Oppressed By Who?

I think the answer is easy.

1507614349914


1507614379701

1507615582180

1507614410524

1507615603722

1507615630647.png

1507615691856

https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2016/crime-in-the-u.s.-2016/tables/table-21

Advertisements

Comments

  1. I have lots of ideas as to why these stats tell a story. Could it be their culture? Elected leadership? Both? Where are white oppressing blacks and how are they doing it?

    • The destruction of the black family. Younger folk DO NOT even comprehend that this mess was not always the case, yet if you placed these stats against let us say 1955 they would be instructive. Ask Matt for example.

      What the young try to do is pretend various things, like they have always been oppressed, always been incarcerated on trumped up charges, always had to ride in the back of the bus in New York City, not Biloxi mind you but NYC.

  2. Just A Citizen says:

    op·pres·sion
    əˈpreSHən/Submit
    noun
    prolonged cruel or unjust treatment or control.
    “a region shattered by oppression and killing”
    synonyms: persecution, abuse, maltreatment, ill-treatment, tyranny, despotism, repression, suppression, subjection, subjugation; More
    the state of being subject to unjust treatment or control.
    synonyms: persecution, abuse, maltreatment, ill-treatment, tyranny, despotism, repression, suppression, subjection, subjugation; More
    mental pressure or distress.
    “her mood had initially been alarm and a sense of oppression”

    Well based on this I would say we have been “oppressing” the Black population ever since LBJ and the Dems implemented the New Society policies. It did after all amount to subjugation of the people to the Welfare system, maltreatment and created mental pressure and distress to the Black families. Hell, it destroyed the family as a matter of policy. Is that not tyranny and despotism?? Does not welfare “repress” those who become addicted to it?

    • Does not welfare “repress” those who become addicted to it?

      Why yes, I would say that the welfare system has a HUGE role in this. However, I can not call it oppression because blacks generally VOTE for the very policies holding them subjugated to their free cookies.

      It would also be easy to blame the Liberal run education system, but with the welfare system having destroyed the family unit, it would be a stretch.

      It sure seems like we are laying the blame on Democrats. I would like to hear Mathius’s response on this matter.

      • You have to start calling it what it is the Old Plantation. The D party has it’s house slaves who keep the field hands in line. The Black Caucus comes to mind. And you damned well can listen to the meaning of the words embedded in their rhetoric. “Massah be good to you, them folk want to sell you down the river”. The only people selling people down the river that I know of are in that party that spawned the KKK.

  3. Just A Citizen says:

    Watch this oppression……….aw darnit. The Cop didn’t cooperate. Someone needs to tell the Po Po to get with the program. Note: Was recently in this “windy city” and the police could pull over hundreds of people each hour for “moving violations” downtown. It was a bizarre lesson in the Libertarian view of “self organizing”. The absolutely craziest and most aggressive driving I have ever seen, and the fewest dented cars.

    https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/chance-the-rapper-chicago-police-livestream_us_59dc7f5ee4b0208970cf4f70?ncid=inblnkushpmg00000009

  4. As long as there are blacks like this woman, they are doomed to the life they choose, and right now it isn’t all that good for the majority of them. Until people, regardless of race, can sit down, identify the problems in a meaningful way and agree on solutions, nothing will change. So which political side is always playing the race card, along with all the other divisive cards they play?

    http://www.truthrevolt.org/news/cnn-commentator-white-people-dont-get-complain-about-black-protests

  5. Canine Weapon says:

    Ok, Colonel, you’ve got some ‘splainin’ to do:

  6. Just A Citizen says:

    Can anyone make the argument that the author of this piece is misguided? That the comments and conclusion are simply WRONG?

    https://www.redstate.com/patterico/2017/10/11/trump-thuggery-trump-takes-page-left-threatens-nbc-license/

    Hint: The fault lies in the need for licensing itself.

    • A page right outta the Obama play book……..Of course you are going to have regulated airwaves…………….I would certainly hate to fly without FAA regulated frequencies.

      As to TV airwaves……I am with you.

      • Just A Citizen says:

        Colonel

        You realize don’t you that the internet SELF REGULATED its airways. I see no reason that Aviation couldn’t do the same.

        But let’s say for a minute that there should be some allocation process of limited frequencies. What is the “just” way of allocating them? LOTTERY is the correct answer.

        The argument I was looking for above is that once you allow Govt. to “license” you have signed away any pretense of not having Govt. control what is subject to the license. It is inevitable.

        • Oh, I understood where you were going and I agree……but, in aviation……the frequencies actually need to be decided and limited to aircraft only. The safety issues alone are astronomical. This would be air traffic control as well as flight following.

          • Just A Citizen says:

            And why could not private people agree on those frequencies and limit them?

            • Because you are dealing with Commercial airlines….unless you assign them their own frequencies and no one can transmit on them. By restricting the current frequencies, you prevent the general public from being able to transmit boggus information to airlines in Instrument conditions. As it stand now, you can monitor airline frequencies but you cannot transmit on them because of the frequency range.

              Some people think it is funny to redirect a commercial jet to another destination.

              • Thanks for bringing to mind a cool memory of my dad. He was a pilot in a club that owned 4 planes and also was 1/4 owner of a couple different Bonanzas. One of his favorite pasttimes was to monitor those frequencies listening for any of those small plane tail numbers. Cool for us kids too, because over the years he’d host parties with the other club members, so we got to know them too. Then to hear their voices on the radio..it was just cool for us. He’d switch up from listening to flight traffic to Tiger baseball. Good times.

              • Just A Citizen says:

                Colonel

                You still have not made a case for Govt. ownership or control. You simply keep assuming that private ownership could not restrict access. Yet this has in fact happened with the internet.

                We far to often just assume the Govt. is needed because it appears easier or just because we are used to it. Radio frequencies are one of those things that could have been privatized long ago. The airline industry could have purchased the frequencies they needed and banned others from using them via ownership rights.

              • well, government ownership or not, these frequencies and air traffic control are necessary. Could a private company create an air traffic controls system….the answer is perhaps. Can they own frequencies….I suppose but own them from whom? You are saying do completely away with the FAA/FCC….no check list of any kind…..no enforcement or regulation of physical or mental capacity to even pilot an aircraft….no regulations on what it takes to be a pilot. No control of frequencies and better yet…..no enforcement of violators. No training program of the proper use of radio frequencies……

                Can the private sector do this? Again…maybe. But you would have to give the private sector some incredible powers including the power to regulate flying in and over other states…..

  7. T Ray…you still with us?

  8. Just A Citizen says:

    An argument I shared here many years ago and many times since. Progressivism is NOT Progress. It is not Liberalism. It is the ancestor that led to Fascism.

    https://mises.org/library/why-understanding-progressive-era-still-matters

    • It reminds me of trying to teach recruits how to understand the terminology of “point blank.”

      Most people think that point blank range means up close and personal. It doesn’t. But trying to teach shooters what real point blank is…..is rather difficult.

    • The Brits learned.

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rifle_Brigade_(The_Prince_Consort%27s_Own)

      There is an interesting TV series from Britain, Sharpe’s rifles about this unit who wore the Green Jacket. During the Civil War, Hiram Berdan recruited a regiment (also wore green jackets) and they played havoc with the 15th Alabama I believe at Gettysburg.

      Most non-NRA members do not know the history of the organization probably not many members either but the NRA was formed in 1871 by former Union Army Officers who were appalled at the poor marksmanship of Union troops vs. the average Southern boy. When I bring this up to NRA opponents they become pretty quiet for a while since they just assumed that Colt-Remington-Winchester-Savage-S&W made it up last week.

      • Ahhhh, yes..The Prince’s Consort Own……..quite a history. Also, a little known fact, the old Rogers Rangers, who wore green uniforms, way back when (1700’s)……………who were well known for their combat and marksmanship skills, were an inspiration for this Regiment.

  9. Boy Scout thing is gonna be interesting. Maybe, after 32 years, it is time to hang up my spurs.

    • My brother raised 2 eagle scouts. He served as a scout master for several years. He turned his back on scouting after the last major cave-in. The girl scouts are not much better, having been taken over by the radical feminists.

  10. Just A Citizen says:
  11. Will someone please translate this to English for me?

    The country — we took it over and owed over $20 trillion [in national debt].

    As you know, the last eight years, [the federal government] borrowed more than it did in the whole history of our country. So they borrowed more than $10 trillion, right? And yet we picked up $5.2 trillion just in the stock market. Possibly picked up the whole thing in terms of the first nine months, in terms of value.

    So you could say, in one sense, we’re really increasing values. And maybe in a sense we’re reducing debt. But we’re very honored by it.

    In what "sense" are we "reducing the debt" by having a bull market?

    Some possible theories: (1) he's suffered a stroke, (2) he has no f***ing clue how the national debt or the stock market work or relate to each other, or (3) he's just trying to manipulate people into thinking that a run-up in the market somehow translates to a debt reduction. Anyone have a different take?

    • The increased value in the market implies increased incomes for investors which leads to increased tax receipts which he mentioned in the interview. Growing the economy hence tax receipts reduces the deficit which is just the annual addition to the debt. As a financial guru, you should be able to figure this out on your own.

      Of course the politicians can take the new tax income and spend it like in CA so there is no debt/deficit relief. But that is a whole other issue.

      Maybe you were too young to remember, but Clinton’s second term deficit/debt pluses were the result of a roaring market and a Gingrich’s penny pinching. When the dotcom bust came and Newt was driven out, that went away. Of course it was Bush’s fault.

      If Trump (we) can keep the economy going at 3+% growth and unleash the energy sector, we can eliminate the deficit and start reducing the debt.

      • So, just to make sure I've got this straight....

        Trump claims that a run up in the market "in a sense" reduces the national debt... and your argument is that, because people are making money, they will pay added tax, which means added revenue (all true).. and that that means the debt (not the deficit, but the debt) is going down. (note, present tense, not future tense. Not "will" go down, but "we're reducing debt." - present, now. Today.)

        Your detour to the Clinton Era aside, Trump is juxtaposing 10T in debt with 5.2T in market rally, and using that to claim that the debt is going down. "we're reducing debt."

        There is absolutely no f***ing way he's going to run a surplus this year. Or next. It doesn't matter if the market doubles. To re-write what he said completely in the most charitable possible way: "The growth in the market and the economy, and the attendant increases in revenue and decreases on government expenses (both in safety net demand and from fiscal responsibility), if resulting in significant and sustained growth around 3% per annum, will reduce the deficit, which may, in five years or so, eventually lead to a surplus which will then reduce the debt."

        Do you realize how far you're bending over backward to make what he's saying true? You're practically turning yourself into a human pretzel.

        What he said is wrong. Factually, objectively. And, unless you're willing to take it as a Rorschach text and divine your own meaning which is uncorrelated to the words coming out of his mouth - in which case, words have no meaning, and he is literally incapable of saying anything false because you'll just redefine what he said to something true - then it is WRONG.

        IT. IS. WRONG.

