The [Current Year] General Political/Salma Hayek discussion thread, part 4!!!

[PaulF]

That’s actually a fair point.

I’d say, I’d rather have a president who is not as personally vile as Trump. But it’s vital at this point in our history that we have a president who doesn’t push us ever further towards Marxism, either economic or cultural. And one could argue that a president like Trump pushes people further to the left because that is a direction further from Trump.

But short of the Democrats giving up their “social justice” war, I don’t see them putting up a candidate who I can vote for. So likely the next election for me will not be a vote for more Trump. It will be a vote against more insane social justice.

Social justice is religion for the left.

They are having much the same problem as we are...the loudest and craziest get more press than the more rational and sane. Issues and differences get needlessly amplified, often to the point of exaggeration, and it skews the conversation away from reality.

I'd love to see a pragmatic moderate democrat run against Trump. I can't imagine who that would be, though...and how that person would ever rise to the top of a group of candidates stumbling over themselves to be the leftiest.

 

[mmpsteve]

Well, yeah, sorta that's what I'm saying. It might be worthwhile to assess which motivation was operative at any given time for keeping rates low - going back to GWB. But, overall, I do give Obama credit for keeping them low.

However, I disagree with "designed" in regards to any of his policies. I don't think there were any comprehensive policies. Every decision was a one-off.

By design, by policy, call it what you will: and I paraphrase:

- "We will fundamentally change America, by force"
- "In order to force our will on America, energy prices must necessarily double"

- We will force the transition from fossil fuels to renewable energy (and in the process, enrich our friends at Solyndra, et al)
- Drilling bad, renewables good - AT ANY COST. Cost in $$, cost in jobs, cost in entire industries, NO MATTER
- We WILL put a lot of miners out of work, and regulate the coal industry out of existence
- We will give the EPA unlimited power to regulate everything from the coal industry, to the lowly farmer who wants to change the drainage in his field (it IS a wetland, you know)

- We WILL force government-run health care on America, again, AT ANY COST, but we have to pass the bill to know what's in the bill
- Was it a ****head named Gruber who said we had to lie to the stupid public to get Obamacare passed?

(Anecdotally, my company group health care policy that I pay all costs for, for my family and my employees, and have had for 30 plus years, was cancelled 2 years ago, and forced me to scramble to provide health care for my company) Do you really think this was not a planned outcome of Obama care, to force single-payer health care?

I could go on, but this is starting to hurt my brain. Also, I need to get some work done and try to actually Earn some $$ to pay for the extra Obama and his cronies cost me. Thanks, Obama.

 

[jamil]

Corporations (and individuals) were free to keep cash abroad, relatively tax free, because they could do so without required disclosures to regulating agencies.

Once that was either not an option or politically risky to do, the "opportunity" to repatriate funds was more palatable.

That's an oversimplification, but is kinda the idea.

Take a look at some of the Panama Papers reporting, too.




Ah, let me clarify. There's insufficient evidence (to me) that Obama had a static ideology. Jimmy Carter? Absolutely. His policies generally were consistent with his ideology.

We may have to agree to disagree on this. I just didn't (and don't) find Obama to have been consistent in much of anything, politically.

Ah. So you missed the inaugural address, one of the most progressive addresses I’ve heard in my lifetime. Your take is so incongruent with what I think reality bears that you’d really need to list the non-leftist policies he pursued to sufficient numbers which could support that he wasn’t statically left.

 

[T.Lex]

Ah. So you missed the inaugural address, one of the most progressive addresses I’ve heard in my lifetime. Your take is so incongruent with what I think reality bears that you’d really need to list the non-leftist policies he pursued to sufficient numbers which could support that he wasn’t statically left.

I heard as many of his speeches as I could tolerate. They were progressive. He was an articulate spokesperson for leftism.

But, his policies were not consistently left. And, perhaps that is best measured in what he didn't do. Even setting aside the previous interest rate decision, he didn't actually move to make the health care system single-payor. His drone strikes on US citizens doesn't really ring true with ACLU-type philosophies. He continued the NSA/FISA surveillance of US communications. I think the estate tax reduction and other tax policies - heck, I think the whole sequestration debacle - are part of what actual progressives complained about during his term.

I'm not saying he was some sort of conservative. He wasn't. I think he was a left leaning opportunist.

 

[nonobaddog]

Corporations (and individuals) were free to keep cash abroad, relatively tax free, because they could do so without required disclosures to regulating agencies.
Once that was either not an option or politically risky to do, the "opportunity" to repatriate funds was more palatable.
That's an oversimplification, but is kinda the idea.
Take a look at some of the Panama Papers reporting, too.

OK, I think I see that. But the Swiss bank thing still seems to be mainly an issue about individuals.
Brookings says "All those so-called “unrepatriated” earnings are right here in our financial system." If so they would not be in Swiss banks.
About the Panama Papers, Wikipedia(which is often just plain wrong) says "The documents contain personal financial information about wealthy individuals and public officials that had previously been kept private."
However the Paradise Papers do talk about Sink OFCs and Conduit OFCs and corporate money hiding in addition to individuals.

