Donald trump. what is your take on him?

[Script]

**News flash*** since Libya has been de-Gaddafi'd, it has become a safe haven for ISIL and al Kaida, and who knows...

I don't expect the typical politicians to figure this out... but some voters can smell the stink...

About the news flash:
So true. The same hold for the Arab Spring. It was naive to think that democracy would pop up in the blink of an eye. I recall a friend being all enthusiastic about Mubarak being removed and the Muslim Brotherhood not running in elections at first. My reply: of course they don't, cos many of those people don't believe in democracy in the first place. Yet while suppressing extremist forces in the country, the corrupt Mubarak regime created an atmosphere that allowed a middle class to flourish, something that often is forgotten. I'm not defending regimes of any kind; however, as of today, many disenchanted cos suppressed youths have turned even more radical and even left the country to join IS. Could this be a pattern: Saddam Hussein, Gaddafi, Assad...? What's the lesser evil from a global point of view?

About typical politicians:
I think many of them do see it, but don't/can't/won't voice it cos it's extremely unpopular. I've seen several politicians tell the "truth" in the past and they all ended up dead politically.

 

[mattiasNYC]

Nice, well I am white and I guess my color doesn't matter and neither do yours

To us? No. To Sweden Democrats, yes. That's the one and only reason I mentioned it.

Having lived in the US for a long time now I have to say I feel weird when I hear the rhetoric back home. I know how a lot of people think and speak, casually, when among friends. There's at least one recording of a leading SD politician who sees a group of dark skinned people and makes a derogatory comment about them ("monkeys" I believe), and to me it's legitimizing those politicians that become a problem. Because to many Swedes there'll be no difference visible between me and the refugees that are rapists or whatever you want to call them. And, sadly, it makes me feel like Sweden is less my home than it used to be.

Of course the violence itself doesn't help. But then again Sweden has been surprisingly violent for quite some time, if one includes MC gangs and soccer hooligans and skinheads and other domestic gangs etc.

My opinion is that people who wants to live together somewhere on earth and interact with each other on fairly the same social structure can call themselves "people, nation, country or whatever and they will connect with each other on equal terms… so, a swede is swede on these terms… color doesn't matter. All my friend have different ethnic background like Chile, Bosnia, Uruguay and Uganda for example.

Yep.

 

[johnheath]

Nice, well I am white and I guess my color doesn't matter and neither do yours

To us? No. To Sweden Democrats, yes. That's the one and only reason I mentioned it.

Having lived in the US for a long time now I have to say I feel weird when I hear the rhetoric back home. I know how a lot of people think and speak, casually, when among friends. There's at least one recording of a leading SD politician who sees a group of dark skinned people and makes a derogatory comment about them ("monkeys" I believe), and to me it's legitimizing those politicians that become a problem. Because to many Swedes there'll be no difference visible between me and the refugees that are rapists or whatever you want to call them. And, sadly, it makes me feel like Sweden is less my home than it used to be.

Of course the violence itself doesn't help. But then again Sweden has been surprisingly violent for quite some time, if one includes MC gangs and soccer hooligans and skinheads and other domestic gangs etc.

Well, we can see an increase in violence especially against women, but I am afraid that I have to say that the violence is mainly done buy what we would call immigrants. The society are facing a problem with increasing numbers of criminals in suburban areas… gang rape, stick ups, drug dealing weapons and the rest, which all of it is rather new to Sweden.

I am not defending stupid individual within different parties no matter if they are left wing pure communists or right wing nazi inspired nut heads…but we still have the problem.

I was discussing this with my friend Igor from Bosnia and he said the same thing as you… that you felt "watched" to be one of those let say criminals but I said to him that it is even more important to stand up for who he is, just as important it is for me to stand up for myself when the left wing parties have leading members tweeting about how the hate straight swedish men.

I guess that the only way to stop the ongoing polarization is to not think about the polarization … meaning that we all have to stop talking about it and actually fight the problems instead of increasing them.

Well Mattias… I feel that this might turn into a discussion about Sweden and my english is making it a bit difficult to express myself in the way I would like to do

I surely would like to discuss Swedish politics and all about it but maybe not here. I guess we share a fairly common view on the "swedish dilemma" but maybe the rest here is interested in discussing Donald Trump?

