Antagonist in Chief

[AnalogPackrat]

How anyone could vote for a completely untrustworthy lying narcissist to be head of government is beyond my poor ability to understand.

Yet Kamala is only a heartbeat away. You voted for her despite ample evidence of her incompetence, lies, and sleeping her way into government "service."

I wouldn't trust him to feed my pet cockroaches while I was on vacation.

I wouldn't trust Old Joe to know what day it is, or what year. Sometimes he seems confused about what position he holds. He was clearly getting worse in 2020 yet you voted for him, presumably.

My take is that he held the documents hostage, to be used in exchange for leniency and plea deals in future legal proceedings.

Time may tell if our so-called public servants at DOJ/FBI will act with transparency. Somehow I doubt they will and that leaves a lot of distrust after what they've been proven to have done just in the past six years.

 

[Recording Engineer]

I'd prefer a better candidate with similar convictions (America first, secure the border, reduce gov size and waste, help American businesses compete and operate HERE by sanitizing regulation and accounting for its lack in foreign countries, etc.) but with a better temperament and broader knowledge base. If there's any pro-globalism, neo-racism, or spinelessness, that person will not get my vote.

This is mostly reasonable; although I believe American first and secure the border are certainly nothing more than GOP rhetoric and rallying tactics. Also, not acknowledging globalism should have some consideration in some policies is just sticking your head in the sand.

 

[cyrano]

Does "reducing govt" include reducing military spending? Or does it only include reducing education?

 

[hodad]

and sleeping her way into government "service."

Because apparently smart, ambitious women can only have relationships with men who are abject failures.

 

[AnalogPackrat]

Because apparently smart, ambitious women can only have relationships with men who are abject failures.

She's ambitious alright. But intelligence is not apparent. She didn't get Willie Brown's favors because of her brains. There are plenty of truly smart and successful women out there, married and not. She's not in that group.

 

[AnalogPackrat]

This is mostly reasonable; although I believe American first and secure the border are certainly nothing more than GOP rhetoric and rallying tactics. Also, not acknowledging globalism should have some consideration in some policies is just sticking your head in the sand.

Why is a secure border bad? Bill Clinton and Barack Obama both supported it until Trump actually began implementing his campaign promise. America first is how this country primarily operated until the 60s when erosion began. By the 90s we saw huge losses in manufacturing, customer support, and some tech jobs. This accelerated over the next 20+ years. Maybe you missed it, but I watched it happen firsthand.

Globalism a-la WEF and the like is the road to ruin. Allowing huge multinational corporations to run rampant and have undue influence on civil government is clearly bad. My head is not in the sand.

 

[AnalogPackrat]

Does "reducing govt" include reducing military spending? Or does it only include reducing education?

It means constraining government to its valid boundaries and circumscribed powers. The permanent bureaucracy needs heavy pruning. Far too much power has been ceded to those unelected agencies.

 

[Matador]

Because apparently smart, ambitious women can only have relationships with men who are abject failures.

Next we'll hear about how much more successful she would have been if she just smiled more.

 

[cyrano]

It means constraining government to its valid boundaries and circumscribed powers. The permanent bureaucracy needs heavy pruning. Far too much power has been ceded to those unelected agencies.

So it means nothing, really?

 

[crazydoc]

Yeah, I'd sure rather the power be in elected politicians rather then unelected agencies that might even know a thing or two about how to do their jobs.

 

[Recording Engineer]

It means constraining government to its valid boundaries and circumscribed powers. The permanent bureaucracy needs heavy pruning. Far too much power has been ceded to those unelected agencies.

I understand the sentiment. California Air Resources Board is a prime example. Whether I agree or not with the end result of what they’re doing is a whole different thing, but they certainly have had WAY too much power for an unelected, appointed agency for the last 15-20 years! I must admit they’ve somehow have became a state-appointed mafia; going after small business while the big boys legally grease enough palms to be exempt.

I see the other side too, but in this case, the pendulum has swung far too left and there definitely is no reasonable balance there.