        Whether it's wrong, or a lie, or it "came out wrong," or he "misspoke," or he had a stroke, I can't say. But in no case is it accurate. In NO SENSE has he reduced the debt since taking office. None. Period. Objective reality. The national debt is 20.37T. When he took office it was 19.95T. That's ~420 BILLION dollars of added debt in 9 months. That's on pace to add ~4.5T in 8 years.

        HE IS CLAIMING TO HAVE REDUCED THE DEBT WHEN IT HAS INCREASED. Do you see how that might look from my perspective?

        If Trump told you "night is day," would you find a way to justify that? Would you say, "well, what he means it that night is when the moon is out and the moon is sometimes out during the day, so they're really the same thing and, anyway, if it's night here, it's day somewhere else, so he's just making an esoteric point about the nature of a global society." Come on!

        Just admit it's wrong. Or at least that he misspoke. Don't try to make his bullshit true, I'm begging you.

        • I don’t have time to go through all this in detail. Stop being obtuse. He said debt when he should have said deficit. Deficit is just this years debt. Deficits are most certainly impacted by this years revenues. So, yes as a result the potential deficit (= annual debt) that we would have had at year end is smaller. The overall debt may still be growing because there remains a deficit.

          • It's not a question of being obtuse. He didn't say deficit. He was talking about debt for a whole paragraph before making his claim - with no segue.

            So, along comes POTUS who makes the claim:
            1. The market is up.
            2. [no connecting steps]
            3. We're reducing the debt.

            And you want me to infer the steps he skipped over and change "debt" into "deficit."

            Words really do have no meaning when it comes to your infallible leader.

          • T Ray……yes, I am sure he meant deficit. Again, though, even with deficit, just putting 5 T on the books of private companies does not do anything for the deficit yet…..I have had a very good ride so far and have increased my wealth by about 28% but I have yet to relegate it to the real world….it is still sitting on my books and not spent. Therefore, no extra taxes have yet to hit the books og the government. That said, next year will be a signal and I think that most Democrats know this and are scared to friggin’ death about it translating into reduced deficit….in an off year election. I still believe that corporate andprivate spending will increase substantially in the next year or so IF….IF…..IF…..IF………the whores of Congress pass a tax cut right away and focus on reform later…..get some money into the economy now….and not through stimulus (borrowing). It will run some deficits up in the short term….as it did for Reagan. All of a sudden the Dems are now worried about the deficit….this is laughable but it is also true….they are worried about the impact in another year or so…..just in time for the 2020 elections.

            I have bet on the Trump model as far as reducing regulations and letting business work. We have already seen the impact in ranching and the oil fields by his eliminating the choking requirements under Obama….the Dems know this as well and the market iis responding…..HOWEVER…..it will revolve around the tax cuts……the Repubs need to stop worrying about the deficit nuetral crap….it cannot be obtained immediately…..but like Bill Cliton’s second term…..it can be and they know this.

            • I agree with you. Employment is up so tax revenues should be up. Those in the market have substantial gains, me included. I am a long term investor so have not paid on the increase yet. But there are plenty of short term investors out there that do have to pay on their returns further driving receipts up. Now add to that the aging boomers. I am a year ahead of you. In 6 months I need to start withdrawing from my IRAs. Add to that that I am working full time and get my first SS check next month. My tax bill will increase since I have no mortgage and only medical expenses and real estate taxes to deduct. If you have IRAs, you too will need to start withdrawing in about 180 months.

              I was considering posting my thoughts on the tax reform. First I think taxes should have one and only one purpose and that is to raise revenue to fund the government. All social engineering and wealth redistribution should be eliminated from the tax codes. Second taxes should be fair and equal for all. I think there should be a minimum 1% tax paid by everyone. Thereafter a standard deduction can be applied. No other deductions should be allowed. All income should be treated equally, i.e., there should be no difference between earned and unearned income, long or short term capital gains.

              Corporations should have a flat tax rate that is approximately the same as the upper individual tax bracket. I would make dividend payment tax deductible for corporations to encourage profit distributions. Corps should be allowed to deduct the cost of doing business, direct labor and material costs associated with building and selling the product. All industry specific tax breaks should be eliminated.

              etc, etc, etc.

    • Perhaps…….drunk? You do not reduce the debt….you reduce the spending because of the additional revenue.

      BUT…..since I dabble quite a bit in stocks/bonds………NEVER in hedge funds ( no offense sir ) and I do not pay with the shorts and puts……..too much risk involved for my tastes…..this guy definitely does not understand the relationship between markets and debt/deficit.

      • Perhaps…….drunk?

        If memory serves, Trump doesn't drink.

        • No, debt is NOT being reduced and is not going to be reduced. It is now exponentially impossible to reduce the debt. There is only one way to reduce the debt….and that is to write a check to reduce it. There is no other way. No POTUS has done this. I can read a balance sheet and I went back and researched the debt structure all the way back to Roosevelt….did not go further back.
          Barack Obama: Added $7.917 trillion from the $11.657 trillion debt at the end of George W. Bush’s last budget, FY 2007.

          George W. Bush: Added $5.849 trillion from the $5.8 trillion debt at the end of Clinton’s last budget, FY 2001

          Bill Clinton: Added $1.396 trillion from the $4.4 trillion debt at the end of George H.W. Bush’s last budget, FY 1993.

          George H.W. Bush: Added $1.554 trillion from the $2.8 trillion debt at the end of Reagan’s last budget, FY 1989

          Ronald Reagan: Added $1.86 trillion from the $998 billion debt at the end of Carter’s last budget, FY 1981.

          Jimmy Carter: Added $299 billion from the $699 billion debt at the end of Ford’s last budget, FY 1977.

          Gerald Ford: Added $224 billion from the $475 billion debt at the end of Nixon’s last budget, FY 1974.

          Richard Nixon: Added $121 billion from the $354 billion debt at the end of LBJ’s last budget, FY 1969

          Lyndon B. Johnson: Added $42 billion from the $312 billion debt at the end of JFK’s last budget, FY 1964

          John F. Kennedy: Added $23 billion from the $289 billion debt at the end of Eisenhower’s last budget, FY 1961

          Dwight Eisenhower: Added $23 billion from the $266 billion debt at the end of Truman’s last budget, FY 1953

          Harry Truman: Added $7 billion from the $259 billion debt at the end of FDR’s last budget, FY 1945

          Franklin D Roosevelt: Added $236 billion from the $23 billion debt at the end of Hoover’s last budget, FY 1933

          The whole point is that no POTUS has reduced the debt in the last 80+ years.

          Every POTUS had a tragedy or something to deal with that added to the debt. Spending and interest is what adds to the debt. The only POTUS, whose policies actually worked, from the list provided was Ronald Reagan……and he still added to the debt. DEFICIT IS NOT EVEN IN DISCUSSION HERE. Reagan pledged to make cuts in four areas:
          1. The growth of government spending.
          2. Both income taxes and capital gains taxes.
          3. Regulations on businesses.
          4. The expansion of the money supply.
          He fulfilled each and every one of his objectives, albeit not as much as he hoped but he still did what he said he was going to do….and, as stated above, it still added to the debt.
          The other problem that I found was that even when there were surpluses…..they were not spent on the debt. Not one dime.

          The response to Trump in the bull market does not reduce debt, per se…..unless you are willing to believe that increased revenue base means we borrow less money and, therefore, does not increase the debt as much. Slight of hand with the words. All one has to do is look at the debt and what is added to it each term of POTUS. It is hard numbers…….money. BUT…Trump has only been in office 9 months now? Hardly enough time to determine debt because he is still working off Obama’s FY 2017. Trump’s numbers do not even start until FY2018…..So, I am with Mathius on this in that……the Bull market, which history shows, is a response to Trump’s win, which has run up an extra 5 T or so…..has not one damn thing to do with debt. Not yet and to trifle with the balance sheet and rename things….is, likewise, not a good thing but slight of hand. Let us see what the true numbers are from this October forward because that will be Trump’s FY.

          • This was great - thank you!

            By the way, it looks like Clinton did a better job than Reagan 😉

            • This is why I asked you some time ago whether you would go back to the second term of Clinton on his fiscal policy……..where he reduced several social program payments and increase the eligibility requirements that had an immediate effect on borrowing.

              I did not like Clinton for several reasons…..but his second term fiscal policy was not too bad…

              • As I said above, Clinton benefited from the dotcom bubble (increased revenues) and Newt’s austerity (decreased spending) including the welfare reform. I must add to that Reagan’s peace dividend (decreased spending). He was in the right place at the right time.

        • No he does not, had his older brother die from it.

    • Just A Citizen says:

      Mathius

      Allow me. First you have to use the whole quote, not the truncated one you kept referencing to everyone below.

      Here is the quote you first provided: “So you could say, in one sense, we’re really increasing values. And maybe in a sense we’re reducing debt. But we’re very honored by it.”

      Notice he says, “maybe in a sense” just after mentioning increased “values”.

      So what he is saying is that the Asset values of the country have increased in the first nine months of his term by at least 5 Trillion and “maybe” the entire 10 Trillion that was added to the debt in the last 8 years.

      This does not align with any of your three options. It is in fact an old “Progressive” view of valuing over all economic health. Instead of focusing on Govt. debt the focus is on TOTAL Net Value of the country. Because to Progressives the Govt Debt doesn’t matter. It is just added to the rest and the entire package is evaluated as if it were a single account.

      In short, he is CHANGING THE ARGUMENT. Why? Because it makes him look good and his lackeys will start spreading this new meme on his behalf. Which is where your theory of he is doing it just to baffle people with bull shit does come into play.

      So, he is changing the argument, or using an old argument. Which of course is Bull Shit and therefore, if only given the choices you offered, I would say 4) ALL OF THE ABOVE.

    • Mathius, I got to finally watch what Trump said, versus just reading the words. I’m not sure why your assuming so much, considering Trump’s business background and lack of political speak.

      So you could say, in one sense, we’re really increasing values. And maybe in a sense we’re reducing debt.

      Increasing values (of business’s), reducing debt (business’s). He didn’t say national debt and he was clearly speaking about the value of business’s,. It is well known the business’s were in debt, especially after 8 years of “it’s Bush’s fault”. I think it’s quite easy to misunderstand Trump as to what he is referring, because he isn’t specific many times. Just like the Left’s claim of racism about the NFL and the National Anthem after his speech. He never mentioned race, not once. But, it was assumed. The Left likes to ASSUME a lot.

      Also, “maybe, in a sense” is not making a matter of fact claim, it’s speaking rhetorically or even wishful thinking, but by no means is it claiming anything factual.

  12. https://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/susan-jones/trump-doubles-down-network-licenses-must-be-challenged

    “Mr. President: Words spoken by the President of the United States matter. Are you tonight recanting of the oath you took on January 20th to preserve, protect, and defend the First Amendment?” Sen. Ben Sasse (R-Neb.) tweeted on Wednesday.