If you like you can send me a PM and we can continue there?

Kind regards

/John

 

[DaveP]

Could this be a pattern: Saddam Hussein, Gaddafi, Assad...? What's the lesser evil from a global point of view?

I agree, the Russians have known this from the beginning, but Europe and the US have been in denial.  We have naively scourged the Russians for supporting tyrants, when in reality the middle eastern culture does not seem to be able to operate our version of democracy. The west is now playing catch-up.

DaveP

 

[JohnRoberts]

Could this be a pattern: Saddam Hussein, Gaddafi, Assad...? What's the lesser evil from a global point of view?

I agree, the Russians have known this from the beginning, but Europe and the US have been in denial.  We have naively scourged the Russians for supporting tyrants, when in reality the middle eastern culture does not seem to be able to operate our version of democracy. The west is now playing catch-up.

DaveP

I don't want to sound like a one note piano, but I see a trend in current foreign policy that seems to be "let the world sort it out by themselves" (not the best plan IMO).

While Obama was "leading from behind" when Gaddafi was deposed (France and Europe were nominally driving that jet), we participated with financial support (munitions). Like Colin Powell classically said if you break it you own it.  Just because our administration can argue they didn't personally depose Gaddafi, the dirty deed was done on their watch, and security there is broken.  I feel we are jointly responsible, despite the political posturing.

JR

 

[Andy Peters]

In the US, the immigration debate has several competing interests. The left is interested in increasing potential future democratic voters and curry favor with legal immigrants already here. The right is motivated by business interests to increase the pool of cheap labor.  These are fairly extreme characterizations and many exist on a continuum between these extremes.

For the record: on the immigration issue, the "left" isn't interested in increasing the number of future Democratic donors. If you speak to any of the people working this issue on the ground here in Southern Arizona (I know a few), they will tell you that their concerns are:

a) preventing people from dying in the desert.
b) preventing families from being broken up because a parent has been deported.
c) preventing the business types who rely on immigrant labor from taking advantage of that labor.
d) preventing people from dying in the desert.

Remember: the undocumented person DOES NOT vote. They avoid any kind of interaction with anyone official, so it's difficult to get them to take advantage of services to which they are entitled. Employers will deduct payroll and income taxes from their pay, and those taxes never make it to the government (they're pocketed, of course) and even if they did, the non-citizen cannot collect the entitlements later.

As any immigration advocate will tell you, Obama has deported more people that George W. Bush. And if you were to see how the undocumented immigrants are processed for deportation, you'd be horrified if you believe in any such thing as "Constitutional Rights" or "the Rule Of Law." (AND YES: non-citizens are guaranteed the same rights under the US Constitution as citizens.) The process is criminally unfair. Potential deportees get lip service to legal representation. They are not allowed to contact family members who might be wondering why someone just vanished.

 

[JohnRoberts]

In the US, the immigration debate has several competing interests. The left is interested in increasing potential future democratic voters and curry favor with legal immigrants already here. The right is motivated by business interests to increase the pool of cheap labor.  These are fairly extreme characterizations and many exist on a continuum between these extremes.

For the record: on the immigration issue, the "left" isn't interested in increasing the number of future Democratic donors. If you speak to any of the people working this issue on the ground here in Southern Arizona (I know a few), they will tell you that their concerns are:

"voters" not donors, and one of the debate points last night in the debate I didn't watch, was talking about the path to citizenship. Apparently for now the republican candidates are saying they are opposed to letting them jump the line and get ahead of people following the rules too easily.

a) preventing people from dying in the desert.

stop them before they get into the desert.  I guess we could place water stations out in the desert? This seems like a symptom of the problem, not the root problem.

b) preventing families from being broken up because a parent has been deported.

I guess we could deport them all together... probably not what you mean.

Only a small fraction gets deported and some individuals keep coming back after being deported multiple times (does that count as one deportation or several?) Many bad actors gravitate toward sanctuary cities where they don't get turned over to immigration and deported if arrested while committing crimes. 