 

[pucho812]

Because apparently smart, ambitious women can only have relationships with men who are abject failures.

as a citizen of California for well over 20 years. Kamala's history as a public servant is well documented.
from politico
"In the mid-1990s, Harris had dated Brown, who was investigated by the FBI when he was speaker of the California Assembly and as mayor was dogged by conflict of interest, and she had benefited from his political patronage. As the speaker of the state Assembly, Brown had named Harris to well-paid posts on the California Medical Assistance Commission and Unemployment Insurance Appeals Board. As mayor of San Francisco in 2003, Brown was supportive of her district attorney campaign although they were no longer dating. Critics—including her opponents—were bemoaning cronyism at City Hall." Even her supporters in California joke about how she got to where she got.

 

[JohnRoberts]

Yeah, I'd sure rather the power be in elected politicians rather then unelected agencies that might even know a thing or two about how to do their jobs.

That is the argument for an administrative state of government "experts" who are smarter than voters at making their own life decisions.

Representative government is more closely responsive to voter's personal self interest. Administrative bureaucracies are invested in perpetuating their own continued existence.

The regular vote to remain in office keeps them honest (or less dishonest).

JR

 

[Recording Engineer]

Why is a secure border bad? Bill Clinton and Barack Obama both supported it until Trump actually began implementing his campaign promise.

It isn’t at all. I’m for it! It’s an enormous problem and must be dealt with, with great compassion. There’s nothing easy about it! But it’s been a massive problem my entire life and both sides are only interested in talking about it for political and financial gain, instead of actually doing anything reasonable.

America first is how this country primarily operated until the 60s when erosion began. By the 90s we saw huge losses in manufacturing, customer support, and some tech jobs. This accelerated over the next 20+ years. Maybe you missed it, but I watched it happen firsthand.

The world has changed. The 60’s was a pivotal moment and the 90’s with personal much more power personal computers and then the internet, the world has become a much smaller place. Embrace it or get pushed out. Depending On perspective, things have also gotten much better since the 60’s; things we take for granted today.

Globalism a-la WEF and the like is the road to ruin. Allowing huge multinational corporations to run rampant and have undue influence on civil government is clearly bad. My head is not in the sand.

I hear ya there. Yes, not so positive.

 

[AnalogPackrat]

So it means nothing, really?

Are you always just contrarian? Read what I wrote. There are thousands of places in all parts of our government that can and should be eliminated or cut. Your false choice oversimplistic question is not worth answering.

 

[AnalogPackrat]

Yeah, I'd sure rather the power be in elected politicians rather then unelected agencies that might even know a thing or two about how to do their jobs.

I'd sure rather individual citizens make more of the decisions for themselves than some alleged experts who have only a very narrow experience of the world. If the "experts" want to publish recommendations, maybe. Mandates? Hell no.

 

[AnalogPackrat]

More spin on how the 87k new IRS employees will be utilized.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/democr...jl8p6qwl5n0&reflink=desktopwebshare_permalink

 

[Matador]

That is the argument for an administrative state of government "experts" who are smarter than voters at making their own life decisions.

So individual voters should decide that 5 ppm lead in drinking water is the safe threshold? Or does it make more sense that Congress passes laws that deem drinking water should be "safe for everyone", then defer to an agency with chemists and doctors to determine the safe threshold?

 

[cyrano]

Are you always just contrarian? Read what I wrote. There are thousands of places in all parts of our government that can and should be eliminated or cut. Your false choice oversimplistic question is not worth answering.

It's not worth answering? Then why do you respond?

What you wrote is the same gobbledygook I hear from politicians, without anything concrete. What would you cut? Military spending? Education? Health care? Policing?

Or, to put it another way, which departments should be cut?

You try to make it seemingly simple, but only leave the impression you haven't a clue what you're going on about.

I've been in dozens of downsizing projects, some for our govt. It's always the same: some doofus suggests cutting budgets. A committee is appointed to find out where to cut. Nobody agrees about budget cuts and in the end, more money is spent.

That's not to say I don't believe there are budget cuts possible. It's just not as simple as you paint it.

 

[JohnRoberts]

So individual voters should decide that 5 ppm lead in drinking water is the safe threshold? Or does it make more sense that Congress passes laws that deem drinking water should be "safe for everyone", then defer to an agency with chemists and doctors to determine the safe threshold?

I trust government so much that I use a RO water filter...

Of course there is a place for regulation, but they should not be driving the bus.

JR