a YUUUGGGE pay check for our soybean crop this year. Thank you to all the tax payers for the donations.
    ◦ Ditch McConnell is faking right, going left as fast as he can.
    ◦ North Korea still being North Korea.
    ◦ $22 Trillion in national debt. Another $1.3 TRILLION just authorized (with amnesty), signed by DJT who promised he would never sign another such piece of trash.
    ◦ DOJ/FBI is a unfettered mess of debauchery that DJT has yet to clear up. Hillary isn't in jail. Neither is Huma Abedin, Peter Strzok, Lisa Page, Rod Rosenstein, Bruce Ohr, Nellie Ohr, or any of the others fully invested in destroying the American Election process---something that ought to be akin to treason in this country!
    ◦ Bump stocks are being collected - so much for the 2nd Amendment.
    ◦ Zero reform in education.
    ◦ Sanctuary cities are still among us.

    ------------------------------------

    Other than the Tax Reform legislation, what has the DJT presidential legacy accomplished?
    Is this what WINNING looks like?
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by  $  edweaver 1 month ago
      Things are way better than they were in the last administration but in my opinion, you are absolutely correct. The path we are on has the same outcome. A dying nation. You've posted valid points that do not deserve a down vote. Point back.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by term2 1 month ago
      Trump lost my support when he put tariffs on to help his big business friends- and we citizens pay for it p
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by  $  Dobrien 1 month ago
        Vote for pocohantas or Beto than.
        What proof does your claim contain .trump helping his business friends .
        Pure nonsense. I bet he has a fair trade deal with the Chineses soon.
        Were you an Obama friend getting cheap parts from China to support your medical eguipment co? I doubt it but you did benefit according to you.
        Use your head.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by term2 1 month ago
          I have a small business that depends on components that we need to buy from China. Trump put 25% tariffs on those parts which hurts us a great deal. We do not sell anything to China, since they can’t afford to buy our non essential product. No matter what trade deal he works out do that his big business supporters are happy, it will NOT help our small business at all. In the meantime trump is claiming he is collecting 11 billion in tariffs and he says that he is collecting them FROM the Chinese. That is a lie, since the import tariffs are paid by the USA importers like me. Hence I say he is hurting USA business, not China

          The reason we buy from China is that their labor is so much cheaper than labor here, and in our field they are more advanced. If we didn’t buy from China we would instantly be out of business and our 12 USA employees would be out of work.

          Our workers have gotten lazy and are simply competed out of existence. Tariffs would have to be 300% to equalize costs between China and USA anything less than that simply hurts the USA and make the Chinese laugh at us
          I predict trump will announce some partial deal to save face and at least partially reduce his 25% tariffs
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by Sp_cebux 1 month ago
          So, you're okay with tariffs and other socialistic behaviors from Trump?

          I knew as soon as I posted my post, the Trump-humpers of the site would vote it down simply for bad-mouthing his 'legacy': reality be damned.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by  $  Dobrien 1 month ago
            I didn’t down vote you . Your insult trump-humpers has no place on this board.
            You are free to bad mouth any political leader you wish. I say free speech allows you to see the true character of an individual.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by Sp_cebux 1 month ago
              Can you refute any of the facts I listed above? I heard you mention, "Trumps supporters love facts and hate lies".

              Today we are 4 days from his declaration of national emergency, though he did not actually issue one.
              ◦ Has there been any 'action' on this national emergency? Other than 16 states threatening to sue his administration, what has the Trump administration done to curb this national emergency?
              ◦ What is the basis of his national emergency declaration? Are we being invaded? -- if so, where is the declaration of war request to Congress? if we are not being invaded, what is the emergency?
              ◦ Today, it appears that world-wide acceptance of homosexuality is of utmost importance. Why do I care whether Mr. Muslim in Pick-a-stan or the African continent treats gays equally? What's it to common Americans?
              ◦ Trump took time to tweet sweet nothings to Bernie Sanders, wishing him well on his bid for 2020. Where's the urgency for this "national emergency" ? Empty threat? 53-D Chess?