Sweden is talking about deporting some 60,000 to 80,000 asylum seekers in coming years, and they are so much nicer than us.

c) preventing the business types who rely on immigrant labor from taking advantage of that labor.

It is already illegal and has been for a very long time, but no administration has effectively enforced it. and no congress has budgeted the money to pay for that enforcement. (a secret wink and nod between the two parties common self interest to not resolve this).  I have heard of anecdotal reports about businesses in MS being busted but I suspect that is a tiny fraction of the total criminal activity. There are millions of them.

d) preventing people from dying in the desert.

We need to stop telling them that they won't get deported, and stop telling them they will get free sh__  if/when they manage to get here, then maybe they will stop coming here. They watch what we do not what we say, and based on what we do they keep coming.  Maybe they need to hear more of you horror stories. The stream from south of the border slowed when the economy crashed in 07-08, but even that won't stop families from central america from trying to escape dismal circumstances.

Remember: the undocumented person DOES NOT vote. They avoid any kind of interaction with anyone official, so it's difficult to get them to take advantage of services to which they are entitled. Employers will deduct payroll and income taxes from their pay, and those taxes never make it to the government (they're pocketed, of course) and even if they did, the non-citizen cannot collect the entitlements later.

It seems many of them just turn themselves in once they get across... while after being released few show up for their judicial hearings.

As any immigration advocate will tell you, Obama has deported more people that George W. Bush. And if you were to see how the undocumented immigrants are processed for deportation, you'd be horrified if you believe in any such thing as "Constitutional Rights" or "the Rule Of Law." (AND YES: non-citizens are guaranteed the same rights under the US Constitution as citizens.) The process is criminally unfair. Potential deportees get lip service to legal representation. They are not allowed to contact family members who might be wondering why someone just vanished.

Yes they are entitled to due process and constitutional protections, but they do not have a right to come here, or remain here. 

It is looney-toons to talk about deporting them all, many who have been here for decades. But it is unmanageable to make immigration a free for all, effectively rewarding illegal entry which is a crime the last time I checked.

I don't like the too-simple answers coming from both parties, pandering to their base as usual.. This is not really as complicated as it seems (nor as simple), just an unfortunate preference from both parties for maintaining the stalled status quo to avoid shining too much light on several ugly truths that need to be inspected and dealt with honestly and fairly. 

JR

 

[jBam]

Hi - super new here, but couldn't resist:

Has anyone got a "Donald Trump Edition Mexican Brick Wall Limiter" DIY on the go?

;D

 

[Script]

Brick wall? That's harsh. How about a soft wood fence limiter? Gerber attached.

Sorry I couldn't resist the BJ

 

[JohnRoberts]

While I am not rooting for any one candidate (yet), I was surprised first that Cruz openly declared he was against ethanol mandates while running in Iowa, land of corn... and second that he won the republican caucus there after dissing the corn. Trump took second and Rubio a close third. So Rubio is the highest placing establishment candidate.

Hillary squeaked out a very narrow victory over Bernie in the democratic caucus. Bernie is expected to be stronger in NH (his back yard).

It will be interesting to see if the Iowa result changes momentum or perceptions, leading up to NH primary. 

JR

PS: I applaud both Cruz for taking a principled stand against ethanol, and the Iowa voters for not rejecting him over their perceived self-interest.

 

[kambo]

PS: I applaud both Cruz for taking a principled stand against ethanol, and the Iowa voters for not rejecting him over their perceived self-interest.

1+

Trump used very strong language very recently...

 

[adeptusmajor]

While I am not rooting for any one candidate (yet), I was surprised first that Cruz openly declared he was against ethanol mandates while running in Iowa, land of corn... and second that he won the republican caucus there after dissing the corn. Trump took second and Rubio a close third. So Rubio is the highest placing establishment candidate.
.....
PS: I applaud both Cruz for taking a principled stand against ethanol, and the Iowa voters for not rejecting him over their perceived self-interest.