 

[T.Lex]

OK, I think I see that. But the Swiss bank thing still seems to be mainly an issue about individuals.
Brookings says "All those so-called “unrepatriated” earnings are right here in our financial system." If so they would not be in Swiss banks.
About the Panama Papers, Wikipedia(which is often just plain wrong) says "The documents contain personal financial information about wealthy individuals and public officials that had previously been kept private."
However the Paradise Papers do talk about Sink OFCs and Conduit OFCs and corporate money hiding in addition to individuals.

Welcome to the Red Pill.

 

[BugI02]

So what doe the Swiss bank issue have to do with the repatriation of corporate funds? I'm only asking because I do not know.

Well, you'll never 'bring something to INGO' that way

 

[BugI02]

Richard Nixon was not elected for his domestic policies. He was elected because he said he'd end the Vietnam war. GWB was reelected in 2004, not because of his domestic policies, but because people were afraid we'd be attacked again.

The person who appears to have the answers to what bothers people most at the given time, generally wins. Sometimes, it's the economy, stupid. Sometimes it's foreign threats. But we're in a different game. We're playing by rules that are beyond social evolution's ability to keep up. We don't know how to play the game we're playing.

Right now, there's a new threat that's not really domestic policy, but yet it is; it's not really foreign policy, but yet it's that too. I'd say it's more universal to the West. It's the cultural war. I think that's what's growing on people's minds. I think that will have some impact on the midterm elections, but it will for certain impact the next general election if we stay on the same path.

The big question is, how will people see Trump? Is he the only anti-SJW choice? If enough people believe that he is, they'll hold their noses. Even some sane progressives. It's becoming more clear that the majority of people aren't insane social justice warriors. So it depends how existential they think the threat of postmodernism thought is to the liberty enjoyed by the West. I think the more SJWs act out, the closer to home it hits even for sane progressives.

I think I've seen that movie, the one where there are not enough clear-eyed votes to stay the march of 'progress'


[video=youtube;eFZIcfqmewU]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eFZIcfqmewU[/video]

 

[BugI02]

To steal (kinda0, from Reagan, try asking if from the time Obama entered office until the time he left, were they better, or worse off. You'll find out who the honest actors are based on how they answer.

Petitio principii

No need to perform the experiment when you've already determined the results, no?

 

[jamil]

I think I've seen that movie, the one where there are not enough clear-eyed votes to stay the march of 'progress'


[video=youtube;eFZIcfqmewU]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eFZIcfqmewU[/video]

About that. It’s not. That’s just a self-deprecating line in a movie. It’s in our nature to survive.

 

[BugI02]

To paraphrase "There's a(n) [optimist] born every minute"

because; Venezuela

I think truer words have seldom been spoken (referencing T2's conclusion)

 

[nonobaddog]

They say every major civilization rises and then self-destructs. The left is just trying to hurry this along.

 

[Kutnupe14]

You can't make this stuff up. The jokes write themselves.

The White House Communications Agency on Monday released a commemorative “trip coin” to mark the upcoming summit between President Trump and North Korean leader Kim Jong Un.

http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-brief...ouse-releases-trip-coin-for-north-korea-talks

I can't say, that I would have ever imagined seeing a murderous dictator sharing a "commemorative" space with a sitting American president, created by the American govt.

 

[KLB]

I heard as many of his speeches as I could tolerate. They were progressive. He was an articulate spokesperson for leftism.

But, his policies were not consistently left. And, perhaps that is best measured in what he didn't do. Even setting aside the previous interest rate decision, he didn't actually move to make the health care system single-payor. His drone strikes on US citizens doesn't really ring true with ACLU-type philosophies. He continued the NSA/FISA surveillance of US communications. I think the estate tax reduction and other tax policies - heck, I think the whole sequestration debacle - are part of what actual progressives complained about during his term.

I'm not saying he was some sort of conservative. He wasn't. I think he was a left leaning opportunist.

You forgot going after the guns. Imagine what could have happened in the beginning when he had both house and senate.

 

[T.Lex]

You forgot going after the guns. Imagine what could have happened in the beginning when he had both house and senate.

Well, I count that as a draw.

There were opportunities his first term (including, I think, the Gabby Giffords shooting) but not the political will.

If he thought he could have (i.e., jamil's reference to the Overton Window), he would have.

 

[BugI02]

Gun confiscation. For all the MSM talk about Trump fomenting a 'Constitutional crisis' they can have one, anytime they have the balls, right there.

 

[BugI02]

You can't make this stuff up. The jokes write themselves.


http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-brief...ouse-releases-trip-coin-for-north-korea-talks

I can't say, that I would have ever imagined seeing a murderous dictator sharing a "commemorative" space with a sitting American president, created by the American govt.

View attachment 67033

































































So those would be the non-murderous, non-dictators Leonid Brezhnev and Chou En-lai - or are we just going for some judgment call like 'less murderous' (or 'less filling')


View attachment 67035

 

[printcraft]

 

[BugI02]

View attachment 67037


































































"I pledge eyellegience to the puppies ..."

 

[bwframe]

Another campaign promise kept.

MAGA...


[video=youtube;Iw2wUKrgnps]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Iw2wUKrgnps[/video]