LanDroid wrote: Yes and there's also this lawsuit, much uglier! Trump will pay out "big league" money to settle both of these prior to 1/20/17.

Proceedings in a federal lawsuit filed in New York, accusing Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump of repeatedly raping a 13-year-old girl over 20 years ago at several Upper East Side parties hosted by convicted sex offender and notorious billionaire investor Jeffrey Epstein, have been scheduled but will not take place until after the November 8 election date.

Just looked into this woman's story, using Snopes. Not clear she has a real case and is not just looking for money, perhaps based on having been held and abused by Epstein, for example. She should be getting a real attorney rather than acting as her own counsel, and should be convincing them with the requisite level of detail, a la Monica Lewinsky.

The wealth creators have defeated the wealth distributors. Congratulations Donald Trump.

DWill wrote:I had hoped it would be clear that I wasn't trying to compare the content of the two gaffes, but I guess it wasn't. In magnitude of effect on each candidate's campaign, the remarks are similar, and similarly trivial if compared to Trump's many statesmanlike pronouncements. You were paying attention to those, right?

My view is that the big issue in politics is the balance between creation and distribution of wealth. Overall, the Republicans represent those who create wealth whereas the Democrats represent those who distribute wealth. Romney’s attack was against those who vote for more government while Clinton’s attack was against those who vote for less government. Both were only such a decisive turning point because they were against candidates who were more in touch with the national mood of the day. Trump taps into a mood that says government intrusion in American lives should be wound back. That mood was much less cohesive in 2012.

DWill wrote: Romney was severely damaged by that release of his private remark, while Trump bellows for the world to hear all sorts of lies, non sequiturs, and calumnies--and keeps on not getting scorched by his supporters. He went way beyond teflon.

I may be wrong, but I have the impression that Trump’s reckless comments have been fairly carefully targeted, whereas Clinton and Romney’s accidentally revealed disdain for a large number of people who otherwise may have voted for them.

DWill wrote: (n.b.: Clinton said that half of Trumps's supporters were deplorables, not all of them.)

That makes little difference since the rest are slurred by association.

DWill wrote: Are you also one who believes that objections to this man's political speech arise from "political correctness"? That charge has been useful for everyone who wants to normalize the kind of hatred he dispenses.

Opposition to political correctness is less about hatred than about rejection of social engineering by elitist minorities. Opposition to gay marriage is not homophobia. Trump goads people like a troll, to step back and watch the mayhem, but this is more from an astute assessment on his part that this energises the base than any harking for Jim Crow.

DWill wrote:I'm just amazed at how many people are buying into this idea that "elites" have captured the reins of government and have failed to recognize the plight of the average citizen. That charge has become all the rage. It's at best a fuzzy-minded way to look at our problems and how to address them. Are we soon going to notice a great empathy for the common man as a new set of politicians moves in to set up shop? How naive it would be to think so.

My view on elites is driven by my analysis of climate change. The elite view is that we have to make energy more expensive to cut emissions. That harms the economy and does not slow global warming, which requires new technology to mine carbon. Trump is more likely to produce an effective climate policy than the Paris elite.

DWill wrote: Affirmative Action?--where did that come? I haven't heard it mentioned for quite some time. If the thought is that these elites are only minted as liberal democrats, think again. We will surely soon have a scenario making clear that the new boss is the same as the old boss. But why don't you tell me how we're going to remove these so-called elites and replace them with--who exactly?

The culture war between Democrats and Republicans has affirmative action for women and minorities as a central battle ground. My sense is that Trump wants hiring decisions to be made on merit, rebalancing from the elite cultural discrimination against white men.

DWill wrote: I thought from the UTC forum you were not in favor of the draconian measures Trump wants to employ vis-a-vis immigration. Is this a change?

Immigration is a very complicated topic. What I support is that immigration should be strictly governed by rule of law, and that immigrants should assimilate. Europe’s policy of allowing ethnic enclaves full of long term welfare recipients is a disaster. Christianity reflects the moral dilemma between welcoming strangers and state stability. My point from Uncle Tom’s Cabin was that slavery created a lot of bad enduring American racist pathology, which flows through to policing and jails and other areas, including the support for the Mexico wall. Trump’s call for a crackdown on illegals is all about making the nation state the unit of world politics, regaining control from the elite view that promotes open borders and free migration, for example seen in Soros http://soros.dcleaks.com/fview/Presiden ... 2.2016.pdf and the UN view that “sovereignty is an absolute illusion.” http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?N ... CdA_tJ9673

There is a clash of civilizations between Islam and the West. Trump is entirely right to question how well Muslims can assimilate. In a context where Obama and Clinton will not say “Islamic Terrorist”, such debates are galvanised by giving voice to resistant policies, even if these end up being negotiating bids rather than final positions.