As I understand it, and had read somewhere more than a year ago, farmers in general are less than thrilled with the whole ethanol thing. Apparently the corn used for ethanol is genetically modified for that purpose, read: not edible. And due to the forces of nature and little mobile critters, the ethanol corn has been wildly cross pollinating with the food supply corn and ruining much of it, despite efforts to keep the crops very separate. I could see especially the corn farmers being up in arms about this. Not to overlook the general concerns that ethanol makes gas more expensive, burns up quicker, and is pretty much poison to an engine as far as I can tell.

 

[Landins]

Look what his cousin has to say on this matter.  From the other side of the grave.


https://www.instagram.com/p/BBSYeN9GmVW/

 

[JohnRoberts]

As I understand it, and had read somewhere more than a year ago, farmers in general are less than thrilled with the whole ethanol thing. Apparently the corn used for ethanol is genetically modified for that purpose, read: not edible. And due to the forces of nature and little mobile critters, the ethanol corn has been wildly cross pollinating with the food supply corn and ruining much of it, despite efforts to keep the crops very separate. I could see especially the corn farmers being up in arms about this. Not to overlook the general concerns that ethanol makes gas more expensive, burns up quicker, and is pretty much poison to an engine as far as I can tell.

It looks like the price of corn rose dramatically after the ethanol mandate but peaked a couple years ago and has softened. My "canned corn" price indicator gapped up from $0.33 /pound to current $0.68/pound.  Based on input cost, my canned corn should have retraced at least a little. I suspect the dramatic fall in oil costs has caused some price erosion in ethanol too.

If I was a farmer growing and selling corn, I might be less happy about recent price contraction, and maybe consider switching some acreage back to growing soy that tracks somewhat with corn. 

JR

 

[ubxf]

Jimmy Fallon mocks Donald Trump's loss with impression: He's a 'huge No. 2

 

[JohnRoberts]

Jimmy Fallon mocks Donald Trump's loss with impression: He's a 'huge No. 2

Colbert is even more snarky than Fallon but they don't deviate far from the corporate line (liberal). Not like the kinder gentler old days when Johnny Carson and Jay Leno found jokes that were funny without being so mean spirited. It seems like Letterman started the new age of partisan comedy. I suspect his numbers suffered some because of it.. (and he got old). 

Jimmy Kimmel did an amusing man on the street segment before Iowa... Showing a picture of Martin O'Malley to people passing by and asking who he was... I think maybe one person, if that, recognized the presidential candidate. Kind of reinforced the value of Trump's name identification.  Another question Kimmel asked (people in LA) is if they voted in the caucus that day and they said yes, even describing cake and cookies handed out at the polling places. I believe these segments are unscripted but the people gave some pretty bizarre responses. Perhaps they thought they were doing improv for acting auditions?

For all the low information voters getting their current events from late night TV this may have some modest impact.

JR

PS: Dumbest thing I heard a politician say today in a House hearing when they were playing "gotcha" with some drug company executive under fire for high drug prices (and being an a__hole). The executive took the 5th to avoid the public flogging, and one of the congressmen said, "he just wanted to have a candid conversation"........ in a public hearing, with TV cameras rolling, getting picked up live by national news, with populist politicians hanging on every word for campaign fodder.... "Candid" yup... trust a politician to always say the opposite of what they mean.

 

[dmp]

The executive took the 5th to avoid the public flogging,

That's an interesting description of taking the 5th...

A very funny colbert bit: trump vs trump
He moderated a fake debate using Trump's past statements on both sides of issues. Well worth the watch.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WpKiP_gmDS8

Colbert is even more snarky than Fallon but they don't deviate far from the corporate line (liberal) Not like the kinder gentler old days...

I'm curious how you'd expand your media analysis to right wing talk radio and TV... 

 

[JohnRoberts]

The executive took the 5th to avoid the public flogging,

That's an interesting description of taking the 5th...

You mean accurate?

I suspect congress was a far different place before they invited TV cameras onto the floor.

Regarding Shkreli's testimony before congress this was all engineered as political theater with him (and other drug executive's grilled over recent price increases). However Shkreli has a pending securities trading case in court.  His very expensive lawyer wants to control as much of the press about him as possible, to keep him from being tried and convicted in media. He first tried to avoid even attending the hearing because he was travel restricted due to his pending court case in brooklyn, but they really wanted him in DC for the cameras.