    MY QUESTION: If it’s a Right, Why the need for a license? As the old story goes, what the government giveth, the government can take away. But, as much as the media favors the Left, do they not meddle in the election as they have claimed Russia has?

    • I think - maybe - he's referring to to their broadcast licence. That is, the regulated permission to use a finite resource - broadcast bandwidth - for purposes of transmission of their signal. This is something the FCC regulates, and has to regulate, because if it did not, then competing signals might conflict and no one would be able to transmit over the air.

      Seeing as it's 2017, this is no longer so vital for TV stations, though, of course, it is still important for radio and cell service (by the way, if you ever wondered what happened to channels 0, 00, 1, and 2, the answer is that they were reallocated to cellular carriers).

      NBC does not require a licence to report or to transmit over the internet or via paper or wired connection. The only licencing is to use the airwaves which are considered a national asset. The requirement there is that an organization utilizing these resources do so "in the public interest." I'm not sure if there's any definition of what, exactly, that means, but I'm sure there's a definition somewhere. But it makes sense - there's only so much, so people using it should use it in the interest of the country.

      If - IF - you could make the case (as Trump seems to be trying to do) that NBC is actively bad for the country, then it is not operating "in the public interest" and then it would be right to revoke its broadcast licence (though this would have no baring on their ability to report via cable, internet, paper, etc). But, of course, his argument is bullshit.

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

      With all that said, of course, Trump is an ass-hat and he is trying to threaten the media into not reporting on him critically. He is trying to chill the free press into submission.

      I'd say he's technically within the right here, but he sure as hell is violating the spirit of the First Amendment.

      • he is trying to threaten the media into not reporting on him critically. He is trying to chill the free press into submission.

        I’d say he’s technically within the right here, but he sure as hell is violating the spirit of the First Amendment.

        He learned well, from Obama….if you remember Obama and Hillary both were on this bent for awhile.

      • Just A Citizen says:

        Mathius

        I disagree. I do not think he is trying to stifle the press nor scare them into behaving. I think his rhetoric is designed to keep the people turned against the press. If, due to their lost popularity the Press suddenly becomes objective then that is just a win, win.

        I agree, that Trump hates bad press and seems overly sensitive to criticism. But he feeds off this and needs it to keep his base.

        • I agree but my reading is the same as his I think. I can reach back to the press that Nixon got, the unfair press from day one and since that time, with the exception of Reagan every other republican too. Now Reagan with Aw Shucks! Down home, grandfather thing could just shrug it off but it was just as viscous as anything else they did (Iran-Contra). What Trump is doing is taking them on, calling them out, head on. That’s NEVER been done before in my lifetime, on a national level.

          As a New Yorker, I tend to judge a lot by NY politics. While Ed Koch described himself as a “sane” democrat and he was, he got bad press from time to time because he was not afraid to challenge liberal orthodoxy in his quest to save the City. He gave it right back to them. Now when Rudy became Mayor, he did absolutely what I would have suggested from day one. TAKE NO PRISONERS. Just do the damn job. They hit, you hit back, harder. They call you names, you call them worse names. They point out your flaws, you bury them with theirs. We have reached a point in this country where things were so off the track that it will take a medium yield nuke to get them back on. Jeez, girls in the Boy Scouts!

          Neither Rudy nor Donald Trump are the kind of guys I would invite to a backyard B-B-que but both are quite capable of getting the job done, properly, without apology. If, along the way, they offend absolutely everyone, Tough shit!

  13. Colonel

    You still have not made a case for Govt. ownership or control. You simply keep assuming that private ownership could not restrict access. Yet this has in fact happened with the internet.

    We far to often just assume the Govt. is needed because it appears easier or just because we are used to it. Radio frequencies are one of those things that could have been privatized long ago. The airline industry could have purchased the frequencies they needed and banned others from using them via ownership rights.

    There is a backbone to the internet comprised connections between thousands and thousands of nodes. Each node is an access point into the network. You could, if you wanted to, and had the money, create your own node and plug it into the rest of the internet and use it as your own access point. You would be your own ISP (though, because of your small size, you would have to pay other carriers for the right to have them accept your packets). And data would pass from other nodes through yours and on to other nodes.

    In fact, there is no "one" internet. There are hundreds of large internets overlapping and interweaving and interconnecting. These are owned by major corporations (there's a tiering system in place), and at a high level, the idea is that the biggest networks get paid for carrying data, but can also segregate and work as an independent internet if/when it suits them (so I could pass my data along an isolated internet without ever contacting another provider, but it would be slower and have less redundancy, but it would be more secure, and I could avoid interacting with a foreign power, say.)

    You could, with your node, be malicious. For example, you could allow falsified traffic. You could filter out legitimate traffic you wished to censor. You could launch DOS attacks. You could manipulate packets.

    And, if you do that, the other node owners will recognize that, and they will block you from the network by rejecting traffic from you. There exists a sort of "black list" of such nodes, and anyone who is blacklisted is blacklisted from all nodes, thus they are effectively shut out of the entire internet. Thus it is in everyone's interests to play nicely and by the rules, or the whole thing crumbles. The reputable nodes all behave nicely. And you can watch videos of cats on youtube all day long.

    In sum, the "internet" has barriers to entry for those who do not play by the rules. It has a privately owned ability to enforce compliance. And if I don't like it, I can build my own internet. Because there's no limit to the number of internets that can be built.

    ----------

    But this is not the case for broadcast airwaves. There is only one EM spectrum, and within that, a narrow range which is good for long range transmission.

    And I can buy a transmitter - hell, I can build a transmitter - and I can blast whatever noise I want out into the public sphere and there is bupkis you can do about it. That is, unless Uncle Sam claims a monopoly and stops me.

    You posit that someone should "purchase" the exclusive right to a frequency, but from whom do they purchase this? Did I - personally and individually - sell you my right to transmit? If I reserve my rights, can I not scramble your signal?

    There is no way for a privately organized patchwork to stop me from accessing the system. The system is just the sky and a question of sending out the right EM signal with enough power. You can't say "you're behaving badly, you're cut off." Because you have no ability to cut me off without force.

    An analogy might be singing. In Pirate utopia, you posit that I, Mathius the Bard, have somehow "purchased" the exclusive right to sing in the center of town. So I do this. But then the Dread Pirate, who owns a neighboring building, takes out a megaphone and starts reading aloud the Wealth of Nations at top volume.

    This, of course, interferes with my performance. But what right has he violated? How can I control his behavior through non-violent means? How does my regulating entity, from whom I purchased this right, enforce their rules upon 3rd parties who can, with such limited barriers to entry, interfere?

    And, remember, we're not just talking about a neighbor here. We're talking about country-spanning broadcasts. What you suggest cannot work because you cannot exclude participation on a open platform.

    • Just A Citizen says:

      Mathius

      You acquired the frequency via a lottery held by the govt. No fee to get a ticket. Every citizen gets a chance to win. Once you win you are free to use it, hoard it or sell it.

      The assumption in this exercise is that the actual “value” of the frequency will be paid by those who really, really, want it. So in this example, the airline industry would form a group that would purchase the frequencies and then regulate the use to assure proper “safety” when flying.

      Just because a resource is finite does not dictate that Govt. control it.

      The rules of ownership are enforced by the Courts. If you use a frequency purchased by another person and cause damage in doing so then you are liable to them for that damage. Or some amount for trespass.

      Radio frequencies are not the same as two people shouting in town square. Unless one of them purchased the frequency used to do the shouting. And if that right of ownership included EXCLUSIVE use.

  14. Just A Citizen says:

    Mathius

    You have often mentioned Clinton’s budget “surplus”. So let me ask you this. How is it the Public Debt never declines if there was in fact a “surplus”?

    https://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/pd/histdebt/histdebt_histo4.htm

  15. Maybe if the Fed’s would actually have an annual budget, things could be reigned in. I think the last true budget was under Bush II. Now for the big question. How did we the people benefit from this 10 trillion in new debt since Bush II?

  16. Ok…to those who support Obamacare……I have been listening to the pundits so now I am going to ask those familiar with Obamacare or that like Obamacare.
    1) Association health plans allow people in the ACA’s individual or small-group insurance exchanges to pool together to purchase insurance at a more favorable rate. These plans would also not be subject to certain Obamacare regulations, which could help make them even cheaper for people participating. / Exactly how does this hurt or dismantle Obamacare?

    2) Short-term insurance plans are cheap but provide little coverage. The ACA prevents people from buying these plans that offer coverage for more than 90 days, but the order calls for extending that to up to a year. How does this hurt Obamacare?

    3) If you are insured by a large company that offers insurance, there should be few effects. But the order might make it easier for your employer to give you pretax money if you want to buy your own insurance. What exactly is wrong with this?

    4) Allowing markets to compete across state lines What is wrong with increasing the marketplace to obtain lower insurance rates?

    5) Beginning to eliminate subsidies to insurance companies And the problem with this is exactly what? Taking money away from large donors? The latest revelations just showed ow much money each insurer received dependent upon the level of their donations….so just where is the problem taking this away.

    • WOW, legalizing choice, what a concept 🙂

    • Just A Citizen says:

      Colonel

      1. It hurts ACA because it drains people and money from the pools. But what is good for the ACA is not necessarily good for the people seeking insurance. So while it could damage the financials of the ACA it could very well help people get cheaper coverage.

      Caveat here: Buying policies across state lines may not really create the benefits everyone hoped for, unless the EO exempts the insurance companies from meeting the “State laws” in those States where the employees reside. Also, the ACA has greatly reduced the number of providers, so the market “forces” are not as strong as they were a few years back.

      I hope the next step is to legalize “private coops” across state lines. Then people can form groups with purchasing power, instead of keeping insurance tied to employers.

      • Jersey has two insurers left for auto insurance before Gov. McGreevy. He ran on opening up the state and actually did. I watched my rates drop dramatically and my options increase almost exponentially.

  17. I thought I saw the picture of female FemaNazi self proclaimed “Nasty Woman” Ashley Judd on the picture of Weinstein’s victims. Gee, what a foul hypocrite. .

  18. Canine Weapon says:

  19. Programming on CNN and MSNBC Thursday was replete with fantasies about invoking the 25th amendment and removing President Trump from office.

    So when does this stuff cross the line of sedition?

    Generally, a person may be punished for sedition only when he or she makes statements that create a Clear and Present Danger to rights that the government may lawfully protect (schenck v. united states, 249 U.S. 47, 39 S. Ct. 247, 63 L. Ed. 470 [1919]).

    • So when does this stuff cross the line of sedition?

      How is it "sedition" to suggest a lawful action? If you're going to suggest that agitating for the lawful removal of a disliked President is sedition, then so is stumping for his opponent during a reelection campaign.

      Generally, a person may be punished for sedition only when he or she makes statements that create a Clear and Present Danger to rights that the government may lawfully protect (schenck v. united states, 249 U.S. 47, 39 S. Ct. 247, 63 L. Ed. 470 [1919]).

      The President has no lawful entitlement to remain in power beyond the constraints placed on him by the Constitutions. The Constitution clearly specifies that he can be removed under the 25th. Thus, they are not threatening a "right" that the he may "lawfully protect."