              ..oh wait, that's right, you're ignoring me. Nevermind.
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by mia767ca 1 month ago
    Trump is a pragmatist....the national debt just went over $22 trillion dollars...the annual interest on the debt is hitting $1 trillion a year...and both are increasing...the debt also increased under Reagan...that is a massive failure to govern...
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by term2 1 month ago
      Maybe he realizes the debt can never be repaid anyway. And he is buying more time to get a majority in both houses to get some decent bills through. So far we still have Obamacare and most of the swamp still in place. Assuming he doesn’t get re elected, the dems will have a big mess to fix once we go socialist
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by mia767ca 1 month ago
        sad, but true...kamala harris is coming for our guns...300 million of them...that is how you spell bloody civil war...
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by term2 1 month ago
          The dems have already come for our guns. Needing to register them with the government was the first step. Next is to require that all registrants turn in their guns voluntarily to avoid some heavy duty tax or being put on a terrorist list restricting their freedoms. Remember that FDR required the turning in of all GOLD during the 1930's at an artificially low price so he could upvalue gold after the government got it all.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by mia767ca 1 month ago
            it
            is
            coming….
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by mia767ca 1 month ago
              today's dollar is worth less than $.03 of the 1913 dollar when the Fed was created...legalized theft...

              owning a gun or guns will not matter if you are not organized with a support group (MAG-mutual assistance group)...where everyone comes to the open assistance of any individual of the group threatened with confiscation and imprisionment...
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by term2 1 month ago
              I think its interesting that if your gold goes up in value, capital gains tax must be paid, but if your dollars you have saved depreciate in value, you cant subtract the decline in value from your taxes.

              As to guns, its very hard for the government currently to prove you still own a gun, since you can sell it privately without registering that you sold it. They will have to put that regulation in first. Maybe best to prepare a bill of sale NOW showing that you sold it, but just hold onto that piecee of paper in case they pass some registration requirement on private sales later..
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by CircuitGuy 1 month ago
    Time will tell if he's a fluke or the new normal, the first in the series of clowns who get attention, in this world of newly-democratized media, by being an object of morbid fascination.

    There is some risk, maybe decreasing, that his deplorables figure out they have a lot in common with socialists and join forces. The greater risk is that regardless of whether it's serious statesmen or clowns pandering to the deplorable element of society, gov't spending, borrowing, intrusiveness and disregard for the law keep increasing.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by Abaco 1 month ago
      Wait. Wait...I need to get my coffee in my system before I try to read that again...
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by  $  edweaver 1 month ago
        Coffee didn't work, did it?
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by Abaco 1 month ago
          No. I get lost at "his deplorables". I know people who voted for him. None of them are deplorable.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by CircuitGuy 1 month ago
            "None of them are deplorable."
            I suspect most of them are not. I have met one admitted Trump over and he didn't seem to want any part of President Trump's attention-seeking antics. The percentage of bigots and generally deplorable people voting for him may not be that different from other candidates. In the past, we had candidates who where normal and fringe shock jocks firing up the deplorables. President Trump is our first president who appeals directly to the deplorables of the world, so that stands out.

            There is a real risk that a charismatic person will find away to appeal to all the people who can accept their problems are someone else's fault, that gov't force is the answer and needs to be freed from the constraints of the law. I see this as less of an immediate risk than I did a year ago. The people looking for facile scapegoats to blame their problems on are split into halves that hate each other. Hopefully that will keep them from accomplishing anything.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by ewv 1 month ago
              The problems caused by government are real, not scapegoats. That there are always some who blame their own problems on someone else is secondary to the worsening statism.

              Trump's anti-intellectual demagoguery may egg them on as they join with others in Trump idolatry expressed in emotional frenzy with their anti-intellectual red hats with little to cover, and it makes it more difficult for anyone to know what he really thinks (if he knows himself) and is doing, but a different style of demagoguery and irrationalism doesn't make the demagoguery and irrationalism unique in politics.