There are real personal consequences from him losing his security trading case (like hard time in the gray bar hotel), and congress can get their industry damning sound bites from other drug executives there.  But as I also mentioned, he's an a_hole and after taking the 5th he tweeted out that the congressmen were "imbeciles".  I don't think that will play well in the court of public opinion. I'm surprised his lawyer doesn't take away his phone, and/or break his fingers (I might do both). 

He is innocent (of security fraud) until proven guilty, and we don't need congress putting their fat thumb on the scales of public opinion just to get some juicy political gotcha sound bites. 
-------
The whole drug cost issue ignores what I think is the elephant in the room, namely how high US drug prices, subsidize the rest of the world, where foreign governments mandate lower drug prices for their citizens. If the US did that too, there would be a lot less funding for R&D to create new drugs and the world's pipeline of new drugs would be even worse than it is now.

A very funny colbert bit: trump vs trump
He moderated a fake debate using Trump's past statements on both sides of issues. Well worth the watch.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WpKiP_gmDS8

Did you think my mention of the O'Malley bit was partisan? If anything it was more insulting to resident of LA. 

I've talked about this before, and there is a group think phenomenon where like minded people can think harsh partisan political humor is funny, while the rest of the population doesn't find it funny at all.  I have no love for Trump, but don't find Colbert that funny. Colbert is very quick witted and bright (like Letterman), but like I said mean spirited. I hope he gains a larger audience than Letterman had at the end. Compared to him Fallon and Kimmel seem like nice guys. 

I really like the idea of using actual video clips of politicians speaking from both sides of their lying mouths... they all do it, and rarely get held accountable.  I've wanted to see more of this in the last two presidential campaigns. maybe it will become more common in future debates.

Colbert is even more snarky than Fallon but they don't deviate far from the corporate line (liberal) Not like the kinder gentler old days...

I'm curious how you'd expand your media analysis to right wing talk radio and TV...

Since you asked, I don't have much to say about talk radio (I don't partake). From a distance it appears like a mindless echo chamber for like minded people to hear what they like.. (caveat I never actually listen to talk radio so this is mostly speculation... I use my car radio for music.). 

I watch some O'Reilly at night which is "opinion" (he says he's moderate... cough  ), IMO he's not as shrill as the other Fox talking heads. Fox goes through the motions of having a token liberal in most topic discussions, but there is a conservative bent to the overall result.  I watch the Five too... They try to be more humorous. I suspect liberals would not appreciate their humor, just as I don't care for liberal humor (I'm human).

I participate some in social media, and even have a few (very) liberal friends. I make a point of not blocking things they write (they're friends), but I end up blocking several of their likes or shares every day. Just not funny imo... because in case you haven't guessed by now I am pretty sure I am not a liberal (more libertarian than conservative but neither one is 100% right). I do not share mean spirited partisan conservative humor I get from my conservative friends, to not irritate my liberal friends any more that I do already by just being me.  ;D  After several months of blocking their snarky humor websites I only see a few ugly ones a day now.  I even block about half or more of the snarky conservative humor I see.. Mean stuff just isn't funny to me.

This stuff is engineered to keep us in separate camps and suppress thoughtful exchange of ideas. I don't like the man behind the curtain.   

JR

 

[dmp]

You mean accurate?

I'm not sure.
One would take the fifth in the most straightforward sense to avoid testifying towards there own guilt - a constitutional right in this country. I believe this was inspired by individuals treatment in Britain before the founding of the US where one would be forced to answer questions that would lead to one's own guilty verdict.
In a most recent sense, people have not taken the fifth and made statements in trial in defense of some crime for which they were later prosecuted for perjury (martha stewart, scooter libby). The prosecution was unable to win a guilty verdict for the original crime.  So now I think lawyers are advising (wisely) for defendants to take the fifth much more liberally.
I said the statement was interesting because, it is interesting - that one would take the fifth to simply avoid saying something that would make one look bad. Taking the fifth used to come with some negative connotation (tacit admission of guilt) - but now - perhaps as it is more prevalent - and can be commonly employed for PR.
 

 

[ubxf]

“ Watch out New Hampshire: the deuce is loose.”