      Let's try it another way. The point of clause 4 is to give the government a way to oust an incapable President through a channel which does not require impeachment. So let's say Mrs. Clinton had won. And let's say Gman's theories were correct and she did have a brain tumor. And let's say, right about now, she's getting a little floopy and thinks that the Russians are spying on her through the fillings in her teeth. She insists on everyone in the White House wearing tinfoil hats. She's started bottling her own urine in the West Wing.

      So, along comes Fox, who points out that she's nuttier than a five-­pound fruitcake, and suggests that the cabinet remove her. Is this sedition?

      What is the difference?

      • The difference is that the Liberal media are attempting to use false pretenses with no legal or medical basis of fact. It’s called out right lying. This is nothing new to the Liberal media, it is a constant daily event and they keep getting caught. Simply put, they are openly committing slander and they know it.

        • The difference is that the Liberal media are attempting to use false pretenses with no […] medical basis of fact.

          Says you. I, personally, am fairly confident that he's nuts and terribly suited to the job. I can't say, definitively, that he has a mental problem without having personally examined him (or, you know, without having significant professional training), but I can spot a nutcase when I see one. And that boy ain't right.

          Now, to be fair:

          It is a well-known fact that those people who must want to rule people are, ipso facto, those least suited to do it… anyone who is cabable of getting themselves made President should on no account be allowed to do the job.
          -Douglas Adams

          So, they're all nuts. But Trump is a special kind of nuts. And I don't think it takes a huge stretch of the imagination to suggest that he's a little too nuts to be the most powerful person on the planet.

          The difference is that the Liberal media are attempting to use false pretenses with no legal […] basis of fact.

          What are you talking about? The legal basis is the 25th Amendment. They're suggesting the - PERFECTLY LEGAL - and legitimate exercise of clause four of the 25th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America.

          They think (I agree) that he's nuts and dangerous and should be removed (I'm not sure) as provided for by the law.

          They're not suggesting an illegal military coup. They're suggesting we follow the law. The law says that the VP with the majority of the cabinet, may declare the President "unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office." It gives them that power. That is their LEGAL power. They may exercise it as a Constitutional check on the President of the United States.

          The fact that you might not agree that the President is nuts (enough) to be removed doesn't make it illegal or even false for members of the press to suggest otherwise or recommend action. They think he's nuts. And dangerous. And so do I. And they think he should be removed by the legal mechanism which exists for that purpose. (I'm not so sure - I'm always hesitant to uncork new political WMD's).

          Simply put, they are openly committing slander and they know it.

          I read it, so it's libel, not slander.. 😛

          And it's not slander or libel if they believe it or if it's true. Truth is an absolute defense to the charge of slander and/or libel. And, as far as public figures are concerned in the United States - thanks to the First Amendment - the litmus test is that the author must have a "reasonable belief" in the truth or accuracy of his statement at the time of publication.

          That's how outlets like Breitbart got away with calling President Obama a reptile alien shape-shifting Muslim Manchurian candidate Marxist Nazi who is also gay and a drug user. If I went and looked in the archives, would I find posts from suggesting Breitbart should be prosecuted for slandering the then-President? Or that what they were saying was illegal in some way? Or would you have defended them, saying you may not agree, but that's the cost of a free press: sometimes they'll say things that you don't agree with.

          Trump has told some WHOPPERS in his time. Let's say accusing Ted Cruz's father of being the zodiac killer for one. Or of pandering in the Birtherism nonsense. Or of the myriad outright lies he told about Clinton. But none of this, necessarily, rose to prosecutable levels of slander because the bar for public figures is so high. It may have been false - but it wasn't necessarily illegal.

          Regardless of the fact that the press enjoys significant latitude to express their opinions against public figures, I find it rich to find a pathological liar and serial slanderer griping about being slandered himself. Richly hypocritical.

          Trump needs to stop being such a butt-hurt snowflake and grow a pair. People are going to be critical of him. He's the freaking President. It comes with the territory. Fox wasn't kind to Obama. NBC isn't going to be kind to Trump. Thems the breaks. Did he think, once he got in, that everyone was going to hero worship him and it'd be wall to wall positive coverage for 4-8 years? And, if he did, doesn't that just prove that he's nuts?

          • LMAO! Objection, conjecture and speculation. I think he is just fine and what DC needs for 8 years. He can’t be nuts, he whooped the Queen wannabe that you had anointed as the next President. I think maybe you are the one that’s nuts (based on your election prediction, 🙂 ). The Liberals CAN’T just make idiotic claims and they magically come true.

            Who’s really nuts? The Liberal media has made a living off of the Russian collusion delusion, which isn’t going anywhere, it’s a fallacy. They have been caught on undercover video even saying so, it was for ratings. That in itself shows how NUTS they may be, and may be guilty of sedition. I’d like to see them charged and tried. If they are found “not guilty”, then no harm done.

  20. Image that you build a house which you said was fire resistant, though not fire proof, and that it would require periodic maintenance. You sell it to me. I refuse to do any maintenance for years and, afterward, drop napalm on it. I then point at the subsequent fire and say "see, you suck at building houses! I knew your house wouldn't hold up! Your design was terrible and could never work!"

    Maybe the house would have burned down anyway, but there's no way to prove that now, is there? All we know is that I took deliberate action and non-action to force a failure to occur. So, are you responsible for the destruction or am I?

    I'd say it's obviously my fault in this scenario.

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

    So, now, a query for the group:

    Mr. Trump has cut off the cost-sharing subsidies under ObamaCare. I guess he has this authority, I don't know. Whatever. That's beside the point.

    Taken at face value that these subsidies are a vital component for the proper functioning of ObamaCare (as designed and implemented), we arrive at the inescapable conclusion that this action is damaging to ObamaCare. If/when ObamaCare "fails" (however you want to define this), we can be certain that Trump and the Republicans will blame Democrats.

    My question is: given this, is it fair or right for them to actively sabotage a policy to the point of forcing its failure and then to blame that failure of those who implemented it in the first place?

    • Shortly after the passage of Obamacare, the Obama administration realized that it would need these subsidies and asked for an appropriation from Congress in 2013. Why would it do so if it didn’t have to? No one knows. When Congress refused, Obama’s Treasury Secretary Jack Lew, without offering any public legal justification for the move, ordered the administration to begin making CSR payments. You can imagine the outcry if Donald Trump simply began funding a massive border wall without a congressional appropriation to authorize the funding.
      Since Lew’s decision to unilaterally create a massive new appropriation, Obama (and now Trump) have been sending around $7 billion each year to insurance companies participating in the supposedly self-sufficient and competitive state health care exchanges. They continued to do so after the House sued. They continued to do so after a federal judge found the payments unconstitutional and ordered them stopped.

      It’s worth noting that the price of insurance for Obamacare consumers will not change because of the president’s actions. Trump is stopping illegal payments to health insurance companies, not altering a word of Obamacare. Premiums will rise because Obamacare exchanges do not lower premiums, because they don’t feature any real competition. If you need insurance company bribes disguised as health care subsidies to keep your fabricated exchanges functioning, then perhaps you don’t have a law that’s worth saving.

      On the court case: http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-obamacare-court-ruling-20160512-snap-story.html

      Bottom line, Obama was illegally funding the subsidies to insurance companies. I call it theft, but the money will never be recovered by those that took it.

      • Let's say I agreed with everything you just said.

        Back to my question: If taken as a given that Trump et al are deliberately sabotaging Obama Care then, when it fails, is it "fair" to blame Democrats for the failure?

        Back to my house analogy: If I sell you a supposedly fire resistant house, but you do not maintain it and, in fact, napalm it, maybe you're right that it wasn't fire resistant, but surely, you can't blame the fire on me at this point, can you?

        • This belongs to the Democrats, totally. They passed it on their own, not 1 Republican voted for it. Hence, they failed to ensure that the necessary appropriations were there. Maybe they should have thought of this before shoving it down everyone’s throats. In short, the Democrats failed to think ahead, but what should anyone expect, they had to pass it to find out what was in it 🙂

          • You seem to be implying that the means by which the Red Team sabotages the law changes things. What I am saying is that they are actively trying to make it not work and, regardless of how they do that, you can't blame the other team for the house burning down when you're the one actively playing with napalm.

            To belabor my metaphor, one of my fire resistance features was installed without the appropriate permits. And you've gone in and gutted removed that feature (ignoring that you could have, instead, gotten a retroactive permit). But then, at the end of the day, you're the one who deliberately set fire to the house, and now you're blaming me for the fire because one of the methods I used - which you removed - wasn't authorized. But you - not me - YOU - disabled the protections and set fire to the house.

            Again, maybe it would have burned down anyway. I can't say. But neither can you, because you altered my design and then worked to ensure that it failed. That's not on me. It's on you.

            • Sorry, when the Democrats passed it as they did, it lies fully on THEM to make it work. If it can’t work without the other side, then they should not have passed it without the other side. This is when having a Super majority can it’s used can come back to haunt you. It is not the Republicans responsibility to make the law work, AT ALL. It falls completely on the Dems. They failed to consider the future appropriations when they lost their majority. Sucks to be them.

              p.s. The law was not working anyway and was unaffordable. It was destined to fail because the young folks didn’t buy in. Lesson: Don’t force people to do things.

              • The Republicans pass a bill which does the following: (A) reduces spending by 10% per year and (B) reduces revenue by 10% per year. They pass this with all Red Team votes and it's signed into law by a Red Team President over the screaming objections of the entire Blue Team.

                Next election, Blue Team takes control of all three branches. They repeal provision (A).

                Revenues continue to drop at 10% per year, but spending does not, massive deficits ensue, the US economy collapses, fire rains from the sky, and we all die a fiery death in the apocalypse.

                But, because the Red Team passed it on their own without any Blue Team support, and because they failed to consider future actions of the Blue Team, the Blue Team is under no obligation to make it work. Further, they can knock out any support pillars they like with impunity. And any and all ramifications of the law's success or failure belong exclusively to whoever passed it: the Red Team.

                Did I get that right?

                (Hint: There might be some not so subtle traps here)

            • Let me add, it is not sabotage. It is not voting to pay for a law they did not want.

              • Of course it is. The whole thing is a big interconnected system. Trump just knocked out an integral component.

                In my example above, tax reduction goes hand in hand with spending reduction. Because you cannot safely separate them without blowing up the economy. But the Blue Team didn't want the law, so they're just going to "vote to not pay continue" a part of it that they don't like.

              • Trump is abiding by a court ruling. The payments made were ruled unconstitutional. For these appropriations to get funded, the democrats now have to negotiate, which they are not doing any such thing. The world will not end because a bad law fails, so don’t worry about your hypothesis above 🙂 The Democrats have been good little obstructionist’s, just like the Republicans were during Obama’s failed Presidency. This is what partisan politics have become. So, in the mean time, we watch and chat about it. It would be nice to see them work together for “we the people” instead of working for their donors. Neither are innocent.