              Some find it "refreshing" because the sales pitch doesn't try to hide behind the usual obscure "acceptable" style of dishonesty that is no better. Clinton would have been worse, and so, especially, is the Democrats' new found open fanaticism for socialism. All of it is anti-intellectual, irrational disintegration of the course of the country that is frightening.
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Posted by CircuitGuy 3 weeks, 6 days ago
                "Some find [President Trump's style] "refreshing" because the sales pitch doesn't try to hide behind the usual obscure "acceptable" style of dishonesty that is no better. "
                I think this is exactly right. Politicians try hard to be likable, and I can see why people find it refreshing for someone who appears to be himself, even in ways that are really boorish.

                "The problems caused by government are real, not scapegoats."
                Unfortunately almost no mainstream candidates make reducing government intrusiveness and spending a key part of their pitch.

                "That there are always some who blame their own problems on
                someone else is secondary to the worsening statism."
                Finding scapegoats is a very common strategy tell sell statism.
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                • Posted by ewv 3 weeks, 3 days ago
                  You would think -- without contemporary experience -- that rejecting socialism would be routine, yet when Trump did so in his State of Union speech, what stood out was the fact that he did. The contrast was more stark when he contradicted himself as he went on in the rest of his speech to promote more collectivist programs, no doubt oblivious to the conflicting principles behind both.
                  Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                  • Posted by CircuitGuy 3 weeks, 2 days ago
                    Yes. The fact that he even needed to say it and his going on to promote collectivist programs are both bad. I am concerned about the socialism. There has been great wealth creation but in the language I hear commonly used "much of that value has been captured by top earners and by owners in the form of return on equity." I am concerned, not about what happens in 2020, but over the next decade or two.
                    Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                    • Posted by ewv 3 weeks ago
                      Worse for the trend is that while denouncing socialism he did not defend capitalism, which has been the case for conservatives for decades. Recall Ayn Rand's article "The Obliteration of Capitalism" in Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal.
                      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                      • Posted by CircuitGuy 2 weeks, 2 days ago
                        "Worse for the trend is that while denouncing socialism he did not defend capitalism"
                        Can you imagine if a politician could appeal to most people who are open to some collectivism? I'm thinking of a mixture of President Trump, Ocasio-Cortez, and the Marlboro Man.

                        I think the risk of this is more because things are changing fast and return-on-investment has been going up while cost of labor stagnates. It makes people susceptible to scapegoats. Hopefully the change will cut the other way, though, and give people more time to think about freedom and tools to be prosperous.
                        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by Abaco 1 month ago
              Would you have rather had Hillary? I was looking at real estate in Central America just before the election because I was sure she was going to win. I didn't vote. My vote doesn't count in California...
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • -1
                Posted by CircuitGuy 3 weeks, 6 days ago
                "Would you have rather had Hillary? "
                Absolutely, without any hesitation. If we must have a strong, intrusive, and expensive central gov't, I want it run well. The only benefit of electing a clown is the clownishness lays bare to all observers how the executive branch has become more powerful. Hillary Clinton would have used executive power the same way, just as President Obama did, in a tricky politician way that makes it sound like responsible consensus building. If President Trump's antics lead people to question the increase in gov't power and executive overreach, he will unwittingly be the best president of my lifetime. My prediction, though, is people like Trump and like Bernie sanders will split the unsophisticated people looking to for a scapegoat for their problems, leaving room for moderate leaders along the lines of Clinton or Romney. That unfortunately means the post WWII trend of big gov't and strong exec branch continues.
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                • Posted by ewv 3 weeks, 3 days ago
                  Why would you want a "strong, intrusive, and expensive central gov't run well"?

                  Trump is always a risk, but has not been expanding government the way Obama did and Clinton would have. In terms of preventing the worst, the Trump administration has been "running it well" in the sense of political appointees doing things in the agencies that you don't see or hear about that would otherwise be much worse for us when left up to the entrenched bureaucrats. Most of the controversy has been either manufactured by the leftist media or directly from Trump's mouth.
                  Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                  • Posted by  $  WilliamShipley 3 weeks, 3 days ago
                    I had a bit of a revelation in 1976 that things were going off the rails. I was wandering through the library when I came upon the shelf where they kept copies of the Federal Register. I noticed a shocking trend in the number of pages:
                    1970 - 20,036
                    1971 - 25,447
                    1972 - 28,924
                    1973 - 35,592
                    1974 - 45.422
                    1975 - 60,221

                    Within 6 years we had tripled the number of pages of regulations per year. It had been mostly in the 'teens since 1950. This was a graphic display of a major governmental shift sitting on the shelf in front of me.