DWill wrote: His acceptance speech made me ill with its blatant insincerity and hypocrisy. Do we assume from it that he will not try to appoint a special prosecutor to go after Clinton? He's already putting himself in a bind with his deplorables who love to chant "Lock her up" if he fails in this instance to indulge his taste for vengeance.

You have to admit that in his acceptance speech and his first meeting with Obama, Trump has drastically changed his rhetoric around respectful dialogue. What you call a “taste for vengeance” could prove to be more an attitude of respect for his supporters, who believe that American identity and values have been neglected by the prevailing political culture.

DWill wrote: Robert, are you really on the level that this person holds values that could foster a positive values transformation for the U.S.? Assuming for the sake of argument that such a thing is needed--this really is the guy?

[/quote][/quote]
Yes, I think the drift of Democrat policy is towards the assumption that a greater role for government in society is a good thing, whereas Trump is saying that smaller government is good for the entrepreneurial values of personal initiative and responsibility. There is also potential for Trump to provide a wakeup call about foreign relations, and not just on climate change. Europe has been freeriding on America’s security umbrella. Trump’s turn in his acceptance speech to focus on infrastructure shows a desire to fix America’s problems rather than be the world’s policeman.

DWill wrote: http://www.wsj.com/articles/donald-trum ... 1478895339
Donald said it was his meeting with Obama on Wednesday that has now inclined him to preserve two of the biggest features of the ACA. How about that? The man who says he knows more about everything than anyone else has changed his mind based on a few words from the enemy president. This could be a brief honeymoon indeed for Trump.

Now he just has to figure out how to forbid insurers from denying coverage for pre-existing conditions, while eliminating an individual mandate. Good luck with that.

He's shielding himself from stinging defeat. He needs 60 senate votes to repeal Obamacare and has no way to get them. He's looking at what provisions he will be unable to scrap and including them now so it looks like it was his idea all along. Nevertheless, he PROMISED to repeal it and made it one his many campaign mantras and now he's reversing himself. He should change his name to Dillary Tlinton. There will be hell to pay for those followers who steadfastly supported him and expected him to destroy Obamacare.

I don't actually think this is true. He has Breitbart people at the heart of his campaign, yes, and probably will have them at the heart of his White House staff. But who does Roger Ailes, Rush Limbaugh and Breitbart really work for? You have shown amazing secret inroads by the radical right. But I don't think they are working for the KKK, I think they are working for Koch brothers, Sheldon Adelson, and Mellon/Scaife types. I have no doubt those guys, like Trump, Jr. and Sr., are racist, but their racism is incidental to their obsession with wealth, and they play to it more because they can manipulate it than because it represents their views.

Here's a guy who did what I did back in the late 80s and early 90s:

http://highline.huffingtonpost.com/arti ... alt-right/

Robert Tulip wrote:My view is that the big issue in politics is the balance between creation and distribution of wealth. Overall, the Republicans represent those who create wealth whereas the Democrats represent those who distribute wealth. Romney’s attack was against those who vote for more government while Clinton’s attack was against those who vote for less government. Both were only such a decisive turning point because they were against candidates who were more in touch with the national mood of the day. Trump taps into a mood that says government intrusion in American lives should be wound back. That mood was much less cohesive in 2012.

So far, it has proved very difficult to get government out of the lives of Americans, but this has to do not just with the opposition of Democrats but with the preferences of Republicans who want government to work for their own interests. You've heard of corporate welfare. I'm an Independent who would ask only that the many advantages for big business built into the tax and regulatory structure also be on the chopping block whenever entitlement cuts are discussed. Donald Trump indicated that he would be open to eliminating the tax loopholes that enabled him to avoid federal income tax for almost two decades. This is something I would truly applaud him for doing.

Opposition to political correctness is less about hatred than about rejection of social engineering by elitist minorities. Opposition to gay marriage is not homophobia. Trump goads people like a troll, to step back and watch the mayhem, but this is more from an astute assessment on his part that this energises the base than any harking for Jim Crow.

During the campaign, it was Trump himself who was the most vulnerable to goading. But the point that should be made about political correctness is how often the charge is simply abused. It isn't some quibble about nomenclature that's taking place when people object to Trump wanting to ban Muslims from the U.S. or his calling Mexican immigrants rapists. It not politically incorrect, and therefore courageous, for Trump to say those things; it's illiberal, wrongheaded , and actually un-American.

My view on elites is driven by my analysis of climate change. The elite view is that we have to make energy more expensive to cut emissions. That harms the economy and does not slow global warming, which requires new technology to mine carbon. Trump is more likely to produce an effective climate policy than the Paris elite.

"Elite" is just an extremely unhelpful term to use in reasoned discussion. It is emotionally and politically charged.

On climate change, I do wonder, Robert, at your having attached yourself to one of the more prominent deniers of the phenomenon.