  21. Beware small sample sizes, but I thought it was interesting, anyway:

    Make of it what you will.

    • Ok, I will first say……Quinnipiac University is….well…..never mind. However, I did go to Roper Archives and tried to find the formula that they used…..I cannot find it. But, that said, I am certainly not computer literate and I do not have my 12 year old grand-daughter close by to help me.

    • Trump is NOT popular at all. Matter of fact he only gets above 20% in Russia.

      But then again Rudy Guilliani was never, according to the polls, Mayor of New York.

  22. Mr. Gman,

    Obama did not vote for the wars in Iraq or Afghanistan. These were passed by people who were not him. In fact, the day the Iraq war was authorized, Obama spoke against it at a rally. These wars continued under his Presidency, however.

    Is it your contention that, because he did not want these and because they were started by different people, that he is not responsible in any way shape or form for them? That his success or failures are wholly irrelevant because the wars belong, lock stock, and barrel, to whoever started them?

    Thus, if I did through the archives, I should not be able to dig up a single quote from you ever - ever - complaining about anything Obama-related with regards to the wars. And, in fact, I will find that you have consistently and exclusively faulted to people (esp GWB) who voted for them?

    • War and the laws such as Obamacare are completely different animals. Obama ended the Iraq stuff, good for him, although he screwed that up bigly. Still in Afghanistan, I guess the black money from the poppies they grow are too big to let go 🙂 In the end, it’s all politically based and one just has to follow the money to see that. Just like these subsidies the Left are whining about. If the law was working, these subsidies would not be needed. The Left thought it would work, they were wrong, time to move on, don’t you think?

  23. Mathius…..I was trying to read through your dialogues (without the benefit of Dr Pepper)….Has not Obamacare already failed in its claim of lower premiums for everybody?

    But to your point that you are claiming sabotage…..you are talking about the subsidies to the insurance companies, am I correct in this? If you are talking subsidies, (treating insurance companies like Amtrak)….why do you call it sabotage when a POTUS, any POTUS, eliminates subsidies? Is that not simply a cost saving measure? ( Albeit that it does affect Obamacare )……is it also sabotage by opening the markets to more competition? Such as allowing employees and small employers to pool? Why is this sabotage? Or…am I misreading in the fog of no Dr Pepper?

  24. Out of town with the Missus for two weeks. Have fun!

  25. Question for Mathius…….please observe the following:

    ” In reality, the Constitution scraps Obama’s subsidies. They were never lawful because Congress never appropriated the money. Here’s the legal background. Section 1402 of Obamacare requires insurance companies to reduce deductibles, copayments, and other similar payments for lower-income consumers and then says that the federal government will reimburse the insurers for their losses. Specifically, insurers will notify the federal government of the amount of their price reductions, and the government will “make periodic and timely payments to the insurer equal to the value of the reductions.”

    “Article I, Section 9, of the Constitution unambiguously declares that “no Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by law.”

    There is unmistakeable evidence that President Obama knew that his administration needed a specific appropriation to fund Section 1402 subsidies — he asked Congress for the money. Congress said no. It didn’t appropriate a single dime. So Obama did what he did best: He “penned and phoned” the subsidies into existence. He directly violated the Constitution by spending the money anyway. The House of Representatives sued, and on May 12, 2016, federal district court judge Rosemary Collyer ruled in the House’s favor and held that the Obama administration’s payments were unlawful. Her opinion reads like a 38-page civics lesson, but for all its length the court’s core holding is simple: “The Affordable Care Act unambiguously appropriates money for Section 1401 premium tax credits but not for Section 1402 reimbursements to insurers. Such an appropriation cannot be inferred.”

    That said….just where did Trump sabotage the ACA? If the subsidies are illegal, as ruled by Federal Court, and Trump corrected this…where is the sabotage?”

  26. Mathius…..a discussion, if you please…….observe the following:

    “Here’s the legal background. Section 1402 of Obamacare requires insurance companies to reduce deductibles, copayments, and other similar payments for lower-income consumers and then says that the federal government will reimburse the insurers for their losses. Specifically, insurers will notify the federal government of the amount of their price reductions, and the government will “make periodic and timely payments to the insurer equal to the value of the reductions.”

    “Unlike other provisions of Obamacare covering other forms of subsidies (for example, Section 1401, which funded subsidies that helped cover insurance premiums), the law didn’t specifically appropriate any money to fund these payments. This isn’t a small thing. In fact, it implicates the core constitutional structure of our government. Article I, Section 9, of the Constitution unambiguously declares that “no Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by law.” The most relevant federal appropriations statute states quite clearly that “a law may be construed to make an appropriation out of the Treasury . . . only if the law specifically states that an appropriation is made.”

    “In fact, there is unmistakeable evidence that President Obama knew that his administration needed a specific appropriation to fund Section 1402 subsidies — he asked Congress for the money. Congress said no. It didn’t appropriate a single dime. So Obama did what he did best: He “penned and phoned” the subsidies into existence. He directly violated the Constitution by spending the money anyway.”

    “The House of Representatives sued, and on May 12, 2016, federal district court judge Rosemary Collyer ruled in the House’s favor and held that the Obama administration’s payments were unlawful. Her opinion reads like a 38-page civics lesson, but for all its length the court’s core holding is simple: “The Affordable Care Act unambiguously appropriates money for Section 1401 premium tax credits but not for Section 1402 reimbursements to insurers. Such an appropriation cannot be inferred.”

    Sir, if the above is true, just exactly where did Trump sabotage the ACA?

    NOw, more importantly to me……as I have said all along, where is the enforcement of law when a State ( Texas, for example ) or a POTUS ( Obama, for example ) directly circumvents a Federal Court ruling? Where is the enforcement powers to uphold a Federal Law if, for instance, Texas, in its voter ID, California, in its sanctuary status, and Obama in it disregard for the Federal Court ruling unconstitutional…….where does the “rule of law” function? Who enforces the law on these examples?

    Or do we just return to the old west where the right of rule goes to the biggest, meanest, son of a bitch in the valley……..

  27. Now, for an even more sinister question: According to the ACA, if an insurance company lowers its premiums and, consequently suffers a loss…is to be made whole again by “periodic payments”……has not the government just guaranteed the “insurance industry” a profit from now on? As a President of an insurance company, all I have to do is keep insurance rates low, but as my costs increase for “whatever”…I am guaranteed a profit or reimbursement. As I read the appropriate sections pertaining to “periodic payments” no where does it apply to premiums…I can raise my benefit package, give golden parachutes, raise wages…and simply say…keeping my premiums low is killing my company….I need a periodic payment…

    I ask anybody…..please show me the checks and balances that prevent this….and. while you are at it, do what I did and look at the contributions each insurer made to the Democratic party. What a tangled web.

  28. Just A Citizen says:

    The headline should have read “Ex politicians reveals lack of character among politicians.”

    http://www.cnn.com/2017/10/13/opinions/speak-mind-politicians-israel-opinion/index.html

  29. Chocolate…..in agreement. Raw honey……not only healthy but a great part of a Churro….but what do you know…you eat steak rare.

    • Question: Can these politicians just take these campaign contributions and spend them as they choose? In another note, HRC could have simple said the Weinstein’s political contributions were spent in the 2016 election campaign. Why would HRC state that she still had that money?

  30. President Obama welcomed Bergdahl himself to the Rose Garden, along with his parents, where he lauded their “courage” and the media cast Bergdahl in the role of hero; National Security Advisor Susan Rice, who made a habit of fibbing to the American public on national television during her tenure in the job, told Americans that Bergdahl’s service was “honorable” and added that he served with “honor and distinction.” Obama defended his decision by stating, “I make absolutely no apologies for making sure that we get back a young man to his parents and that the American people understand that this is somebody’s child and that we don’t condition whether or not we make the effort to try to get them back.”

    Today, Bergdahl pleaded guilty to desertion and misbehavior before the enemy.

    Just another example of Obama’s failures as a President. WPE!!!!!!

  31. Obamacare is finished. It’s dead. It’s gone. You shouldn’t even mention it. It’s gone. There is no such thing as Obamacare anymore.

    -Donald J. Trump (earlier today)

    Duly noted. Going forward, whatever happens to the the health care industry will be 100% Trump's

    I'm sure he'll take personal responsibility, too. Right? Right?

    Source.

    • Wrong. Health insurance industry, yes. Health care industry is a whole different monster.

    • Trump did not touch the ACA……he has not changed a word, he has not repealed or replaced it….he has done absolutely nothing to the ACA….

      The only thing he has done….is eliminate illegal subsidies.

      • Trump did not touch the ACA……he has not changed a word, he has not repealed or replaced it….he has done absolutely nothing to the ACA….

        But- But- But, he said it's dead!

        He said it's gone and there's no such thing as ObamaCare / ACA anymore.

        Are you calling the President of the United States a liar?

  32. Canine Weapon says:

    https://www.usatoday.com/videos/news/politics/2017/10/13/trump-i-met-president-virgin-islands/106602054/

    Here’s the thing… I know I’m just a dog.. but I’m like 99% Trump is the President of the Virgin Islands…

  33. Just A Citizen says:

    Finally, somebody is actually doing something about this. I am guessing the Secretary won’t last long now. Last time a Sec. of Interior tried to get tough on the greenies and lawyers he was sacked (James Watt, in case you didn’t know). You may recall I explained this play to get paid scheme several years ago.

    https://www.redstate.com/streiff/2017/10/16/scott-pruitt-epa-sue-and-settle/

    • In fulfilling his promise to end the practice of regulation through litigation that has harmed the American public, EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt issued an Agency-wide directive today designed to end “sue and settle” practices within the Agency, providing an unprecedented level of public participation and transparency in EPA consent decrees and settlement agreements.

      “The days of regulation through litigation are over,” said EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt. “We will no longer go behind closed doors and use consent decrees and settlement agreements to resolve lawsuits filed against the Agency by special interest groups where doing so would circumvent the regulatory process set forth by Congress. Additionally, gone are the days of routinely paying tens of thousands of dollars in attorney’s fees to these groups with which we swiftly settle.”

      These are the small ( actually huge ) things that Trump is doing. He cannot get anything through Congress so he does it, like Obama, with a pen and a phone…..helluva way to run a railroad.

      • Create by the pen and phone, die by the pen and phone.

        • So…..are you still out of fire danger?

          • Still getting some smoke. The fires in Napa (80 miles west) area are about 50% contained and do not appear to be threatening any big developments. The ones near Oroville (50 miles north) are 70% contained. There are also a couple of small fires in the Sierras about 30 miles east of us. I think this is the source of the morning smoke we get. We are in no danger here. Conditions are cool at night and mild in the daytime but we have not seen any significant rain since last spring. Rain is coming on Thursday or Friday which should be a big help if there is little or no lightening. The black and blue oaks started dropping leaves several weeks ago probably due to the lack of water. Despite a wet winter last year, they are still stressed from the extended drought.