                    It has generally stayed in the 60K range since then but in late 1990's it crept up into the 80K range, jumping dramatically to 97,110 in 2016 Under Obama.

                    The first year under Trump 61,949 is the lowest it's been since 1990.

                    It's just one metric, but one I've been watching for a long time.
                    Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                    • Posted by ewv 3 weeks, 3 days ago
                      Does rescinding a regulation count as a "regulation" in the page count?
                      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                      • Posted by  $  WilliamShipley 3 weeks, 3 days ago
                        It probably does, but it probably takes less space. I will admit reading 61 thousand pages is fairly far down my to-do list.
                        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                        • Posted by ewv 3 weeks, 2 days ago
                          If only Trump's 61,949 per year represented pages packed with nothing but rescission. One indicator of the state of politics is that we consider "only" 60,000 new pages of regulations per year to be welcome after Obama. It reminds me of the Reagan administration, which is said to have cut thousands of regulations, but at the end of which the government was bigger, more powerful, spending more, and taking in more taxes. How much more of such "victory" can we tolerate?
                          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                  • -1
                    Posted by CircuitGuy 3 weeks, 2 days ago
                    "Trump is always a risk, but has not been expanding government the way Obama did and Clinton would have. "
                    Government has expanded and keeps expanding. To what extent individuals contribute
                    is debatable, but it's fact that it's growing.

                    "Most of the controversy has been either manufactured by the leftist media or directly from Trump's mouth."
                    When the president scoffs at the law, it matters. In some ways, President Trump doing it openly and ineptly is good in that it makes it obvious. It makes people take note and question how much power the executive branch and esp one person should have. We got to this point partly b/c of the need for someone who could respond to a nuclear attack that could devastate the country within minutes of detection. Having a clownish president makes me think the military leaders controlling those weapons might have come up with an informal understanding that they will disregard the president if he goes over the edge. I hope that hasn't happened. It's the type of thing that could buy a few minutes indecision that an enemy could take advantage of. I do not think this has happened, but I want a clearly competent president to be sure it doesn't happen. A crisis with an attention-seeking president could lead to reforms, but I am always against letting a crisis starts in the hopes it will lead to reforms.
                    Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                    • Posted by ewv 3 weeks ago
                      Government is growing but it does make a difference who is running the agencies. A president could not possibly know or influence most of what the agencies are doing, but does have an enormous influence through whom he chooses or approves to run them, who in turn influence who is picked for the thousands of positions below them.

                      The conservatives he appointed, and those selected under them, are in many cases making an enormous difference in comparison with the ideological leftists who would be appointed under any conceivable Democrat president, and to a lesser but still significant extent under a 'moderate' Republican.

                      It hasn't made the government smaller over all, but has made it less intolerable for those citizens are directly impacted by Federal agencies.

                      But whatever else Trump has said and done, he hasn't "scoffed at the law". For all the protest over the "wall" in particular, he is acting fully in accordance with laws passed by Congress and used by presidents for decades.
                      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                      • Posted by CircuitGuy 2 weeks, 2 days ago
                        "But whatever else Trump has said and done, he hasn't "scoffed at the law"
                        I mean verbally. Even in the debate he bragged that he could get the government to break the law. OTOH sometimes he says the opposite. I don't think he remembers. It's whatever gets a reaction.

                        Time will tell if this is the future: politicians acting as a circus freak show for the masses, the role talk radio and fringe magazines played all my life until now, and we console ourselves that behind the scenes they're appointing normal people who do a good job.

                        "For all the protest over the "wall" in particular, he is acting fully in accordance with laws passed by Congress and used by presidents for decades."
                        The "wall" is part of the freak show. We've been building barriers at points of high illegal crossings, and it resulted in an 82% decrease. Politicians can somehow convince people continuing the policy is radical new initiative to argue about.
                        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                        • Posted by ewv 2 weeks, 2 days ago
                          What did Trump say "in the debate he bragging that he could get the government to break the law"?