The culture war between Democrats and Republicans has affirmative action for women and minorities as a central battle ground. My sense is that Trump wants hiring decisions to be made on merit, rebalancing from the elite cultural discrimination against white men.

This matter hasn't come up in the campaign to my knowledge. Trump was asked about it on "Meet the Press," but he said he had no problem with the policy. If you're looking for strong guiding principles in a politician, Trump simply isn't your man. He has changed party affiliation at least five times. During the campaign, it was often hard to pin him down on matters of principle. http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/201 ... tion_.html

Immigration is a very complicated topic. What I support is that immigration should be strictly governed by rule of law, and that immigrants should assimilate. Europe’s policy of allowing ethnic enclaves full of long term welfare recipients is a disaster. Christianity reflects the moral dilemma between welcoming strangers and state stability. My point from Uncle Tom’s Cabin was that slavery created a lot of bad enduring American racist pathology, which flows through to policing and jails and other areas, including the support for the Mexico wall. Trump’s call for a crackdown on illegals is all about making the nation state the unit of world politics, regaining control from the elite view that promotes open borders and free migration, for example seen in Soros http://soros.dcleaks.com/fview/Presiden ... 2.2016.pdf and the UN view that “sovereignty is an absolute illusion.” http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?N ... CdA_tJ9673

There's that all-purpose word "elite" again. So the wall flows from the ill effects of slavery, but you support Trump, whose key policy statement was building the wall, on immigration?

There is a clash of civilizations between Islam and the West. Trump is entirely right to question how well Muslims can assimilate. In a context where Obama and Clinton will not say “Islamic Terrorist”, such debates are galvanised by giving voice to resistant policies, even if these end up being negotiating bids rather than final positions.

Samuel Huntington is accounted as a great historian. Still, his analysis of Muslims as owing exclusive allegiance to their faith, and not being subject to the same nationalistic desires as the rest of the world's peoples, has come under strong criticism and has not been proven by the passage of time since he published his famous book. Muslims can assimilate. They have in the U.S.

You have to admit that in his acceptance speech and his first meeting with Obama, Trump has drastically changed his rhetoric around respectful dialogue. What you call a “taste for vengeance” could prove to be more an attitude of respect for his supporters, who believe that American identity and values have been neglected by the prevailing political culture.

No, I don't think that if he did try to indict Hillary Clinton, that would be out of "respect" for his supporters. It might be because of feeling captive to them, or just because he likes to strike back at those who have wronged him. As far as his making all nicey with Clinton and Obama, I realize that such cordiality is part of every post-election ritual. But never before have we had a candidate who attacked his opponents on such personal terms. So I can't be very impressed by his implied "never mind, just had to win this thing however I could."

Yes, I think the drift of Democrat policy is towards the assumption that a greater role for government in society is a good thing, whereas Trump is saying that smaller government is good for the entrepreneurial values of personal initiative and responsibility. There is also potential for Trump to provide a wakeup call about foreign relations, and not just on climate change. Europe has been freeriding on America’s security umbrella. Trump’s turn in his acceptance speech to focus on infrastructure shows a desire to fix America’s problems rather than be the world’s policeman.

I will grant you that the one agenda item on Trump's list that has to it a ring of authenticity is rebuilding infrastructure. Obama wanted to do it, but Congress wouldn't give him the funding. Now Trump should be able to get this much-needed work to pass. I wonder how less-government, libertarian types feel about that, though. It's still a federal government project.

When I think of Trumps wall I draw the equivalence of Trump demanding in essence the militarization of the southern U.S. border. When I think about a militarized southern border I picture Putin and his border with Europe. During the cold war the soviet border was much about keeping people trapped on the soviet side. Now I see Putin's border as more about keeping Muslim refugees out. I would say that were it not for central and south America having a large Catholic population or rather were it a mostly Muslim population, that wall would have been built long ago with both political parties in favor. I see American Muslims as mostly assimilated/integrated, I also see that they represent a small portion of the population. If their numbers were in the tens of millions of people here in the U.S. I'm not so sure that there would be a guaranty of no issues coming from the Shia-Sunni split we witness in the middle east.

The only way to explain Trumps win is to blame the democrats who simply did not turn out to vote, I myself have never voted in favor of a Dem in a national election but this time I did, ironic, for the first time I vote for a Democrat for president and ten million Democrats can't be bothered. I voted for Hillary to keep some sort of checks in place up there in D.C. The pendulum of power has been swinging back and forth so quickly over the past sixteen years that its schizophrenic. Speaking of white power, I find it highly hypocritical to applaud power to non-whites or other genders and then shout racism when whites assert their numbers. Is voting a form of riot?