            The last I heard is 5700 homes and 41 deaths. No cause given for the fires but speculation that it was power lines in high winds that caused the problem. I am skeptical. Too many fires in such a small area.

            • I am skeptical. Too many fires in such a small area.

              Sorry....

              • These fires are an annual thing. My friend is a serious conspiracy theorist and “everything” that happens bad is a conspiracy. The claims of “worst fire in California history” is because so many people and buildings were affected. The same fire, minus all the people and buildings, has likely burned numerous times before the areas were developed. I suggest that people not develop areas subject to annual wildfires…….much like I suggest people move away from where hurricanes might hit or away from rivers and creeks that flood. When the big one hits (earthquake), this wildfire will be chicken scratch in comparison. Yet, knowing that a big one can occur and likely will at some point in time, millions of people live in the area. Sucks to be them when it hits, but I won’t feel sorry for them. Choices have repercussions. Bad choices as to where to live can get you killed.

              • Yeah….same issue with hurricane Harvey in Houston……developers built on reclaimed swamp lands and areas that were below the 100 year flood line…..built below dams that kept the water out of the flood plains….then 50 inches later, everyone is pissed because the homes that flooded were in………………………..flood plains. Exacerbate that by buildings and storm drains that redirect water…..designed to handle heavy rains……but again, 50 inches is beyond heavy…….THEN, exacerbate that with the same rains up rivers that fow down to the coast…and the dams had to be opend to prevent breaching…..voila…more water in a flood plain.

              • Gman,

                More than that. Nature used to let fires run rampant every few years. It would burn out all the underbrush and built up detritus. The results were quick fires of limited scope that didn't burn too hot. In this environment, many if not most live trees could survive largely unscathed.

                But once we get in the picture with our zero-tolerance policy toward wild fires, all that flammable material piles up year after dry year. Eventually, something sparks and now you've got a fire orders of magnitude worse. With tons of fuel, and burning hot enough that all the trees catch too.

                It's like pouring water on a grease fire. Rather than making it better, you've just added fuel. Woops.

              • Very true Mathius, people have added fuel to the fires. The question I have, is why the aren’t the debris piles cleaned up so this don’t happen?

  34. But that still does not change the fact…..he did not touch any portion of the ACA….not one, single, solitary word, period, sentence or exclamation point. Not even Dread Pirate utterance of arrrrgh……he touched nothing.

  35. Holy shit…..I am going to shut up about Trump…..he just sold out to the Dems and the insurance companies….what an ass. If I saw this correctly, he has agreed to a two year moratorium on subsidies……and the insurance companies are still going to raise the rates to the public an average of 25% in addition to the subsidies in 2017…and have a schedule 30% increase in 2018…….what a bunch of whores. So, basicallym they just gave themselves a 25 % raise. Unbelievable.

    • I think you have gotten some fake news.

    • Just A Citizen says:

      Colonel

      Here is the story: http://www.cnn.com/2017/10/17/politics/health-care-csr-payments-deal-reached/index.html

      Which of course begs the question; why doesn’t congress just address the long delays caused by the process? In other words, the D’s are holding small concessions hostage to a screwed up process they designed. Screw it up, then demand stuff to fix the screw up. Just brilliant.

      • Still appears to me that everyone thinks he supports this……stop the subdidies and let it implode…..they are raising their rates regardless. Let them do it….it is still a Democratic health disaster.

        • Well, hell….now I saw on the news this morning that Trump went to the Obama school….The University of Flippus Floppus…….he has changed his mind in the support of insurance subsidies…..

          Question for all…..am I the only one on here that thinks that the insurance industry should not be bailed out?

          • No

          • Colonel, I can’t find anything other than this tweet from a couple hours ago which contradicts what you’re saying. I read an article on FOX referring to your complaint but it was very vague.

          • Colonel, If this were true I would know, as my email box would be exploding, but, crickets. I have no stories on this subject that would lead me to believe it. Therefore, in an act of pure decency, I will call this story “FAKE NEWS”. Trump is NOT paying the insurance companies subsidies in a change of heart from his earlier Executive Order.

            Note JAC’s link was from CNN. Basically anything from CNN must be taken with many grains of salt, they are nothing more than a Liberal advocacy network, they have lost any and all credibility as a news organization.

    • Dale A. Albrecht says:

      being echoed worldwide……Hillary claimed she had no involvement yet sat on the committee discussing the deal. The details of $145M being directed to the Clinton Foundation by the principles involved. $500K goint directly to Bill for a speech. People have been subsequently convicted of the bribery scheme. How is it that the FBI under Mueller and Comey NEVER allegedly informed the committee nor administration (not a chance of that) that the people involved were bing investigated for racketeering and bribery on a grand scale.

      Could it be that with this information now being released officially instead of by just a conservative journalist (Schweizer) “Clinton Cash” HRC is being deemed a huge liability to the deep state and is being pushed over the edge and into the abyss? Her tour is showing the world now the bullet they dodged with Trump winning the POTUS position instead of her.

      Weinstein paid Bill’s legal fees during his troubles with abuse charges.

      The $10B that never seemed to get to Haiti has been stonewalled even with strenuous demands from that government. Only a small portion ever made it to the recovery efforts

      . http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-10-17/fbi-uncovered-russian-nuclear-bribery-plot-obama-approved-uranium-one-deal-netting-c

    • Dale A. Albrecht says:

      Wouldn’t the reason the head of the DOJ being in attendence at a committee meeting discussing foreign investment deals would be to bring to the table, issues, concerns, investigations and findings to date especially ones proven beyond a shadow of doubt covering coruption of the highest order and level, enabling a fully informed decision to be made whether it’s up or down. Obviously the decision had been made the deal was on. Obviously Holder and Hillary did not at any time have the best interests of the US anywhere near their 1st priority.

      Bacically funneling uranium to Iran via Russia.

    • Unbelievable….if this article is true, two of the players in this uranium scheme are investigating Trump….unbelievable. Corruption at its worse….

  36. “I thought it would be easier.

    I thought it was more of a… I’m a details oriented person. I think you would say that, but I do miss my old life.”

    -Donald J. Trump

    Not sure why I'm just seeing this now - he said it in April - but hooooo boy..... Who in their right mind would have expected the job of the Presidency to be anything short of LITERALLY IMPOSSIBLE?

    That's right up there with "who knew health care would be so complicated?"

    Is this not a sign of pathological over-confidence? It's like going to a Laker game and immediately thinking "yea, I could do that!" How can he be stupid enough to think that there would be anything even remotely "easy" about that job?

    • ****putting on psychiatrist hat**** Mulling over Mathius’ comment as to pathological….thinking that anyone who has a Dread Pirate is NOT pathological?….getting into Mathius’ head ( man it is crowded in here…getting around Churros thoughts ) ………

      Ok….I do not know why you would think being POTUS has to be hard. It is nothing more than a large multi-level corporation….but I do think that Trump probably hoped that Department Heads would do thier job and not be political….The voters put him in there for a reason and that is because he is NOT a politician and it shows….but he is a quick learner. How I see Washington now is that not one of them, or only a handful of them, have the country and its people at heart. The Democrats sure do not….and, regrettably, I am seeing that most Republicans do not either.

      Here is what I do not understand….I like the terminology that a new broom sweeps clean. I am wondering why he did not immediately fire every single department head. Why does he not do it now? It cannot possibly make the government anymore stagnant than it is now. The POTUS has the power to appoint temporary Department Heads pending the approval of Congress on permanent ones….I wonder why he did not? I would have….immediately. Any Department Head appointed by a previous POTUS is not….repeat IS NOT going to be loyal to the incoming POTUS because ideology prevents it.

      What Trump failed to realize….and quite frankly so did I…is the disloyalty of the government. The Deep State has far more depth than I thought it did. It is far more corrupt than I thought. It is far more socialist than I thought.

      So….pathological….no sir.

    • NY and NJ are donor states. They already pay more in federal taxes than they take in.

      By and large, blue states already pay disproportionately more to the federal government than the red states. Meanwhile, the red states receive more and bitch about it more.

      This opinion piece suggests that blue states should be paying even more while rates are lowered so that red states can pay even less. Basically, it wants to shift more of the burden of the federal government to Democratic leaning states while giving more of the benefit to Republican leaning states. Color me shocked.

      • Just A Citizen says:

        Mathius

        We have discussed this several times and you still ignore a primary cause. Fix this and we will talk about Federal funds spent in each State:

        http://assets3.bigthink.com/system/tinymce_assets/944/original/federal_lands.jpg?1422311293

      • it wants to shift more of the burden of the federal government to Democratic leaning states while giving more of the benefit to Republican leaning states. Color me shocked.

        And the problem with this is……………….?????

        Now on the serious side, WHY are they paying more in Federal taxes? And how is this data obtained?……from tax roles as to the percentage of 1040 tax payers?….in other words….population centers?

        For example, the population of New York State is 9,873,114 and the population of Montana is 511,790. Of course, the Federal taxes paid are going to be more for New York than Montana….the upkeep of Federal highways, for example would be greater on a percapita basis for Montana….this makes sense. So..it would be interesting to do a complete analysis on all states to see who actually gets the most from the Federal Government in the form of subsidies and Federal Dollars…but, I think, you would have to eliminate defense related items.

      • Just A Citizen says:

        Mathius

        Your argument is seriously flawed, AGAIN. Please do not fall for this Red State vs. Blue State garbage. Taxes are paid by people. The fact of the matter is that those who desire and fight for Progressive taxation, who scream about taxing the “rich” more are fighting to keep a deduction that primarily benefits the “rich”. Because poor people do not live in those multi million dollar apartments in NJ and NY.

        Furthermore, claiming the proposal will take more from one and give more to another is not founded on anything but conjecture at this point. It may not change the amount being given at all.

        It may just be used to balance out some of the other changes that will benefit many people. One of which is the elimination of the AMT. Now who would benefit from that the most?

  37. Anyone who wants to be President is by definition over- confident. I think its probably a necessary trait.

    I don’t think Trump expected most of his democrat friends to turn against him and his family to such a hateful extent. So saying it was harder than expected is probably true , not pathological.

    • This is in the wrong place. Wonder how I managed that.

    • Anyone who wants to be President is by definition over- confident. I think its probably a necessary trait.

      That's certainly true. But maybe not oblivious to the fact? I think, for example,
      that Obama had a huge ego, but I think he was at least cognizent of the scope of the task before him. He believed he was up to the challenge, but I never got the sense that he underestimated the challenge itself.

      Similarly, GW had a huge ego and a (completely unwarranted) faith in his ability to succeed.. but I never got the sense that he viewed the Presidency as anything less than the hardest job on the planet.

      Only Trump seems to (totally subjective view) have been of the opinion that he'd walk in and start hitting effortless home runs.

      I don’t think Trump expected most of his democrat friends to turn against him and his family to such a hateful extent.

      Well, if that's true, then he's a moron.

      My dog could have predicted that the Democrats would turn against him after he spent two years relentlessly attacking them and advocating for policies they find abhorrent, and promising to destroy the political legacy of the deeply popular (in Blue circles) President Obama.