                          How is the wall a freak show? An 82% decrease at a new wall is not a meaningful statistic because most go around it to somewhere else that is easier.

                          We could use less "wall" slogans and more rational discussion of what kind of wall where in contrast to what other less effective barriers, what other border security policy changes implemented along the border, and above all what kind of reforms to immigration law based on what principles. Mostly we are only getting hysteria from all sides.
                          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                          • Posted by CircuitGuy 2 weeks, 1 day ago
                            "An 82% decrease at a new wall is not a meaningful statistic because most go around it to somewhere else that is easier."
                            I meant they have been building wall at places of high illegal crossings. As you say, the illegal crossing then moves to another location, and they build wall there. This has been going on for decades and over 25 years and has resulted in an 82% drop in total illegal crossings. The policy we've been pursuing is working. It's amazing and freak-show-like that they've misrepresented it as something to argue about.
                            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                            • Posted by ewv 2 weeks, 1 day ago
                              Illegal crossings are worsening, the net accumulation is skyrocketing, and those on the front lines of enforcement are pleading that more is required, including more physical barrier.

                              Attempts to solve it are being obstructed with everything from "sanctuaries" to "catch and release" to open-ended "asylum" to "drivers licenses" for illegals and local election fraud -- while gangs are still uncontrolled and "caravans" are openly promoted in defiance of what is left of policies trying to control the problem.

                              Adding insult to injury is the propaganda from the supporters of the illegals claiming that there is no problem (for them). The Trump sales pitch is now calling anything a "wall" in order to claim progress, and the pro-illegals are taking him up on it to claim nothing else is required.

                              A more contiguous and robust wall, or some equivalent on the border, is required but isn't enough to contend with our own laws and policies allowing illegals to enter and stay, obstructing enforcement.

                              The whole mess is further disintegrating into its own self-generating emergency as it distracts from any discussion at all of rational immigration policy about what should be allowed and protected.
                              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                              • Posted by CircuitGuy 1 week, 2 days ago
                                Yes. I basically see it that way too.

                                I don't see crossing as "skyrocking". We need numbers. I think it's blip in a long-term trend of fewer illegal crossings. We should keep doing what we've been doing, building walls in places of high crossings, and ignore the "high-frequency noise" component to the data.

                                The real problem is looking the other way after someone's here, either through illegal crossing or overstaying after entering legally. This creates disrespect for the law and an underclass.

                                IMHO we should liberalize immigration laws to make it easier for people to come here legally because a) it's a good policy and b) it's impractical to remove everyone here illegally. This is not part of the national discourse. Instead it's for or against "the wall", which does not even mean anything.
                                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                                • Posted by ewv 1 week, 2 days ago
                                  "I don't see crossing as "skyrocking". We need numbers."

                                  From what I have heard the numbers are increasing, but with all the hype who knows. A flow across the border does increase the accumulation, and we observe a political trend to create more illegal crossings with the "caravans", etc.

                                  "we should liberalize immigration laws to make it easier for people to come here legally because a) it's a good policy and b) it's impractical to remove everyone here illegally. "

                                  Legal immigration is good policy under the proper standards of what to exclude, and within numbers that are practical without changing the mindset of the country into a foreign mindset of statism and collectivism taken for granted. That wouldn't taken much with billions around the world who would like to come, encouraged by increasing statism and collectivism already here.

                                  People (other than criminals, terrorists, welfare-seekers and the diseased) have a right to immigrate to a free society but not to overwhelm it with its opposite, thereby destroying it. "Assimilation" into American individualist culture is a requirement (though I don't like the word 'assimilation' -- we're not the Borg).

                                  Bureaucratic obstructionism should be removed, but laws should not be changed to accommodate those who defy them. We don't make more crime legal because criminals make enforcement difficult, which would only encourage the worst.
                                  Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                                  • CircuitGuy replied 1 week, 2 days ago

FORMATTING HELP

  • Comment hidden. Undo