I would say that distribution is a vital part of wealth creation, money has to be transferred, individual earnings and product's being sold is certainly the desired transfer mechanism but I'm not convinced that lowering tax's combined with already low interest rates for those who can afford to pay higher rates is the economic savior Trump and the republicans have suggested it will be. I'm optimistic but I'll believe a fantastic GDP when it happens. I think automation has outpaced the work force and that those people in the lower economic strata will remain to have a tough time and it may well be that corporations will have to finance through higher tax's a portion of the population that corporate American has through innovation rendered obsolete.

I predicted over a year ago that Trump would win based on his celebrity appeal and the self-centered logic of the American people. I did not on election day expect what happened, I expected the weirdness of a Clinton victory, I expected more Clinton influence peddling, I expected to be looking down the road at the final end of the Bush, Clinton era in American politics, so.. I'm glad to the end of an era, but I'm still shaking my head at the thought of the beginning of this new era of mass bafflement.

If Trumps scares the crap out of so many of the American people, I could only imagine what our actual enemies may be considering. Are they desperate, are they quaking, are they scattering to the hills? No, there right where they were six days ago. What change will Trump bring? The misery index isn't going anywhere, change won't happen he's not offering anything new because I don't expect that there is anything new to offer but we do get to keep that dizzy feeling as we continue to watch that pendulum swing back and forth, back and forth, back and forth..........

Taylor wrote:The pendulum of power has been swinging back and forth so quickly over the past sixteen years that its schizophrenic.

Both the business narrative and the government narrative have run out of steam. If releasing free markets had the power to deliver investment like it did in the 90s, the Republicans would not just win backwater votes. If government could fix problems as easily as saying "everyone gets health care coverage" (in Switzerland they actually do, and it works) then clowns and buffoons would not be turned to in desperation.

A narrative of stability would be the most accurate, but in a rapidly changing world economy, with the Middle East off the rails (as much due to climate change as to the Iraq invasion or that other great U.S. indirect creation, the Iran revolution) that is likely not to catch on.

The ascendant narrative right now is phony facts generated as click bait.

Taylor wrote:Speaking of white power, I find it highly hypocritical to applaud power to non-whites or other genders and then shout racism when whites assert their numbers. Is voting a form of riot?

I share some of your reaction, but there is a crucial difference. When an oppressed group stands together to get a seat at the table and a share in power, we are all stronger. (Zero sum narratives are flawed from the start). When white men vote for former privilege, they are voting for division and oppression.

However, resisting loss of good jobs to trade is fair game. I personally prefer the free trade approach - the Chinese were coming even with high tariffs, and there is a race on to bring enough prosperity to poor countries to bring down population growth fast - but we Democrats forgot about how to clean up the mess it made.

Taylor wrote:I would say that distribution is a vital part of wealth creation, money has to be transferred, individual earnings and product's being sold is certainly the desired transfer mechanism but I'm not convinced that lowering tax's combined with already low interest rates for those who can afford to pay higher rates is the economic savior Trump and the republicans have suggested it will be.

We are entering a time when this is crucially true, that distribution is a vital part of wealth creation. It was already true - public schools created the industrialized and effective economy of the world today, and Ford's wage and GM's "productivity plus 2%" were important parts of that. Today, the formula for schools that work is "high expectations, high support". If the students aren't getting the needed support before they come to the classroom, they need small classes, so teachers don't burn out giving them homework, and intervention when things are going wrong. Once again, humanitarian and pragmatic impulses align. Health care is also vital to maintaining a productive and cooperative work force.

Taylor wrote:I think automation has outpaced the work force and that those people in the lower economic strata will remain to have a tough time and it may well be that corporations will have to finance through higher tax's a portion of the population that corporate American has through innovation rendered obsolete.

Sounds right to me. With automation driven more by incremental quality improvements than by costs of labor, we are looking at the essential exclusion of workers from the production process. Distribution and direct services can still employ lots of people, but finding the productivity in those sectors may prove to be beyond our capacities. In which case the world economy stabilizes in the current configuration with plentiful workers feeling plentifully excluded from the bounty of manufacturing.

There are various approaches to solution possible, and a mix will probably prove necessary, but a guy capable of climate denial will not help us find any of them.

DB Roy wrote: Here's a guy who did what I did back in the late 80s and early 90s:

http://highline.huffingtonpost.com/arti ... alt-right/

Fascinating. It's true that the green light by Trump has energized this crowd. I still think the Recession spawned the majority of them. We are reliving the 30s, in a less dramatic way. Social media plays the role of the torchlight rallies.

Harry Marks wrote: Fascinating. It's true that the green light by Trump has energized this crowd. I still think the Recession spawned the majority of them. We are reliving the 30s, in a less dramatic way. Social media plays the role of the torchlight rallies.

And you know what came in the forties.

When your job can be replaced by a machine, you owe it to yourself to do something about that. Whining to a demagogue to bring your job back isn't going to help. Your job has been eliminated--period. Find something else.