      I mean, seriously, who thinks their "friends" are going to stick with them when they start shitting all over them? And that's on tops of "politics as usual."

      If Trump thought they'd stick by him, it seems to suggest that he views loyalty as a totally one-sided phenomenon: that they should be eternally loyal to him, but that he does not have to reciprocate in any way.

      If I'm an asshole to you, I expect that you'll stop being my friend. To think otherwise is nothing short of insanity.

      This is in the wrong place. Wonder how I managed that.

      I second T-Ray's answer: You're a miracle worker. 🙂

      • If I’m an asshole to you, I expect that you’ll stop being my friend. To think otherwise is nothing short of insanity.

        You are calling e insane? I think of you as a friend…

        • Of course you're insane. What sane person would breed raptor hybrids?

          But you don't hold a candle to the bag of squirrels that is the Dread Pirate. (and, of course, even he is surpassed Black Flag)

      • Just A Citizen says:

        Mathius

        I think what you, and many D’s these days, claim is a mental disorder or low IQ (moron) is more easily explained by Trump’s background and life experience in business.

        His behavior during the campaign was not that much different than during his years of turning a million or two into billions. Massive ego, arrogance, never admitting any defeat or setback. Not even his bankruptcy.

        And often in business people get bruised by their opponent. They just get up and keep going. They will even do deals together later. “Because it is not personal, just good business.”

        Many of us think this some kind of pathology, but maybe it is just overwhelming confidence and positive thinking. Focus on the good, learn from the bad but move FORWARD.

        I see far to much psychoanalyzing going on over Trump’s behavior and mannerisms.

        If the guy was as bad as you and others try to portray there would not be so many people testifying as to his likability and affable personality who have actually met him or know him. If he was a racist there would not have been Black people testifying on his behalf during the convention. Trump is a lot of puffery and snake oil salesman.

        That is enough to understand. The rest is sounding more like some kind of derangement syndrome. Much like the affliction many had over Obama.

        I think the real problem most have with Trump is simply his personality and mannerisms. He is nothing like what we have been trained to think of as “Presidential”. Consultants and king makers have spent decades molding the right image to appeal to voters. Trump won by violating all these “rules”. He literally represents the apple cart being tossed off the road.

        As to the real meat of his term to date, I predicted he would have huge problems. That I did not get a sense he understood just how massive the bureaucracy was and how it has its own agenda. But this is true of every POTUS in my lifetime. Well not every one. Those who came from the swamp understood it much better. But even Reagan did not grasp it.

        • I think what you, and many D’s these days, claim is a mental disorder or low IQ (moron) is more easily explained by Trump’s background and life experience in business.

          The missus, who specializes in such things swears that he has a learning disorder. She believes that he is (probably) fairly intelligent, but that he clearly have a learning disorder of some sort (unspecified, or perhaps I just wasn't listening). She believes this explains his propensity to misspeak as well as his well-documented preference for oral briefings over reading.

          Me? I just see a guy who was surprised by the fact that health care is complicated and that the Presidency is not easy. I call a spade a spade. That guy, he's a moron.

          And don't give me "it's because of his business background. He knew he was going into politics. He knew he'd be dealing with politicians. Or, at least, he should have. What? Did he think that as soon as he sat in the big boy chair, all the other politicians would instantly switch into reasonable businessmen? Did he think all the political pressures, say, from election cycles and lobbying, would disappear because he, himself, thought like a businessman, so therefore everyone else in Washington, too?

          If he did not anticipate these things, it shows one of two options: Either (1) he thought he was so mindbogglingly special that the everyone in Washington would simply conform to his will or (2) he's too stupid to realize that the world doesn't work that way.

          That's it. Two options. Either horrendously unrealistic expectations of others or he's just stupid. And they aren't mutually exclusive - it can be both.

          ——–

          claim […] is more easily explained by Trump’s background and life experience in business.

          If I work in a hedge fund (and I do), I expect those around me to behave a certain way. This is my framework for the people around me. I have built up a standard predictive model for how people behave and interact and how they will respond to a given stimulus. I know, generally, what I have to do to produce a desired result.

          But if I'm about to go live amongst an Amazonian tribe, I would be a moron to expect my new neighbors to behave and react the same ways.

          If I expect the new environment to behave like my old environment when any rational person could have foreseen that that would not be the case, it can only be because I thought I'm so special that they would conform to me or because I'm too stupid to anticipate obvious reality.

          • Just A Citizen says:

            Mathius

            You miss the point again. It is not what he did or should have expected. What I explained was why he reacts the way he does. Just because you change jobs doesn’t mean your mannerisms will change immediately.

            And as for him thinking things would get done quickly, what would you think if the head of the RNC was telling you that Congress was going to get this done if he was elected. Then they all back peddled. Yes, he was told that the ACA was going to be repealed. They lied to him and they lied to the rest of us.

            Sorry, but your issues with Trump are starting to look a lot like Gman’s comments about Obama and “liberals”. Your use of the word “moron” is wearing thin with me.

            • Fine. He was lied to and lied to and lied to and misled. And he bought into a narrative that anyone who follows politics should have known was politically implausible.

              So, fine. Let's scrap "moron." How does "naïve" suit you? How about "dangerously naïve"? What about "gullible"? Maybe "vulnerable to wishful thinking"?

              Yes, he was told that the ACA was going to be repealed. They lied to him and they lied to the rest of us.

              You should have known better, too. You are decidedly not a moron.

              Did you believe that Trump would fulfill his promises (wall building, full ACA repeal, etc) in his first 100 days? If we accept that he believed it because he was misled (and I'll stipulate it's possible he was living in a Fox News bubble and echo chamber of manipulative/lying/biased advisers), where do we place the blame for his being in that bubble in the first place?

              How is this not at least partially Trump's fault for not insisting on dissenting views within his ranks of advisers? I know for a fact that Clinton had a few hardcore conservatives on the payroll whose sole job was to feed her the opposing view points. (This, by the way, is why I come to SUFA - so I don't get stuck in a liberal HuffPo bubble).

              It is possible he may yet accomplish his goals as he situates and gets better at governing (think Arnold Schwartzeneggar.. wow, I have no idea how to spell that.. and his pivot to effective centrism). But to expect to walk in and instantly hit everything out of the park strikes me as absurd. It's like the aforementioned Laker's game where you think you can walk in from the crowd and immediately start playing point guard.

              So, to the original point: if not "stupidity," then to what do you attribute* the discongruity between his expectations and observed reality?

              *(bearing in mind that the buck ultimately has to stop at the top. So, if you're going to blame his advisers, that is really Trump's fault for picking that team in the first place, so then the reason has to do with his failure to pick a good team and/or insist on unbiased views and/or recognizing biased views.)

              • Just A Citizen says:

                Mathius

                “Fine. He was lied to and lied to and lied to and misled. And he bought into a narrative that anyone who follows politics should have known was politically implausible.”

                Yes, but how many who vote actually pay attention? As for making unreasonable promises, you seem to be stuck on Trump while forgetting that all previous candidates did the same. Mr. Obama was a classic.

                So why is it so many on your side loved Mr. Obama and have a visceral reaction to Mr. Trump? I say it is because of his mannerisms. He violates your preconceived notions of what “presidential” looks like. His speech patterns violate your sense of “intelligent”.

                “You should have known better, too. You are decidedly not a moron.”

                I appreciate the sentiment but I am not talking about me. We were discussing why Mr. Trump might have thought he could get some things done quickly. There is no doubt that he is a “salesman”. Bragging and making big promises is how he has always operated. Most of the time his bragging comes true, in the construction world. Which goes to my original point.

                I see the disconnect between his promises and his reality as the same for all who run for the office that have not been deeply embedded in the system before. Carter, Reagan, Clinton, Bush II and Obama all suffered the same problem. Need I remind you that Clinton promised Universal Healthcare and put his wife in charge of getting it done in the first year? Why do you think the media creates this BS narrative around “the first 100 days”? Because one POTUS, FDR, got a bunch of stuff done per his plans and the rest haven’t.

                I stated last year that Mr. Trump would be in way over his head if elected. That he would not have the basis for understanding just how much resistance he would get from inside the bureaucracy. If he appointed the right people he would have time to transition. Which brings us to your last point. One on which I agree. His appointments have been a mixed bag.

                He is ultimately responsible but I sure would love to see some insider information on how the selection process actually worked. Who was providing suggestions and who was undermining things. I think Mr. Trump tried to reward those who helped him get elected. That is standard operating procedure. But often, and especially in this case, those that helped him get elected were ill suited for governing. Even if the goal is to dismantle the “beast” there are ways to accomplish that which don’t seem to be understood by the likes of Bannon, as just one example.

              • Arnold got worse the longer he was in office. Another RINO. He caved to the unions and dems after losing the first ballot initiatives he tried.

          • What JAC said! Further, I think he’s showing great patience, for a pragmatic, in dealing with the swamp. All part of the long game. Tweet something vague, get us, the people investigating and talking about the issue, the twitterverse explodes, next thing you know. someone is fully exposed and guilty in the court of public opinion. That public opinion will manifest in the mid terms, bigly. To this point his attention has been on intel agencies. His wiretapping tweet resulted in the FBI looking like slimes and once public opinion was on his side, Comey gets the boot, without much backlash. Drain the swamp begins. EXPOSING

            Healthcare. Holds several listening sessions with healthcare professionals, regular citizens, health exchange execs. Gathers his ground game intel, then begins to talk with congress. Gets stonewalled at every turn with the Rs, exposing them along the way, (especially McConnell who says Trump has unreasonable expectations, and Ryan…Mr we have the votes, but whoops, no we don’t). Mid terms on the horizon. EXPOSING

            Nafta. Holds listening sessions with manufacturing reps, trade unions and whoever else. Key point being listening sessions. Another key point being who WASN’T in those listening sessions…specifically the US Chamber of Commerce, the biggest lobby in Washington, on the wrong side of history being made…specifically a shift from Wall St to Main St. Now Trump is in negotiations with Canada and Mexico, and notice that CoC is advocating FOR Canada and Mexico, and AGAINST the USA. Bullshit. EXPOSING

            Foreign relations. Example Paris Accord. First goes to Europe with energy for sale. Comes away with major sells to Poland and others. Pulls out of Accord. EXPOSING (globalists) Example 2: N Korea. Tweets, assign nicknames, more tweets, sanctions on N Korea..and, and its a big and…China. More missle testing, China stalls, therefore sanctions on China. In time China blinks and suddenly announces six party talks about N Korea. EXPOSING. Example 3: Terrorism. Forms alliances with Egypt, Jordan and Saudi along with 50 other muslim nations. Gets a king’s reception in the region. blah, blah blah. Next thing you know ISIS is defeated in Raqqa (sp?)…also kudos to Egypt for doing away with, or at the very least , forcing underground, the Muslim Brotherhood. EXPOSING (Obama).

