US Elections

[Brad Thomson]

Re: US Elections

Thanks Kevin, that is great!

[Vlad Drkulec]

Re: US Elections

Hi Vlad:

A not-so-nice profile of Bannon and Breitbart News Network : The Guardian - https://www.theguardian.com/media/20...ion?CMP=twt_gu

Bob A

I see a number of insults and some unsupported allegations which they mostly walk back by the end of the article. To be clear white supremacists are morons. I see no evidence that Bannon is a white supremacist.

[Neil Frarey]

Re: US Elections

...can Trump be expected to actually survive the next 4 years? I mean, survive in the literal sense.

Trump will be impeached.

http://www.cnn.com/2016/11/15/politi...-erin-burnett/

In the meantime ... give the guy a chance!

[Vlad Drkulec]

Re: US Elections

Trump will be impeached.

http://www.cnn.com/2016/11/15/politi...-erin-burnett/

In the meantime ... give the guy a chance!

Wishful thinking. Though reading about the Megan Kelly situation reminds me why I didn't like Trump in the primaries.

[Paul Bonham]

Re: US Elections

First, thanks for the clarifications about Vlad and Vlad, I was not aware of this.

To quote you:

"It means let's go back to pre-civil rights movement, maybe even further back to take away women's rights including the right to vote, let's go back to the white-dominated, male-dominated America that we all read about in history books...

From your postings, I'd say you would be in favor of such a social movement back to the 19th century."

There was nothing in my postings that justified such a conclusion. I found and still find this comment to be insulting.

I've been busy for last day and a half, so didn't have time to reply to this.

Brad, I outlined 3 things you posted that led me to the quote you are having an issue with. They are:

(1) you believe the media is biased against Trump -- only believed by Trump supporters

(2) you believe all Americans are arrogant, blowhard rednecks (you said Trump is this way, and represents Americans. You didn't make any exceptions. You didn't even acknowledge that this stereotype of Americans actually represents a minority of Americans.)

(3) you believe the election would be fixed -- only believed by Trump supporters

Because you expressed belief in all these points, I concluded you would likely be in favor of "making America great again" which is a euphemism for taking America back to 19th century social values. "I'd say you would be" is not the same as saying "You are". I could have written "I believe you are", which would have been definitive, but instead I said "I'd say you would be" which is not definitive. It leaves open the possibility that maybe you wouldn't be.... and then, the critical part you left out, I wrote that maybe you were only in favor of Trump's economic policies, and so I would not go so far as to actually accuse you outright.

If you are insulted at that, believing that I made a direct and definitive accusation, well, you have the right to your opinion. But I do not agree with you.

[Neil Frarey]

Re: US Elections

Wishful thinking.

Not my wish not by a long shot. But I can relate to his (Allan Lichtman) thinking on his second point...

"The Republican's are nervous about Donald Trump, he's a loose cannon ... He can't be controlled."

[Keerti Nyayachavadi]

Re: US Elections

Democrats just cannot win a close election since:

http://www.gregpalast.com/democracy-...se/#more-12893

http://www.gregpalast.com/election-s...es/#more-12923

http://www.gregpalast.com/colonel-behind-caging-attack-black-voters-n-carolina-exposed-rfk-jr-felony-crime-bigger-purge-group-flip-us-senate/#more-12835

http://www.gregpalast.com/rolling-stone-expose-gops-secret-plan-steal-vote/

[Brad Thomson]

Re: US Elections

Because you expressed belief in and then, the critical part you left out, I wrote that maybe you were only in favor of Trump's economic policies, and so I would not go so far as to actually accuse you outright.

What? You say "the critical part you left out...." and then you note that this critical part was "...and so I would not go so far as to actually accuse you outright."

You just asked me a post or two ago to show the insult WITHOUT the caveat. Now you tell me the caveat is the CRITICAL PART THAT I LEFT OUT and that this part that YOU wanted left out in the first place saves your ass???

I retract my apology. You have proven me correct.

[Paul Bonham]

Re: US Elections

What? You say "the critical part you left out...." and then you note that this critical part was "...and so I would not go so far as to actually accuse you outright."

You just asked me a post or two ago to show the insult WITHOUT the caveat. Now you tell me the caveat is the CRITICAL PART THAT I LEFT OUT and that this part that YOU wanted left out in the first place saves your ass???

I retract my apology. You have proven me correct.

Ok, I forgot that I had asked you not to include the caveat. Like I said, this is getting tiresome. I've pretty much dismissed this entire conversation, to be honest. Vlad Dobrich was right to label you a troll, and arguing with a troll is a waste of time. One of the worst trolls on this site proved that clear to me eons ago.

Even without the caveat, I made it clear I did not definitively accuse you. I did not write "You are a supporter of....". But then the caveat does make it absolutely clear that I am in fact NOT accusing you. I left the door open for you to argue the point. You've since made the point that you are not a Trump supporter. While I might privately doubt that, based on the beliefs you have posted, I'll not challenge you on it. Go ahead and believe what you want to believe about yourself.

I really don't care about your apology. It's amazing that you offered it, but what you've written since shows it to be meaningless. Go back to calling me imbecile and all the rest, absolutely of no consequence to me.

[Paul Bonham]

Re: US Elections

But the one sure thing I'll predict is this: if we survive to still be here 4 years from now, the U.S. economy and unemployment situation will be MUCH worse than it is now. Trumped-up trickle-down is a fail waiting to happen......

Some people are waking up to the new realities and the consequences:

Coming Dollar Shortage

The BIS is considered the central bank for central bankers. It doesn’t get more “establishment.”

So… What are the BIS insiders saying? From a BIS report, issued just today:

"When so many borrowers have borrowed so much in dollars… dollar appreciation exposes borrowers and lenders to valuation changes and, in turn, impacts their balance sheets… If banks react to resurgent volatility by reducing their intermediation activity, as happened during the 2007–09 crisis, the banking sector may become an amplifier of shocks rather than an absorber of shocks."

The above is bureaucratese for “global liquidity crisis.” It means an overly strong dollar could drain the lubricant from the global growth engine. And the whole thing could seize.

[Paul Bonham]

Re: US Elections

I have some difficulty with any idea that supposes that an all powerful God would not already know what he is.

Meant to reply to this much earlier, but didn't get a chance until now...

The notion of "all powerful God" can only be properly considered in the context of two other notions: INFINITY and TIME.

For example: can we imagine infinity as something static? If so, then what is infinity + infinity? What is infinity to the power of infinity.... infinite times?

No, infinity is not static. It needs imagination to drive it. As soon as anyone -- spiritual, human, machine, whatever -- imagines some infinite-like expression (where "expression" is a mathematical term, such as the above-mentioned "infinity to the power of infinity... infinite times"), infinity by definition exceeds it. We could then have a new expression, [(infinity to the power of infinity... infinite times) infinite times]" and infinity by definition exceeds that.

The notion of infinity can exist, what cannot exist is a precise definition of it. Ditto for "all powerful God".

If one believes in an all-powerful God, then one should believe in eternity, which is infinite time IN BOTH DIRECTIONS -- FUTURE AND PAST. Although it is an interesting question: can one believe in an all powerful God, and believe that that God had a "beginning"?

There are some things that the human mind can never understand. The notion of an infinite past is one of those. An infinite future, we can at least imagine in a very hazy manner. But everything we know about in our physical existence has a beginning, including our universe itself, 13.79 billion Earth years ago give or take. So the very notion of an infinite past blows our minds completely.

It is like trying to put the vision of the color red into the mind of a person who has been blind since birth. You can't use terms like "strawberry" to do it, nor can you mention the precise wavelength of pure red light (700–635 nm according to Wikipedia). Both are meaningless to the blind person. There is nothing you can do or say to make that person see the color red in his or her mind.

And even for sighted people.... what if I told you there is a brand new primary color that I called "cog" which meant "color of god"? Could you imagine it?

Similarly it is meaningless to even contemplate an all powerful God "already knowing what he is". Or in Brad Thomson's case, talking about such a God "someday" having full self-realization. When is someday? Will God still be the same a million quadrillion Earth years after someday?

It's quite clear that "all powerful" is just a synonym for "infinity" and neither can be defined in any language, including mathematics. In fact, I doubt that anywhere in the Christian Bible is God described as "all powerful" in the literal meaning, and if I'm wrong about that.... well, so much for the Bible, because I just imagined a God more powerful than the all powerful one.

Vlad, I am sure you would know about the novella of Edwin Abbott Abbott, "Flatland: A Romance of Many Dimensions". But you have not learned its lessons.

Evangelicals and people who believe in God turned out in large numbers to vote for Trump in large part as a reaction to the godless on the other side and their politically correct ideas and that is largely a good thing.

The media will do their best to destroy Trump even now as they pretend to wallow in their mea culpas for a moment but continue the relentless attack on a candidate which offends them at an existential level.

Really? Godless on the other side? Should we take it (from your "that is largely a good thing" comment) that you count yourself as one of the "people who believe in God", seeing the election the same way they did in the U.S., and likewise being judge and jury for those outside the perceived group (calling them godless)?

If so, you would be as credible as someone within ISIS.

[Nigel Hanrahan]

Who's a fascist?

I suppose next you'll be telling us that Ronald Reagan was a communist. :)

No, but the Fraser Institute (funded from outside Canada, such as by the Koch brothers, etc. ) noted the following ...

Fraser Institute denounces Mary Poppins as 'communist propaganda'

[Peter McKillop]

Re: Who's a fascist?

No, but the Fraser Institute (funded from outside Canada, such as by the Koch brothers, etc. ) noted the following ...

Fraser Institute denounces Mary Poppins as 'communist propaganda'

Thanks, Nigel. That made my morning ! :) :)

Just a spoonful of sugar
purges reactionaries...

[Neil Frarey]

Re: US Elections

Humph.

Make America Great Again xmas tree ornament is currently unavailable. :(

The product reviews are simply fantastic!

https://www.amazon.com/Trump-America.../dp/B01N67D8HO

[Vlad Drkulec]

Re: US Elections

Not my wish not by a long shot. But I can relate to his (Allan Lichtman) thinking on his second point...

"The Republican's are nervous about Donald Trump, he's a loose cannon ... He can't be controlled."

I meant the link. Nothing like winning to unite a party.