            Media. Nuff said. EXPOSING

            Historic speeches along the way EXPOSING (the UN comes to mind)

            Next up…withing one year of mid terms…Congress. Guaranteed, he’ll be EXPOSING

            Hardly moronic behavior.

      • Just A Citizen says:

        Mathius

        Mr. Obama suffered from the same affliction. The documentation of the financial crisis and the effort to get “single payer” implemented show he was over his head in the beginning. He thought he could just give orders and things would happen quickly and according to his orders. He found out that the swamp creatures have the final say if you don’t have the brass to wreck the machine entirely.

        What Mr. Obama did do much better than Mr. Trump is to make sure “his people” were placed in key positions. People that seems for the most part to be on the same page. He got rid of dissenters fairly quickly and without all the consternation that Mr.Trump seems to be suffering.

  38. Apolitical, but this is just so damned cool..

    https://www.energystorageexchange.org/projects/1319

    Kodiak island build a pair of giant 6.5 ton flywheels which they keep in a vacuum chamber. They use wind turbines to generate power and, when there’s an excess, the extra power speeds up the flywheels as a store of kinetic energy. When the wind dies down, the system draws down power from the flywheels to compensate.

    Pretty awesome, and it doesn’t rely on expensive batteries from China that need to be constantly replaced.

    • Apolitical and also minorly off topic reply. Re: solar roofing…read a few articles saying that while it may be worth your time now…disposing of the panels in 25 years is very expensive and almost not worth the savings you may get in those 25 years. Of course, that’s applying todays standard to the future..so, yeah….

      • I have a deposit in for the Tesla Roof when it becomes available. I was hoping it would this year, but it's looking like '18 might be optimistic as well.. :/

        • Cool, I’m not against it. Looking forward to your reviews over time.

        • Dale A. Albrecht says:

          Pay attention to the laws that Spain have been implementing concerning home solar power. THey are all being put into place because Iberdola is getting impacted on their bottom line, It all boils down to “Taxing the Sun” Even self consumers are getting taxed.

          Like wind contracts still get paid whether they generate power or not. Or also get paid for power that is not used because it was generated when NOBODY was using it.

          Major utility producers in the US have also been meeting over the past few years on how to blunt the rise in roof solar. Even if totally off the grid, the State will still want their taxes that are slapped on every electric bill.

  39. Interesting: https://www.kialo.com

    I somehow don’t think it will get the uptake it deserves, but I really like the approach.

  40. This article sounds a little harsh but we need to proceed with caution. We’re on course for a witch hunt. I remember back when some child abuse accusations were made, the next thing you knew everybody in the childcare industry were being accused and some were charged and years later it was proven they weren’t guilty.

    https://townhall.com/columnists/michellemalkin/2017/10/18/beware-the-rape-allegation-bandwagon-n2396534

  41. Just A Citizen says:

    And they, the Dems, screamed about Mr. Trump’s mention of reviewing media licenses for creating fake news. Good grief.

    “Political content on the internet, paid or not, should face substantial federal regulation to eliminate undefined “disinformation,” and users of platforms and news feeds, from Facebook, to Twitter, to the Drudge Report and even New York Times, could be punished for sharing “fake news” from those sites, the former Democratic chair of the FEC is urging.

    In a broad proposal that adds threatening libel suits to regulatory plans already pushed by Democrats on the Federal Election Commission, ex-chair Ann Ravel believes that there is support for expanded regulation in the wake of reports foreign governments spent $100,000 on 2016 political ads on Facebook.

    She would include “fake news,” not just paid ads, to be regulated, though it’s never defined other than the Democrat’s description of “disinformation.” And anybody who shares or retweets it could face a libel suit.

    She would also use regulation to “improve voter competence,” according to the new proposal titled Fool Me Once: The Case for Government Regulation of ‘Fake News.’ Ravel, who now lectures at Berkeley Law, still has allies on the FEC who support internet regulation. The paper was co-written by Abby K. Wood, an associate professor at the University of Southern California, and Irina Dykhne, a student at USC Gould School of Law.”

    Got that everyone? She is now lecturing at Berkeley Law.

    • Just as a general question: Do you, JAC, believe that platforms such as FB or Twitter bear any responsibility whatsoever for the content which is disseminated through their networks (paid or otherwise)?

      To be clear, I 'm not asking if they should be regulated here. I just want to know if you think of them as pure pass-throughs (sort of like common carriers) or as entities which have some responsibility for the broadcast of "disinformation"?

      • Just A Citizen says:

        Mathius

        Generally speaking, NO. But I think they have created some liability because they have decided to be more than just a “platform”, or “pass through” entity as you described.

        • So, because they apply an algorithm to select which information gets "promoted," they have "created some liability" for themselves to ensure that what they promote is (with reasonable care) generally truthful? Is that a fair enough restatement?

          That said, how do you enforce that liability? What is the extent of that liability?

          • Just A Citizen says:

            Mathius

            When you develop a simply operating procedure it is harder to show liability because you are consistent. When the companies you mentioned started trying to control content on their platform they stopped being a “pass through” entity. Now things can get complicated, violations of procedures and protocols. Public outcries over favoritism. Thus the “risk” and the “liability” increases.

            I am not saying they have to make an effort to be truthful. I am saying they open up liability issues when they go beyond being just a pass through platform.

            Once you start deciding which content is “acceptable” due to some standard for truth, hate speech, etc. etc., you become “responsible” for the content allowed. You open yourself to liability for the things you allow, and those you do not allow.

            Here is another way to look at it. We are all responsible and thus liable for our actions. If they are a true pass through then they have taken “no action” for which they are responsible nor liable. But once they “act” they have to be responsible for what they allow and do not allow. Thus they take on liabilities.

            Who enforces? The people should enforce their views by using or not using the service. However, the public’s ability to exert their preferences is restricted due to the Govt. protection provided these companies. Unfortunately, in our modern society it will be the Lawyers and Judges who ultimately decide if there is liability on any particular issue.

            Does that clear things up?

    • I would support all paid ads having an embedded code that filters can use to identify the content as an ad and filter it out.

  42. Oooooo, Mathius, I think this is for you…just heard in background from Dubya!

    “Democracy is the definition of political legitimacy.”

  43. Good Grief! We are going to empower you by making you a slave and blackmailing you. And you agreed to this 😨

  44. Dale A. Albrecht says:

    Just heard an interesting line about the MSM. “They have become repeaters instead of reporters”

  45. Just A Citizen says:

    So between you, you have been in charge of the executive branch for a 16 years. And now you both complain about the status of politics in the Nation. Excuse me, but do you think you two might have had something to do with this situation? This didn’t just materialize out of thin air when Mr. Trump announced he was running.

    http://www.businessinsider.com/barack-obama-george-bush-blast-us-politics-2017-10

  46. Just A Citizen says:
    • Mueller may find himself in the hot seat over the Uranium One issue. In an odd series of events, you have Mueller investigating the Trump-Russia Collusion issue only to find out he oversaw the Clinton-Russian Collusion issue, that seem far more factual than the former. I’m not holding my breathe that any justice will actually be served.

      • And who was the FBI informant with evidence of Clinton/Russia collusion? Rumor has it that it was…..Paul Manafort! BOOM!

        • So I’m thinking that Trump was ok with…may have even suggested… the Mueller/ Rosenstein team investigating the Trump/Russia collusion because Trump knew about Manafort’s evidence. So when the whole uranium thing surfaced, he knew that Mueller/ Rosenstein would be handy front and center to be perp walked right on out of DC. I have nothing to back that up, but if this is how it went down…Trump is an expert troll. 🙂

      • Dale A. Albrecht says:

        I’m trying to remember when this came out or how the wording was……I think this was written when Trump brought it up back in 2016. Mueller besides dropping the ball on the investigation on the Uranium One deal, but I believe the FBI also was physically involved with actually facilitating transaction in Moscow. It was a brief blip then disappeared.

        Why would anyone think Holder or the AG would sit on the Committee of Foreign Investment, but to bring forward any criminal actions being investigated for consideration as to approve or deny the sale. AS Comey repeatedly said, active investigations are not usually shared publically, but the committee would have been private and secure and not public..

        • I believe Mueller was the FBI head when the Uranium One deal occurred. What this may come down too is that the highest levels of the Obama Administration, including the FBI, are immensely corrupt. I would not be surprised if the Liberal media played this down or flatly ignore the story all together, especially since they have a black Congresswoman, who dresses like a Vegas showgirl, thinks it’s cool she’s a ‘rock star” now after she listened in on someone else’s private phone call, then spun it so ridiculously that only the most gullible of Leftist morons would believe it.

          Wow, I just gave you CNN’s round the clock nonsense for the next few days. 🙂

  47. Just A Citizen says:

    Oh good lord, this is just to funny to be real. So sad at the same time.

    https://www.campusreform.org/?ID=9997

    • Wow…..but I can confirm this……take Trump’s plan and put Bernie Sander’s name on it…..it is a great plan. But like the student said….any good plan with Trump’s name on it makes it a bad plan.

  48. Just A Citizen says:

    As I read over the headlines and skimmed the various major stories this morning about Congress, the budget, tax reform, blah, blah, POTUS, China’s plans, Russian interference, political discourse, etc. etc. I remembered my summation of this some time back.

    WE ARE SO SCREWED!!!

  49. Observations:

    1. Reducing marginal rates would help the rich (1%), but would not really help the near-rich (above 5% but below 1%).

    2. The newest proposal to cap 401k contributions exemptions would hurt the rich (slightly) and the near-rich (significantly).

    If we put these together, the picture that starts to emerge is that the Red Team is trying to transfer wealth from my bracket to the donor class. It seems that Red Team’s tax plan is to tax everyone into poverty… except the rich.

    • Just A Citizen says:

      Mathius

      Observations are not necessarily connected to your conclusions. Calls for speculation at this point.

      For the record, those in the 5% group are considered RICH by virtually everyone involved in these discussions. Whether you or I agree doesn’t matter, that is what they believe.

      So before we can discuss impacts to groups we need to agree on what the groups are. Using terms like “rich” and “near rich” is of little use, unless your just looking for political rhetoric to use against the “others”.

    • Just A Citizen says:

      Mathius

      Any discussion of tax policy reform impacts should begin with an understanding of this data.

      http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/statistics/household-income-quintiles

  50. Just A Citizen says:

    A suggested read on reasons for high cost health care, and some ideas on how to reduce them.

    https://mises.org/library/healthcare-crosshairs

  51. Good luck to the Nittany Lions today…and Go Green.

  52. A lot of information in this article. I wonder who else was on this committee who agreed to sell our uranium to Russia.

    http://www.nationalreview.com/article/452972/uranium-one-deal-obama-administration-doj-hillary-clinton-racketeering

    • Dale A. Albrecht says:

      Way back in 2009 Mueller had been directed to deliver confiscated HEU to the Russians, by order of HRC. The material had been involved in a sting operation over stolen Russian uranium. The transfer was also on a tarmac. Why was Mueller personally involved?.

%d bloggers like this: