OT: Sit, Kneel, or Stand?

[rickman]

What was a small number of players in professional sports has turned into a
mass movement, more in protest of the President's statements than anything I
believe. I have read that many, many NFL players on many teams have sat
through the anthem or knelt or stood with arms linked. The Pittsburgh
Steelers simply didn't come out during the anthem.

I suppose some here find the whole thing repulsive as if we should not
tolerate certain types of protest. But if we can allow individuals to burn
the flag as protected speech, why should the President call for the firing
of sports players for doing something as simple as kneeling during the
anthem? What is so special about being a professional sports figure that
they have less rights to express their views?

The irony is that had the President simply gone on ignoring the issue, it
would still be a trivial number of individuals making a small statement
instead of the tidal wave it has become.

One thing that impresses me is that the teams internally clearly have no
animosity toward one another over the issue. Yet, the President is happy to
create a rift in our country for something so small. With professional
sports being so popular and public, his comments are going to further
fragment our country and cause more conflict and animosity.

Is this why we elected this man as our President? Is this the job we asked
him to do?

PS While reading about this issue I was distracted by a link about common
core math and realized that this is very much like how I do math in my head.
They break numbers into chunks that are easy to manipulate rather than the
column by column addition and subtraction using numeric symbols and even
multiplication or division.

--

Rick C

Viewed the eclipse at Wintercrest Farms,
on the centerline of totality since 1998

[bitrex]

Must feel great to be a resident of Florida, Texas, or Puerto Rico and
be sitting in a shelter thinking about your flooded-out wreck of a home
and the media and everyone else has already moved on to fretting over
what pro athletes who make more money in a year than 99.9% of people
will see in their lives do or don't do with their time.

[k...@notreal.com]

On Mon, 25 Sep 2017 02:55:03 -0400, rickman <gnu...@gmail.com> wrote:

>What was a small number of players in professional sports has turned into a
>mass movement, more in protest of the President's statements than anything I
>believe. I have read that many, many NFL players on many teams have sat
>through the anthem or knelt or stood with arms linked. The Pittsburgh
>Steelers simply didn't come out during the anthem.
>
>I suppose some here find the whole thing repulsive as if we should not
>tolerate certain types of protest. But if we can allow individuals to burn
>the flag as protected speech, why should the President call for the firing
>of sports players for doing something as simple as kneeling during the
>anthem? What is so special about being a professional sports figure that
>they have less rights to express their views?

The rich babies can protest all they want on their own time. Insulting
your customers isn't smart. OTOH, no one accused jocks of being
smart. I would have though the owners at least shared a brain cell,
though.

>
>The irony is that had the President simply gone on ignoring the issue, it
>would still be a trivial number of individuals making a small statement
>instead of the tidal wave it has become.

30% isn't "trivial". One isn't trivial, in fact.

>
>One thing that impresses me is that the teams internally clearly have no
>animosity toward one another over the issue. Yet, the President is happy to
>create a rift in our country for something so small. With professional
>sports being so popular and public, his comments are going to further
>fragment our country and cause more conflict and animosity.
>
>Is this why we elected this man as our President? Is this the job we asked
>him to do?

If you had half the brain of a jock, you'd have figured out that it's
a no-lose proposition for him. The NFL has a *lot* to lose, though.

[bitrex]

On 09/25/2017 03:57 PM, k...@notreal.com wrote:

>> One thing that impresses me is that the teams internally clearly have no
>> animosity toward one another over the issue. Yet, the President is happy to
>> create a rift in our country for something so small. With professional
>> sports being so popular and public, his comments are going to further
>> fragment our country and cause more conflict and animosity.
>>
>> Is this why we elected this man as our President? Is this the job we asked
>> him to do?
>
> If you had half the brain of a jock, you'd have figured out that it's
> a no-lose proposition for him. The NFL has a *lot* to lose, though.

What's he trying to "win" again, exactly?

Trump seems to think that the average American, even the average
right-wing American, is more loyal to him then they are to their local
ball teams. That's amusing.

[bitrex]

On 09/25/2017 03:57 PM, k...@notreal.com wrote:

> On Mon, 25 Sep 2017 02:55:03 -0400, rickman <gnu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> What was a small number of players in professional sports has turned into a
>> mass movement, more in protest of the President's statements than anything I
>> believe. I have read that many, many NFL players on many teams have sat
>> through the anthem or knelt or stood with arms linked. The Pittsburgh
>> Steelers simply didn't come out during the anthem.
>>
>> I suppose some here find the whole thing repulsive as if we should not
>> tolerate certain types of protest. But if we can allow individuals to burn
>> the flag as protected speech, why should the President call for the firing
>> of sports players for doing something as simple as kneeling during the
>> anthem? What is so special about being a professional sports figure that
>> they have less rights to express their views?
>
> The rich babies can protest all they want on their own time. Insulting
> your customers isn't smart. OTOH, no one accused jocks of being
> smart. I would have though the owners at least shared a brain cell,
> though

Trump made out just fine insulting his "customers" intelligence
throughout the entire campaign, though. Seems to be a recipe for success
among a big block of Americans - don't really feel they're worthy of
respect.

[k...@notreal.com]

On Mon, 25 Sep 2017 16:17:45 -0400, bitrex
<bit...@de.lete.earthlink.net> wrote:

>On 09/25/2017 03:57 PM, k...@notreal.com wrote:
>
>>> One thing that impresses me is that the teams internally clearly have no
>>> animosity toward one another over the issue. Yet, the President is happy to
>>> create a rift in our country for something so small. With professional
>>> sports being so popular and public, his comments are going to further
>>> fragment our country and cause more conflict and animosity.
>>>
>>> Is this why we elected this man as our President? Is this the job we asked
>>> him to do?
>>
>> If you had half the brain of a jock, you'd have figured out that it's
>> a no-lose proposition for him. The NFL has a *lot* to lose, though.
>
>What's he trying to "win" again, exactly?

If you have to ask what a politician has to "win", you don't have half
a jock's brain cell, either.

>
>Trump seems to think that the average American, even the average
>right-wing American, is more loyal to him then they are to their local
>ball teams. That's amusing.

It's obvious you don't have half a jock's CTE riddled brain cell,
either.

Hint: People in the real world are fed up with leftists politicizing
_everything_.

[bill....@ieee.org]

On Tuesday, September 26, 2017 at 11:03:30 AM UTC+10, k...@notreal.com wrote:
> On Mon, 25 Sep 2017 16:17:45 -0400, bitrex
> <bit...@de.lete.earthlink.net> wrote:
>
> >On 09/25/2017 03:57 PM, k...@notreal.com wrote:

<snip>

> Hint: People in the real world are fed up with leftists politicizing
> _everything_.

Cops shooting disproportionately more blacks than whites is a political issue, and anybody of any political persuasion should find it unacceptable.

Getting the idea that it's important across to right-wing clowns like krw and Trump does take an effort. Trump resents anything that distracts from his program of self-publicity, and krw wants to keep his thinking running in the same rut that he's used to, so neither of them like it. Tough.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

[John Larkin]

On Mon, 25 Sep 2017 16:17:45 -0400, bitrex
<bit...@de.lete.earthlink.net> wrote:

>On 09/25/2017 03:57 PM, k...@notreal.com wrote:
>
>>> One thing that impresses me is that the teams internally clearly have no
>>> animosity toward one another over the issue. Yet, the President is happy to
>>> create a rift in our country for something so small. With professional
>>> sports being so popular and public, his comments are going to further
>>> fragment our country and cause more conflict and animosity.
>>>
>>> Is this why we elected this man as our President? Is this the job we asked
>>> him to do?
>>
>> If you had half the brain of a jock, you'd have figured out that it's
>> a no-lose proposition for him. The NFL has a *lot* to lose, though.
>
>What's he trying to "win" again, exactly?

The next Presidential election?


--

John Larkin Highland Technology, Inc

lunatic fringe electronics

[bitrex]

By targeting the NFL for abuse?

He's great at "improving" his poll numbers by doing things people who
started out loving him love. That doesn't really help much in winning
second terms where voter turnout is usually higher - it polls well among
the there-are-too-many-blacks-in-the-sports krw-types who hate the whole
industry anyway and are still bitter over "jocks" 50 years later, but
not great among anyone who isn't a right-wing white guy.

Maybe he thinks everyone "in the real world" is so "fed up with leftists
politicizing everything" that he'll make every white person quit
watching the game en-masse and spend Sunday nights planning their local
tiki-torch rally instead out of personal loyalty, driving the NFL to beg
for forgiveness and promise to make those thugs shape up.

Which is a hilarious idea.

[bitrex]

He's trying to make his base choose between him and football, lol what a
dumbass. There were tons of good reasons for the conservative base to
boycott the NFL long before 2017 and they never did; might as well ask
them to boycott pickup trucks or fucking their sister.

[bill....@ieee.org]

He'd have to be an egomaniac optimist to expect to last that long, but then again, that is what he is. The interesting question is whether Mueller will have to dig out evidence that he's not a fit person to be President, or whether Trump will tweet something outrageous enough to make further investigation redundant.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

[lonm...@gmail.com]

On Monday, September 25, 2017 at 8:03:30 PM UTC-5, k...@notreal.com wrote:
> On Mon, 25 Sep 2017 16:17:45 -0400, bitrex
> <bit...@de.lete.earthlink.net> wrote:
>
> >On 09/25/2017 03:57 PM, k...@notreal.com wrote:
> >
> >>> One thing that impresses me is that the teams internally clearly have no
> >>> animosity toward one another over the issue. Yet, the President is happy to
> >>> create a rift in our country for something so small. With professional
> >>> sports being so popular and public, his comments are going to further
> >>> fragment our country and cause more conflict and animosity.
> >>>
> >>> Is this why we elected this man as our President? Is this the job we asked
> >>> him to do?
> >>
> >> If you had half the brain of a jock, you'd have figured out that it's
> >> a no-lose proposition for him. The NFL has a *lot* to lose, though.
> >
> >What's he trying to "win" again, exactly?
>
> If you have to ask what a politician has to "win", you don't have half
> a jock's brain cell, either.

Says the man who's responses are not much different from something a chatbot could come up with. You're great at insults, terrible at actually stating something of substance; in this case you don't answer the question, probably because you don't know.

> >
> >Trump seems to think that the average American, even the average
> >right-wing American, is more loyal to him then they are to their local
> >ball teams. That's amusing.
>
> It's obvious you don't have half a jock's CTE riddled brain cell,
> either.

See above.

>
> Hint: People in the real world are fed up with leftists politicizing
> _everything_.

LOL. No really, I did laugh out loud due to the hypocrisy of that statement.

Let's see....NFL players kneeling, what Hillary did, AGW is fake, crowd sizes, Obama's birth certificate. Who politicized those things? Quick, I'll give you five seconds.

[lonm...@gmail.com]

If his hardcore base was at least half the electorate I might believe that. But I seriously doubt it is.

I think the likelihood of rational voters electing him again is low in light of his, ummm, questionable performance.

[lonm...@gmail.com]

LOL Oh man that's great.

Some claim Trump is actually a genius. Giving that idea a fair chance, I tried to convince myself of this, then realized no intelligent politician tries to piss off so many people with no apparent regard for the consequences.

Bannon I believe is a genius. Evil, yes, but still not stupid.

[John Larkin]

He beat Hillary 304/227. How did you rate that probability just before
the election?

[bitrex]

Half the NFL teams in the country have a wait time in decades for season
passes. For every red hat who walks out in a huff there'll be ten people
scrambling around trying to buy their tickets off them. The only
attendance numbers that will suffer will be attendance numbers that were
in the dumpster already.

As for TV viewership it may take a couple percentage point hit but like
the CE logo a TV boycott is a "can't enforce" kind of situation. People
will tell their friends they aren't watching and then just catch it
later via an NFL site or app in private.

They booed Tom Brady and other Patriots players at Gillette the other
day, I estimate the chances that the stadium will be half empty at the
next home game as being asymptotically close to zero. As I said there
were tons of good reasons for a member of the so-called Christian moral
majority to boycott pro sports for decades and it never happened; bunch
of big-talking fronters never do shit.

[lonm...@gmail.com]

I thought he had no chance. But, I also thought he'd get more done by now and thought he'd tone down the insults and be more diplomatic once in office.

Neither of those happened. His poll numbers are also lower than any since Truman which isn't exactly a feather in his hat.

http://time.com/4786624/donald-trump-approval-rating-presidents/

Then there's the Mueller wildcard. There's a real possibility he could get kicked out of office (or encouraged to leave) before his term is up, and if not that, some members of his former campaign team or even his family could get indicted.

Don't go telling me how you don't believe polls or the "liberal media". There's a lot of shit going on with Trump that's pretty fricken' hard to deny.

[John Larkin]

On Tue, 26 Sep 2017 09:18:37 -0700 (PDT), lonm...@gmail.com wrote:

>On Tuesday, September 26, 2017 at 10:51:52 AM UTC-5, John Larkin wrote:
>> On Tue, 26 Sep 2017 07:48:18 -0700 (PDT), lonm...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>> >On Monday, September 25, 2017 at 11:04:44 PM UTC-5, John Larkin wrote:
>> >> On Mon, 25 Sep 2017 16:17:45 -0400, bitrex
>> >> <bit...@de.lete.earthlink.net> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >On 09/25/2017 03:57 PM, k...@notreal.com wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >>> One thing that impresses me is that the teams internally clearly have no
>> >> >>> animosity toward one another over the issue. Yet, the President is happy to
>> >> >>> create a rift in our country for something so small. With professional
>> >> >>> sports being so popular and public, his comments are going to further
>> >> >>> fragment our country and cause more conflict and animosity.
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>> Is this why we elected this man as our President? Is this the job we asked
>> >> >>> him to do?
>> >> >>
>> >> >> If you had half the brain of a jock, you'd have figured out that it's
>> >> >> a no-lose proposition for him. The NFL has a *lot* to lose, though.
>> >> >
>> >> >What's he trying to "win" again, exactly?
>> >>
>> >> The next Presidential election?
>> >>
>> >>
>> >
>> >If his hardcore base was at least half the electorate I might believe that. But I seriously doubt it is.
>> >
>> >I think the likelihood of rational voters electing him again is low in light of his, ummm, questionable performance.
>> >
>>
>> He beat Hillary 304/227. How did you rate that probability just before
>> the election?
>>
>>
>
>I thought he had no chance. But, I also thought he'd get more done by now and thought he'd tone down the insults and be more diplomatic once in office.

It's just his first year. Clinton #1 and O had chaotic first years.

The US government is maybe the most complex system on the planet. A
swamp-dwelling government insider would have an easier time taking
over. But he was elected mainly because he's not an insider. Or a
mealy-mouthed diplomat.

>
>Neither of those happened. His poll numbers are also lower than any since Truman which isn't exactly a feather in his hat.
>
>http://time.com/4786624/donald-trump-approval-rating-presidents/
>
>Then there's the Mueller wildcard. There's a real possibility he could get kicked out of office (or encouraged to leave) before his term is up, and if not that, some members of his former campaign team or even his family could get indicted.

If there were, anywhere, any hard evidence against him, it would have
been leaked by now.

>
>Don't go telling me how you don't believe polls or the "liberal media". There's a lot of shit going on with Trump that's pretty fricken' hard to deny.

Luckily, you only get one vote.

[lonm...@gmail.com]

Chaotic is subjective, but I don't recall this level of dysfunction with Obama. The "it's just his first year" utterance will change into "it's just his second year" in 2018. You really think much will improve by then? It's Trump's own fault. I doubt anyone is forcing him to say and do most of the inflammatory stuff he's saying.

>
> The US government is maybe the most complex system on the planet. A
> swamp-dwelling government insider would have an easier time taking
> over. But he was elected mainly because he's not an insider. Or a
> mealy-mouthed diplomat.
>

The claim that being an outsider is an advantage is questionable at best. I've encountered engineer hiring practices that prefer someone from outside the industry, but they're still engineers. I can understand hiring a CEO from outside the industry, but they still know the ins and outs of being a CEO.

This same idea is true for nearly any position as it brings in a fresh perspective. But what's happened here is we have an arrogant, narcissistic reality TV star/real estate developer of questionable mental stability trying to run something he has no knowledge nor experience with: the US government.

Try putting an engineer in an operating room with a scalpel or a CPA in a construction job site. Yeah, not a great idea. You have to have some training to do any job, even if it's behind the fast food counter.

>
> >
> >Neither of those happened. His poll numbers are also lower than any since Truman which isn't exactly a feather in his hat.
> >
> >http://time.com/4786624/donald-trump-approval-rating-presidents/
> >
> >Then there's the Mueller wildcard. There's a real possibility he could get kicked out of office (or encouraged to leave) before his term is up, and if not that, some members of his former campaign team or even his family could get indicted.
>
> If there were, anywhere, any hard evidence against him, it would have
> been leaked by now.
>

Would it? You think the Mueller team is playing Xbox in their offices?

> >
> >Don't go telling me how you don't believe polls or the "liberal media". There's a lot of shit going on with Trump that's pretty fricken' hard to deny.
>
> Luckily, you only get one vote.

As do you, and we both live in states that vote reliably blue in presidential elections. So unless you want to include the popular vote in a debate, our individual votes do essentially nothing.

[Cursitor Doom]

He presumably watches the Clinton News Network or Nothing But Crap for
his news and so therefore never saw the Trump victory coming.
Bill Sloman always attempts to ridicule me whenever I quote something
from the Daily Express. But The Express was the only MSM outlet which
correctly predicted a Trump victory while everyone else was putting
Hillary ahead by various margins. The Express was also the only MSM
outlet which correctly predicted Leave would prevail in the Brexit
Referendum and it was also the Express which, against all the prevailing
'pundits' and political commentators predicted the right-of-centre AFD
would gain 90+ seats in the German elections and cause a major upset for
the established parties.
Bill and bitrex both clearly desire to be told what they *want* to hear
rather than having to face the facts. As true Socialists always do, they
prefer to live in fantasy land. (and off other people's money).



--
This message may be freely reproduced without limit or charge only via
the Usenet protocol. Reproduction in whole or part through other
protocols, whether for profit or not, is conditional upon a charge of
GBP10.00 per reproduction. Publication in this manner via non-Usenet
protocols constitutes acceptance of this condition.

[bitrex]

The simplest explanation as to why the predictions were off is easy, a
large number of Trump voters simply lied about their intentions when
asked a direct question. You can only make educated predictions under
the assumption that the data you have is valid. And no media outlet that
was relying on actual statistics put the chance of a Trump victory at 0%
anyway, it was never much lower than 30-35% which is a lot more than 0.

The Express doesn't run a supercomputer farm that crunches polling
numbers. and like any good psychic only "predicts" things that are
appealing to their readership, who couldn't care less about all the
other times they've been wrong.

[John Larkin]

HE WON THE ELECTION! How stupid was that?

>
>>
>> The US government is maybe the most complex system on the planet. A
>> swamp-dwelling government insider would have an easier time taking
>> over. But he was elected mainly because he's not an insider. Or a
>> mealy-mouthed diplomat.
>>
>
>The claim that being an outsider is an advantage is questionable at best. I've encountered engineer hiring practices that prefer someone from outside the industry, but they're still engineers. I can understand hiring a CEO from outside the industry, but they still know the ins and outs of being a CEO.
>
>This same idea is true for nearly any position as it brings in a fresh perspective. But what's happened here is we have an arrogant, narcissistic reality TV star/real estate developer of questionable mental stability trying to run something he has no knowledge nor experience with: the US government.
>
>Try putting an engineer in an operating room with a scalpel or a CPA in a construction job site. Yeah, not a great idea. You have to have some training to do any job, even if it's behind the fast food counter.

In some areas, experience produces competance. In some, it's the
opposite.

I knew a guy who was a psychologist for the Army Air Force in WWII, my
psychology prof at Tulane. As an experiment, at the last minute, they
took the kids from the cooks and bakers training, and put them into
planes in place of the kids from the aerial gunnery school, for the
final live shooting exam. The cooks+bakers were better gunners.

--

John Larkin Highland Technology, Inc

picosecond timing precision measurement

jlarkin att highlandtechnology dott com
http://www.highlandtechnology.com

[lonm...@gmail.com]

Of course! That's gotta be it.....(eye roll)

> Bill Sloman always attempts to ridicule me whenever I quote something
> from the Daily Express. But The Express was the only MSM outlet which
> correctly predicted a Trump victory while everyone else was putting
> Hillary ahead by various margins.

Prediction markets weren't giving Trump such a high chance of winning either, and that's based on how participants are betting with their money. Did you ever stop to think that perhaps the reason the Express (or any other outlet that predicted a Trump win) was correct is because they wanted him to win, and simply got lucky with their "prediction"? Even people within his campaign thought he had a very low chance:

“Trump went around the room and asked people the percentages he thought of … still winning,” he said. “And Reince started off and Reince said ... ‘You have two choices. You either drop out right now, or you lose by the biggest landslide in American political history.’”

Bannon claimed he was the last person to speak and told Trump, to the contrary: “You have 100 percent probability of winning."

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/09/08/bannon-christie-frozen-out-from-cabinet-for-access-hollywood-tape-response.html

Now, in politics nobody really has a 100% chance of winning unless uncontested. But, wow, how did Bannon know??? He didn't. He told Trump what he wanted to hear, and against the odds, he won.

Using cutesy names for news outlets you don't like is quite childish. There are rational explanations as to why things went the way they did in November, but claiming CNN and NBC made up their own numbers or claiming they did so because of political bias is just stupid. I mean, what established MSM outlet wants to be wrong in their prediction?

> The Express was also the only MSM
> outlet which correctly predicted Leave would prevail in the Brexit
> Referendum and it was also the Express which, against all the prevailing
> 'pundits' and political commentators predicted the right-of-centre AFD
> would gain 90+ seats in the German elections and cause a major upset for
> the established parties.
> Bill and bitrex both clearly desire to be told what they *want* to hear
> rather than having to face the facts. As true Socialists always do, they
> prefer to live in fantasy land. (and off other people's money).
>

Wow, I tend to say the same about you and a few other right wingnuts on SED!

What Bill, bitrex, myself and a few other rational thinkers on SED like to do is turn to data and logic, even if it points in the direction that's not personally preferred.

If YOU didn't listen to only what you want to hear and instead attempted to be logical and less biased, you wouldn't go running around claiming that ONE or two news outlets is the epitome of all news. Think about that. That's inherently biased.

As for me, I'm far from living off other people's money as a six figure income tends to make me ineligible for practically all welfare programs.

[lonm...@gmail.com]

This:

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/voter-embarrassment-about-trump-support-may-have-messed-up-poll-predictions/

And what about people not voting? Polls only work if everyone is a. telling the truth and b. everyone votes.

That's the harsh reality. But some like to say their tabloid-like news source was correct because they were just that good. Nope. Try again.

[John Larkin]

On Tue, 26 Sep 2017 14:38:18 -0400, bitrex

As of Nov 7, the NY Times gave Clinton an 84% chance of becoming
President. The HuffPost said 98%.

I remember election-day TV network estimates of 95/5 in favor of
Hillary, swapping those numbers in about 5 hours.

How's that for expertise?

They don't make facts like they used to. Funny.

--

John Larkin Highland Technology, Inc

[John Larkin]

And c, you ask all the right people.

--

John Larkin Highland Technology, Inc

[John Larkin]

Whatever his internal state, what Bannon told him was the truth.
There's a lot to be said for truth.

But against what odds? Whose odds? Bannon and Trump sure understood
the electorate better than the massive Clinton machine. They still do.

This is a great book:

https://www.amazon.com/Shattered-Inside-Hillary-Clintons-Campaign/dp/0553447084/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1506454107&sr=8-1&keywords=clinton+election

Another fascinating exploration of expertise.

--

John Larkin Highland Technology, Inc

[lonm...@gmail.com]

Uhhh, what? Who said anything about stupid?

I'll assume you are trying to say something to the effect that he won, so he obviously wasn't doing anything stupid. And my answer to that is: Yes I know he won. There's no debate about that. His ability to get reelected or simply remain in office for the remaining portion of the 1st term remains to be seen.

>
>
>
> >
> >>
> >> The US government is maybe the most complex system on the planet. A
> >> swamp-dwelling government insider would have an easier time taking
> >> over. But he was elected mainly because he's not an insider. Or a
> >> mealy-mouthed diplomat.
> >>
> >
> >The claim that being an outsider is an advantage is questionable at best. I've encountered engineer hiring practices that prefer someone from outside the industry, but they're still engineers. I can understand hiring a CEO from outside the industry, but they still know the ins and outs of being a CEO.
> >
> >This same idea is true for nearly any position as it brings in a fresh perspective. But what's happened here is we have an arrogant, narcissistic reality TV star/real estate developer of questionable mental stability trying to run something he has no knowledge nor experience with: the US government.
> >
> >Try putting an engineer in an operating room with a scalpel or a CPA in a construction job site. Yeah, not a great idea. You have to have some training to do any job, even if it's behind the fast food counter.
>
> In some areas, experience produces competance. In some, it's the
> opposite.
>
> I knew a guy who was a psychologist for the Army Air Force in WWII, my
> psychology prof at Tulane. As an experiment, at the last minute, they
> took the kids from the cooks and bakers training, and put them into
> planes in place of the kids from the aerial gunnery school, for the
> final live shooting exam. The cooks+bakers were better gunners.
>
>

There's a prerequisite of knowing how to operate a gun. Simple as it may be, my point is you have to know something, and Trump has shown essentially zero knowledge of how to deal with other politicians, foreign leaders, and even private citizens that happen to fall into his cross-hairs. And he touted himself as the "deal maker". A deal maker typically has people skills and he appears to have little.

[lonm...@gmail.com]

The right people? Like all who are eligible to vote? I would hope they weren't polling kids at elementary schools.

[John Larkin]

How many poison gas attacks has Assad launched lately?

Which NFL player is now selling the most t-shirts?

[lonm...@gmail.com]

What's your point? InTrade had Indiana for a solid McCain/Palin win practically up until the results started coming in. Traders began panicking (I would imagine much like traders at NYSE), buying and selling to limit their loss, or boost their gain depending on each situation. They used the information they had. Traders wanted to make money and outside of this, could care less who won. They wanted to make money.

Mainstream news outlets want to be right so viewers trust them. That' it.

> They don't make facts like they used to. Funny.
>
>

Especially now that it's fashionable to doubt scientific fact. I guess anything can be true in this era if you click your heels three times.

[lonm...@gmail.com]

What truth, that he had 100% chance of winning? Please excuse me while I throw up.

There's very few things that are 100% certainty. And I certainly hope that this is not what you're trying to claim.

>
> But against what odds? Whose odds? Bannon and Trump sure understood
> the electorate better than the massive Clinton machine. They still do.

Yes hindsight is 20

[lonm...@gmail.com]

What?

[rickman]

He also beat Hillary 63 million to 66 million.

--

Rick C

Viewed the eclipse at Wintercrest Farms,
on the centerline of totality since 1998

[rickman]

You guys do realize Trump himself was surprised by the win, right? He had
no expectation he would actually win.

[lonm...@gmail.com]

Oh no no no, the entire Trump campaign was sure they'd win. 100% sure. They had 100% odds, because Bannon said so. All the MSM news outlets were wrong because they only polled the blue states, because that's what they wanted to report. The Express was the only correct news outlet because they're just smarter.

[Cursitor Doom]

On Tue, 26 Sep 2017 14:38:18 -0400, bitrex wrote:

> The Express doesn't run a supercomputer farm that crunches polling
> numbers. and like any good psychic only "predicts" things that are
> appealing to their readership, who couldn't care less about all the
> other times they've been wrong.

<boggle>

Whereas 'respectable' news sources of the kind you and Bill approve of
would never dream of reporting important world events without thoroughly
fact-checking them first.

http://tinyurl.com/y6uer9z7

ROTFLMFAO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Cursitor Doom]

> On Tue, 26 Sep 2017 12:07:35 -0700 (PDT), lonm...@gmail.com wrote:
>

>>Now, in politics nobody really has a 100% chance of winning unless
>>uncontested. But, wow, how did Bannon know???

There's only one way he could have known - from reading the Express
online, dummy.

[John Larkin]

That all sounds right.

--

John Larkin Highland Technology, Inc

[rickman]

But which truth? I believe it was Trump's campaign that introduced quantum
mechanics to the election process by claiming there are "alternate facts".

[lonm...@gmail.com]

On Tuesday, September 26, 2017 at 5:41:14 PM UTC-5, Cursitor Doom wrote:
> On Tue, 26 Sep 2017 14:38:18 -0400, bitrex wrote:
>
> > The Express doesn't run a supercomputer farm that crunches polling
> > numbers. and like any good psychic only "predicts" things that are
> > appealing to their readership, who couldn't care less about all the
> > other times they've been wrong.
>
> <boggle>
>
> Whereas 'respectable' news sources of the kind you and Bill approve of
> would never dream of reporting important world events without thoroughly
> fact-checking them first.

Examples?

>
> http://tinyurl.com/y6uer9z7
>
> ROTFLMFAO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
>

What are you trying to prove? That Newsweek created covers for both contingencies? No shit Sherlock. Now go away.

http://www.snopes.com/clinton-newsweek-cover/

[lonm...@gmail.com]

On Tuesday, September 26, 2017 at 5:46:22 PM UTC-5, Cursitor Doom wrote:
> > On Tue, 26 Sep 2017 12:07:35 -0700 (PDT), lonm...@gmail.com wrote:
> >
>
> >>Now, in politics nobody really has a 100% chance of winning unless
> >>uncontested. But, wow, how did Bannon know???
>
> There's only one way he could have known - from reading the Express
> online, dummy.
>

I personally prefer my news to be Russian propaganda such as RT, but that's just me.

[lonm...@gmail.com]

I think Conway's reaction to saying "alternative facts" on MTP is entertaining, right here at 2:00:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VSrEEDQgFc8

It's like she swallowed a big wad of alternative facts before uttering the phrase.

[rickman]

John Larkin wrote on 9/26/2017 2:51 PM:
>
> I knew a guy who was a psychologist for the Army Air Force in WWII, my
> psychology prof at Tulane. As an experiment, at the last minute, they
> took the kids from the cooks and bakers training, and put them into
> planes in place of the kids from the aerial gunnery school, for the
> final live shooting exam. The cooks+bakers were better gunners.

I believe the moral of this story is to get kids from the bakery who shoot
well to drain the swamp!

[rickman]

John Larkin wrote on 9/26/2017 3:51 PM:
>
> Which NFL player is now selling the most t-shirts?

That will be Trump's legacy, he tamed the NFL! Too bad he isn't doing so
well with North Korea, but you need to have priorities.

[rickman]

rickman wrote on 9/26/2017 8:14 PM:
> John Larkin wrote on 9/26/2017 2:51 PM:
>>
>> I knew a guy who was a psychologist for the Army Air Force in WWII, my
>> psychology prof at Tulane. As an experiment, at the last minute, they
>> took the kids from the cooks and bakers training, and put them into
>> planes in place of the kids from the aerial gunnery school, for the
>> final live shooting exam. The cooks+bakers were better gunners.
>
> I believe the moral of this story is to get kids from the bakery who shoot
> well to drain the swamp!

I seem to recall Trump managed to dodge the draft... although that didn't
stop him from criticizing those who fought and were captured spending years
in a POW camp and suffering loss of mobility in their limbs. Why does no
one remember that when Trump is talking about disrespecting the flag and
military?

[Steve Wilson]

Trump lost the popular vote. The electorial college overrode the popular
vote amd put him in power instead.

The electorial college was designed to prevent demagogues from gaining
power.

It failed, and America and the world have lost.

In America, your vote means nothing.

Instead of the will of hundreds of millions of people, your country rests
in the hands or around 512 people.

What a silly idea.

I lived in the states for 30 years. It was nice then. Good roads, strong
bridges, beautiful countryside, some smog in LA but not too bad, pure lakes
and stream, good trout fishing. San Jose had orchards.

But with the recent changes, I'd never go back.Flight restrictions, No-Fly
lists, border inspections, asset forfeiture, and most of all, your POTUS.

[John Larkin]

You want true facts?

Trump is a billionaire, and you're not.

Trump is President, and you're not.

Hillary isn't President, either.

[Jasen Betts]

On 2017-09-26, Cursitor Doom <cu...@notformail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, 26 Sep 2017 14:38:18 -0400, bitrex wrote:
>
>> The Express doesn't run a supercomputer farm that crunches polling
>> numbers. and like any good psychic only "predicts" things that are
>> appealing to their readership, who couldn't care less about all the
>> other times they've been wrong.
>
><boggle>
>
> Whereas 'respectable' news sources of the kind you and Bill approve of
> would never dream of reporting important world events without thoroughly
> fact-checking them first.

indeed

> http://tinyurl.com/y6uer9z7

seems you failed to check your facts.

http://www.snopes.com/clinton-newsweek-cover/


--
This email has not been checked by half-arsed antivirus software

[lonm...@gmail.com]

This is what worries me deep down. America's ranking is falling by numerous measures. A large percentage of us no longer trust science, infrastructure is degrading, inequality is increasing, and how other nations view us is getting worse, and of course we're very divided politically.

Of course some will say these rankings and numbers are crap, but it's hard to deny something is happening, and it's not good.

[rickman]

>> mechanics to the election process by claiming there are "alternate facts"..

>>
>
> I think Conway's reaction to saying "alternative facts" on MTP is entertaining, right here at 2:00:
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VSrEEDQgFc8
>
> It's like she swallowed a big wad of alternative facts before uttering the phrase.

I literally laugh out loud every time I see that clip. The lead up is so
perfect too. First she dodges the question by talking about an errant
report that Trump had a bust of Marin Luther King Jr. removed from the oval
office as if those things were equivalent. Then when cornered by the
question she pulls her "alternative facts" statement. WTF???

[Steve Wilson]

John Larkin <jjlarkin@highland_snip_technology.com> wrote:

> You want true facts?

> Trump is a billionaire, and you're not.

> Trump is President, and you're not.

> Hillary isn't President, either.

See? Trump is the most divisive person ever to gain power. He is tearing the
United States apart.

You are going with the flow. Cool your jets and figure out how to heal.

[rickman]

That's what's important to you, that Trump is a billionaire?

He'll be a lot more of a millionaire once he's out of office. Then he will
*really* be able to cash in, which is the whole reason he ran in the first
place. He literally never thought he'd win.

[k...@notreal.com]

On Tue, 26 Sep 2017 01:15:50 -0400, bitrex
<bit...@de.lete.earthlink.net> wrote:

>On 09/25/2017 09:03 PM, k...@notreal.com wrote:
>> On Mon, 25 Sep 2017 16:17:45 -0400, bitrex
>> <bit...@de.lete.earthlink.net> wrote:
>>
>>> On 09/25/2017 03:57 PM, k...@notreal.com wrote:
>>>
>>>>> One thing that impresses me is that the teams internally clearly have no
>>>>> animosity toward one another over the issue. Yet, the President is happy to
>>>>> create a rift in our country for something so small. With professional
>>>>> sports being so popular and public, his comments are going to further
>>>>> fragment our country and cause more conflict and animosity.
>>>>>
>>>>> Is this why we elected this man as our President? Is this the job we asked
>>>>> him to do?
>>>>
>>>> If you had half the brain of a jock, you'd have figured out that it's
>>>> a no-lose proposition for him. The NFL has a *lot* to lose, though.
>>>
>>> What's he trying to "win" again, exactly?
>>

>> If you have to ask what a politician has to "win", you don't have half
>> a jock's brain cell, either.
>>>
>>> Trump seems to think that the average American, even the average
>>> right-wing American, is more loyal to him then they are to their local
>>> ball teams. That's amusing.
>>
>> It's obvious you don't have half a jock's CTE riddled brain cell,
>> either.
>>
>> Hint: People in the real world are fed up with leftists politicizing
>> _everything_.
>>
>
>He's trying to make his base choose between him and football, lol what a
> dumbass. There were tons of good reasons for the conservative base to
>boycott the NFL long before 2017 and they never did; might as well ask
>them to boycott pickup trucks or fucking their sister.

You really are clueless, Shorty. You should try living in the real
world some time.

[k...@notreal.com]

On Tue, 26 Sep 2017 12:22:24 -0700, John Larkin
<jjlarkin@highland_snip_technology.com> wrote:

>On Tue, 26 Sep 2017 14:38:18 -0400, bitrex
><bit...@de.lete.earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>>On 09/26/2017 02:05 PM, Cursitor Doom wrote:

>>> On Tue, 26 Sep 2017 08:51:41 -0700, John Larkin wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Tue, 26 Sep 2017 07:48:18 -0700 (PDT), lonm...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>

>>>>> On Monday, September 25, 2017 at 11:04:44 PM UTC-5, John Larkin wrote:
>>>>>> On Mon, 25 Sep 2017 16:17:45 -0400, bitrex
>>>>>> <bit...@de.lete.earthlink.net> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 09/25/2017 03:57 PM, k...@notreal.com wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> One thing that impresses me is that the teams internally clearly
>>>>>>>>> have no animosity toward one another over the issue. Yet, the
>>>>>>>>> President is happy to create a rift in our country for something
>>>>>>>>> so small. With professional sports being so popular and public,
>>>>>>>>> his comments are going to further fragment our country and cause
>>>>>>>>> more conflict and animosity.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Is this why we elected this man as our President? Is this the job
>>>>>>>>> we asked him to do?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> If you had half the brain of a jock, you'd have figured out that
>>>>>>>> it's a no-lose proposition for him. The NFL has a *lot* to lose,
>>>>>>>> though.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> What's he trying to "win" again, exactly?
>>>>>>

>>>>>> The next Presidential election?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> If his hardcore base was at least half the electorate I might believe
>>>>> that. But I seriously doubt it is.
>>>>>
>>>>> I think the likelihood of rational voters electing him again is low in
>>>>> light of his, ummm, questionable performance.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> He beat Hillary 304/227. How did you rate that probability just before
>>>> the election?
>>>
>>> He presumably watches the Clinton News Network or Nothing But Crap for
>>> his news and so therefore never saw the Trump victory coming.

>>> Bill Sloman always attempts to ridicule me whenever I quote something
>>> from the Daily Express. But The Express was the only MSM outlet which
>>> correctly predicted a Trump victory while everyone else was putting

>>> Hillary ahead by various margins. The Express was also the only MSM
>>> outlet which correctly predicted Leave would prevail in the Brexit
>>> Referendum and it was also the Express which, against all the prevailing
>>> 'pundits' and political commentators predicted the right-of-centre AFD
>>> would gain 90+ seats in the German elections and cause a major upset for
>>> the established parties.
>>> Bill and bitrex both clearly desire to be told what they *want* to hear
>>> rather than having to face the facts. As true Socialists always do, they
>>> prefer to live in fantasy land. (and off other people's money).
>>
>>The simplest explanation as to why the predictions were off is easy, a
>>large number of Trump voters simply lied about their intentions when
>>asked a direct question. You can only make educated predictions under
>>the assumption that the data you have is valid. And no media outlet that
>>was relying on actual statistics put the chance of a Trump victory at 0%
>>anyway, it was never much lower than 30-35% which is a lot more than 0.
>>

>>The Express doesn't run a supercomputer farm that crunches polling
>>numbers. and like any good psychic only "predicts" things that are
>>appealing to their readership, who couldn't care less about all the
>>other times they've been wrong.
>

>As of Nov 7, the NY Times gave Clinton an 84% chance of becoming
>President. The HuffPost said 98%.
>
>I remember election-day TV network estimates of 95/5 in favor of
>Hillary, swapping those numbers in about 5 hours.
>

>How's that for expertise?'

They have about the same predictive power as climatologists. And
probably for the same reasons.

[k...@notreal.com]

It's amazing you didn't suggest this with the last asshole.

[bill....@ieee.org]

On Wednesday, September 27, 2017 at 1:51:52 AM UTC+10, John Larkin wrote:
> On Tue, 26 Sep 2017 07:48:18 -0700 (PDT), lonm...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> >On Monday, September 25, 2017 at 11:04:44 PM UTC-5, John Larkin wrote:
> >> On Mon, 25 Sep 2017 16:17:45 -0400, bitrex
> >> <bit...@de.lete.earthlink.net> wrote:
> >>
> >> >On 09/25/2017 03:57 PM, k...@notreal.com wrote:
> >> >
> >> >>> One thing that impresses me is that the teams internally clearly have no
> >> >>> animosity toward one another over the issue. Yet, the President is happy to
> >> >>> create a rift in our country for something so small. With professional
> >> >>> sports being so popular and public, his comments are going to further
> >> >>> fragment our country and cause more conflict and animosity.
> >> >>>
> >> >>> Is this why we elected this man as our President? Is this the job we asked
> >> >>> him to do?
> >> >>
> >> >> If you had half the brain of a jock, you'd have figured out that it's
> >> >> a no-lose proposition for him. The NFL has a *lot* to lose, though.
> >> >
> >> >What's he trying to "win" again, exactly?
> >>
> >> The next Presidential election?
> >>
> >>
> >
> >If his hardcore base was at least half the electorate I might believe that. But I seriously doubt it is.
> >
> >I think the likelihood of rational voters electing him again is low in light of his, ummm, questionable performance.
>
> He beat Hillary 304/227. How did you rate that probability just before
> the election?

He lost the popular vote by three million voters. The next Democratic candidate isn't going to neglect the rust-belt states.

I didn't rate the probability - I went to Nate silver's web-site, which gave Trump a one in three chance of winning, but pointed out that one in three happened once in every three trials (and cited a recent minor sporting upset to illustrate the point).

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

[lonm...@gmail.com]

Thanks for stating the obvious. I feel the undertone is, paraphrased of course: "Yeah Trump is a mental case but he's president and you're not, na na na boo boo".

Thanks. It's good to know you at least agree with some obvious facts, ones you like, but unfortunately not others you don't like.

[lonm...@gmail.com]

Aww, man. I thought you were going to say something really intelligent. You know, something other than insult, insult, unsubstantiated insult, opinion, insult. Maybe next time.

[lonm...@gmail.com]

Yeah, science is stupid. Critical thinking is dumb and for lefties. Just make up your own facts and you'll seem smarter. Until reality sets in.

[bill....@ieee.org]

On Wednesday, September 27, 2017 at 2:46:19 AM UTC+10, John Larkin wrote:
> On Tue, 26 Sep 2017 09:18:37 -0700 (PDT), lonm...@gmail.com wrote:

>
> >On Tuesday, September 26, 2017 at 10:51:52 AM UTC-5, John Larkin wrote:
> >> On Tue, 26 Sep 2017 07:48:18 -0700 (PDT), lonm...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>
> >> >On Monday, September 25, 2017 at 11:04:44 PM UTC-5, John Larkin wrote:
> >> >> On Mon, 25 Sep 2017 16:17:45 -0400, bitrex
> >> >> <bit...@de.lete.earthlink.net> wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> >On 09/25/2017 03:57 PM, k...@notreal.com wrote:
> >> >> >
> >> >> >>> One thing that impresses me is that the teams internally clearly have no
> >> >> >>> animosity toward one another over the issue. Yet, the President is happy to
> >> >> >>> create a rift in our country for something so small. With professional
> >> >> >>> sports being so popular and public, his comments are going to further
> >> >> >>> fragment our country and cause more conflict and animosity.
> >> >> >>>
> >> >> >>> Is this why we elected this man as our President? Is this the job we asked
> >> >> >>> him to do?
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> If you had half the brain of a jock, you'd have figured out that it's
> >> >> >> a no-lose proposition for him. The NFL has a *lot* to lose, though.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >What's he trying to "win" again, exactly?
> >> >>
> >> >> The next Presidential election?
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> >If his hardcore base was at least half the electorate I might believe that. But I seriously doubt it is.
> >> >
> >> >I think the likelihood of rational voters electing him again is low in light of his, ummm, questionable performance.
> >> >
> >>
> >> He beat Hillary 304/227. How did you rate that probability just before
> >> the election?
> >>
> >>
> >

> >I thought he had no chance. But, I also thought he'd get more done by now and thought he'd tone down the insults and be more diplomatic once in office.
>
> It's just his first year. Clinton #1 and O had chaotic first years.
>
> The US government is maybe the most complex system on the planet. A
> swamp-dwelling government insider would have an easier time taking
> over. But he was elected mainly because he's not an insider. Or a
> mealy-mouthed diplomat.

Bill Clinton and Obama didn't come across as ineffectual half-wits. Having a majority in both houses and still not being able to repeal Obamacare isn't "chaotic", merely incompetent - though the Republican Party being split between right-winger and lunatic far-right-wingers doesn't help.

> >Neither of those happened. His poll numbers are also lower than any since Truman which isn't exactly a feather in his hat.
> >
> >http://time.com/4786624/donald-trump-approval-rating-presidents/
> >
> >Then there's the Mueller wildcard. There's a real possibility he could get kicked out of office (or encouraged to leave) before his term is up, and if not that, some members of his former campaign team or even his family could get indicted.
>
> If there were, anywhere, any hard evidence against him, it would have
> been leaked by now.

It has. Nobody wants to take it seriously.

> >Don't go telling me how you don't believe polls or the "liberal media". There's a lot of shit going on with Trump that's pretty fricken' hard to deny.
>
> Luckily, you only get one vote.

But you and the rest of the deplorables all get your single votes too.

Of course, California is a big state, so your vote turns into fewer electoral colleges votes than that of the even worse educated deplorables from the small rust-belt states.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

[lonm...@gmail.com]

You think Express and other right wing publications that "predicted" Trump's win did it using their own polls and research?

Get real, NotReal. They were simply publishing what their audience wanted to hear.

[bill....@ieee.org]

On Wednesday, September 27, 2017 at 4:52:04 AM UTC+10, John Larkin wrote:
> On Tue, 26 Sep 2017 10:24:03 -0700 (PDT), lonm...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> >On Tuesday, September 26, 2017 at 11:46:19 AM UTC-5, John Larkin wrote:
> >> On Tue, 26 Sep 2017 09:18:37 -0700 (PDT), lonm...@gmail.com wrote:

> >>
> >> >On Tuesday, September 26, 2017 at 10:51:52 AM UTC-5, John Larkin wrote:
> >> >> On Tue, 26 Sep 2017 07:48:18 -0700 (PDT), lonm...@gmail.com wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> >On Monday, September 25, 2017 at 11:04:44 PM UTC-5, John Larkin wrote:
> >> >> >> On Mon, 25 Sep 2017 16:17:45 -0400, bitrex
> >> >> >> <bit...@de.lete.earthlink.net> wrote:
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >On 09/25/2017 03:57 PM, k...@notreal.com wrote:
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >>> One thing that impresses me is that the teams internally clearly have no
> >> >> >> >>> animosity toward one another over the issue. Yet, the President is happy to
> >> >> >> >>> create a rift in our country for something so small. With professional
> >> >> >> >>> sports being so popular and public, his comments are going to further
> >> >> >> >>> fragment our country and cause more conflict and animosity.
> >> >> >> >>>
> >> >> >> >>> Is this why we elected this man as our President? Is this the job we asked
> >> >> >> >>> him to do?
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> If you had half the brain of a jock, you'd have figured out that it's
> >> >> >> >> a no-lose proposition for him. The NFL has a *lot* to lose, though.
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >What's he trying to "win" again, exactly?
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> The next Presidential election?
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >
> >> >> >If his hardcore base was at least half the electorate I might believe that. But I seriously doubt it is.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >I think the likelihood of rational voters electing him again is low in light of his, ummm, questionable performance.
> >> >> >
> >> >>
> >> >> He beat Hillary 304/227. How did you rate that probability just before
> >> >> the election?
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >

> >> >I thought he had no chance. But, I also thought he'd get more done by now and thought he'd tone down the insults and be more diplomatic once in office.
> >>
> >> It's just his first year. Clinton #1 and O had chaotic first years.
> >

> >Chaotic is subjective, but I don't recall this level of dysfunction with Obama. The "it's just his first year" utterance will change into "it's just his second year" in 2018. You really think much will improve by then? It's Trump's own fault. I doubt anyone is forcing him to say and do most of the inflammatory stuff he's saying.
>
> HE WON THE ELECTION! How stupid was that?

Not as stupid as a majority of Republican women voting for him.

He lost the popular vote by the biggest margin ever, but because his lies got traction in the rust-belt states which are over-represented in the electoral college, he just managed to make it. Hillary and her team got blind-sided, which was silly of them - Bernie Sanders had a lot more to offer the deplorables, but he didn't get the Democratic nomination.

>
> >> The US government is maybe the most complex system on the planet. A
> >> swamp-dwelling government insider would have an easier time taking
> >> over. But he was elected mainly because he's not an insider. Or a
> >> mealy-mouthed diplomat.
> >>
> >

> >The claim that being an outsider is an advantage is questionable at best. I've encountered engineer hiring practices that prefer someone from outside the industry, but they're still engineers. I can understand hiring a CEO from outside the industry, but they still know the ins and outs of being a CEO.
> >
> >This same idea is true for nearly any position as it brings in a fresh perspective. But what's happened here is we have an arrogant, narcissistic reality TV star/real estate developer of questionable mental stability trying to run something he has no knowledge nor experience with: the US government.
> >
> >Try putting an engineer in an operating room with a scalpel or a CPA in a construction job site. Yeah, not a great idea. You have to have some training to do any job, even if it's behind the fast food counter.
>
> In some areas, experience produces competence. In some, it's the
> opposite.

Politics doesn't seem to be one of them.

> I knew a guy who was a psychologist for the Army Air Force in WWII, my
> psychology prof at Tulane. As an experiment, at the last minute, they
> took the kids from the cooks and bakers training, and put them into
> planes in place of the kids from the aerial gunnery school, for the
> final live shooting exam. The cooks+bakers were better gunners.

The military has a long tradition of using the idiots as cannon-fodder. Cooks and bakers have to master more complex skills than gunners, and last longer when using them, and were probably drawn from the groups that did better on the initial IQ tests. Infantry-men had an average IQ of 84. Higher IQ tends to have weak, but positive associations with doing anything useful ...

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

[bill....@ieee.org]

On Wednesday, September 27, 2017 at 5:51:50 AM UTC+10, John Larkin wrote:
> On Tue, 26 Sep 2017 12:45:16 -0700 (PDT), lonm...@gmail.com wrote:

> >Uhhh, what? Who said anything about stupid?
> >
> >I'll assume you are trying to say something to the effect that he won, so he obviously wasn't doing anything stupid. And my answer to that is: Yes I know he won. There's no debate about that. His ability to get reelected or simply remain in office for the remaining portion of the 1st term remains to be seen.

> >
> >> >> The US government is maybe the most complex system on the planet.

Only John Larkin could be silly enough to think that.

> >> >> A swamp-dwelling government insider would have an easier time taking
> >> >> over. But he was elected mainly because he's not an insider. Or a
> >> >> mealy-mouthed diplomat.
> >> >
> >> >The claim that being an outsider is an advantage is questionable at best. I've encountered engineer hiring practices that prefer someone from outside the industry, but they're still engineers. I can understand hiring a CEO from outside the industry, but they still know the ins and outs of being a CEO.
> >> >
> >> >This same idea is true for nearly any position as it brings in a fresh perspective. But what's happened here is we have an arrogant, narcissistic reality TV star/real estate developer of questionable mental stability trying to run something he has no knowledge nor experience with: the US government.
> >> >
> >> >Try putting an engineer in an operating room with a scalpel or a CPA in a construction job site. Yeah, not a great idea. You have to have some training to do any job, even if it's behind the fast food counter.
> >>
> >> In some areas, experience produces competence. In some, it's the
> >> opposite.

Experience always gives an advantage. Some systems are so seriously messed up that dumping them and starting over is the right answer - but you have to know the system quite well to realise that it is messed up beyond redemption.

> >> I knew a guy who was a psychologist for the Army Air Force in WWII, my
> >> psychology prof at Tulane. As an experiment, at the last minute, they
> >> took the kids from the cooks and bakers training, and put them into
> >> planes in place of the kids from the aerial gunnery school, for the
> >> final live shooting exam. The cooks+bakers were better gunners.
> >>
> >>
> >

> >There's a prerequisite of knowing how to operate a gun. Simple as it may be, my point is you have to know something, and Trump has shown essentially zero knowledge of how to deal with other politicians, foreign leaders, and even private citizens that happen to fall into his cross-hairs. And he touted himself as the "deal maker". A deal maker typically has people skills and he appears to have little.
>
>
> How many poison gas attacks has Assad launched lately?

Only one. Assad only launched one when Obama was president, and didn't like the reaction he got then either, which was a whole cheaper than Trump's.

>
> Which NFL player is now selling the most t-shirts?

Who cares? Conventional wisdom is that there is no such thing as bad publicity, so all that matters is keeping your face on the front page, which does seem to be the rule that Trump is following.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

[John Larkin]

He played the games by the established rules, and he won.

>
>The electorial college was designed to prevent demagogues from gaining
>power.
>
>It failed, and America and the world have lost.

We'll see about that.

>
>In America, your vote means nothing.

Where does one vote mean anything? In North Korea maybe?

>
>Instead of the will of hundreds of millions of people, your country rests
>in the hands or around 512 people.

Electors? They are commited to follow the popular vote.

>
>What a silly idea.
>
>I lived in the states for 30 years. It was nice then. Good roads, strong
>bridges, beautiful countryside, some smog in LA but not too bad, pure lakes
>and stream, good trout fishing. San Jose had orchards.

California is still beautiful in a lot of places.

https://www.dropbox.com/s/f1nem0n9xsz1zez/Valley_St_1.JPG?raw=1

https://www.dropbox.com/s/9vrnv6fy8j42kas/MtLincolnDropoff.jpg?raw=1

Like anywhere else: Just find and enjoy the beautiful stuff and avoid
the rest. Or get worked up and bummed out. Your choice.

>
>But with the recent changes, I'd never go back.Flight restrictions, No-Fly
>lists, border inspections, asset forfeiture, and most of all, your POTUS.

OK, I think we might manage without you.

--

John Larkin Highland Technology, Inc

lunatic fringe electronics

[John Larkin]

On Wed, 27 Sep 2017 00:35:33 GMT, Steve Wilson <n...@spam.com> wrote:

>John Larkin <jjlarkin@highland_snip_technology.com> wrote:
>
>> You want true facts?
>
>> Trump is a billionaire, and you're not.
>
>> Trump is President, and you're not.
>
>> Hillary isn't President, either.
>
>See? Trump is the most divisive person ever to gain power.

Ever? Haven't read much history, have you.

He is tearing the
>United States apart.

No, other people are doing that.

--

John Larkin Highland Technology, Inc

lunatic fringe electronics

[John Larkin]

Nobody who could survive in high-stakes NYC real estate could be
mentally incompetant. You don't understand or like his way of winning.

He did explain it in a book.

It's not my style either, but it works in his world.

--

John Larkin Highland Technology, Inc

lunatic fringe electronics

[bill....@ieee.org]

On Wednesday, September 27, 2017 at 12:42:42 PM UTC+10, John Larkin wrote:
> On Wed, 27 Sep 2017 00:35:33 GMT, Steve Wilson <n...@spam.com> wrote:
>
> >John Larkin <jjlarkin@highland_snip_technology.com> wrote:
> >
> >> You want true facts?
> >
> >> Trump is a billionaire, and you're not.
> >
> >> Trump is President, and you're not.
> >
> >> Hillary isn't President, either.
> >
> >See? Trump is the most divisive person ever to gain power.
>
> Ever? Haven't read much history, have you.

And your counter-example is? Abraham Lincoln did preside at the start of the US Civil War, which was about as divisive event as you can get, but he wasn't widely perceived as an egomaniac twit, fomenting division to feed his personal popularity.

> >He is tearing the United States apart.
>
> No, other people are doing that.

Who do you have in mind? The alt-right lunatics that invaded Charlottesville are perhaps more enthusiastic about tearing the United States apart, but they aren't all that effective. Trump's endorsement of their murderous antics got a lot more publicity than the antics themselves, which leaves Trump at the head of the pack - if he knew where his antics were taking him, this might be described as leadership, but all he is doing is spreading chaos, which isn't exactly uniting the country.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

[bill....@ieee.org]

> mentally incompetent. You don't understand or like his way of winning.

Trump survived by ripping off everybody who was silly enough to make some kind of deal with him. He's a competent confidence trickster, but he only seems to take part in negative sum games. We all understand his way of winning but it isn't in the least admirable.

> He did explain it in a book.

A ghost-writer explained it for him.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trump:_The_Art_of_the_Deal

"Schwartz expressed regrets about his involvement and he and the book's publisher, Howard Kaminsky, asserted that Trump had played no role in the actual writing of the book. Trump has given conflicting accounts on the question of authorship."

https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2016/07/25/donald-trumps-ghostwriter-tells-all

> It's not my style either, but it works in his world.

Schwartz's take-away message is that Trump is a pathological liar, skilled at telling the story that works for his audience. In business it lead to a lot of bankruptcies, which Trump was clever enough to walk away from with enough tax losses to save him from ever having to pay income tax.

This isn't the kind of skill you want in a national leader - even the rest of the world would prefer not to see the United States bankrupted in the process of enlarging Donald Trump's personal fortune.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

[bill....@ieee.org]

Nate Silver reckoned the odds against Trump were 3:1 but did point out that in one case out of three the less promising candidate won, and cited a recent sporting event where the winners had beaten the same odds.

> >Trump lost the popular vote. The electoral college overrode the popular
> >vote and put him in power instead.

>
> He played the games by the established rules, and he won.
>

> >The electoral college was designed to prevent demagogues from gaining
> >power.

That's what Alexander Hamilton claimed, but he was lying. It was bribe to get the smaller states to vote for the new US constitution, back when it was new.

> >It failed, and America and the world have lost.
>
> We'll see about that.

The current score shows the US going down the tubes.

> >In America, your vote means nothing.
>
> Where does one vote mean anything? In North Korea maybe?
>
> >Instead of the will of hundreds of millions of people, your country rests
> >in the hands or around 512 people.
>

> Electors? They are committed to follow the popular vote.

As Alexander Hamilton failed to understand.

> >What a silly idea.
> >
> >I lived in the states for 30 years. It was nice then. Good roads, strong
> >bridges, beautiful countryside, some smog in LA but not too bad, pure lakes
> >and stream, good trout fishing. San Jose had orchards.
>
> California is still beautiful in a lot of places.
>
> https://www.dropbox.com/s/f1nem0n9xsz1zez/Valley_St_1.JPG?raw=1
>
> https://www.dropbox.com/s/9vrnv6fy8j42kas/MtLincolnDropoff.jpg?raw=1
>
> Like anywhere else: Just find and enjoy the beautiful stuff and avoid
> the rest. Or get worked up and bummed out. Your choice.

The beautiful stuff has a way of getting fouled up by the less beautiful stuff.

> >But with the recent changes, I'd never go back.Flight restrictions, No-Fly
> >lists, border inspections, asset forfeiture, and most of all, your POTUS.
>
> OK, I think we might manage without you.

Typical US reaction. The rest of the world doesn't matter, but you get very hurt when your exporters can't sell stuff there, or exploit cheap off-shore labour there, or won't sell you oil (or cobalt or tantalum) as cheaply as you'd like them to.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

[gregz]

<bill....@ieee.org> wrote:

> On Tuesday, September 26, 2017 at 11:03:30 AM UTC+10, k...@notreal.com wrote:
>> On Mon, 25 Sep 2017 16:17:45 -0400, bitrex
>> <bit...@de.lete.earthlink.net> wrote:
>>
>>> On 09/25/2017 03:57 PM, k...@notreal.com wrote:
>

> <snip>

>
>> Hint: People in the real world are fed up with leftists politicizing
>> _everything_.
>

> Cops shooting disproportionately more blacks than whites is a political
> issue, and anybody of any political persuasion should find it unacceptable.
>
> Getting the idea that it's important across to right-wing clowns like krw
> and Trump does take an effort. Trump resents anything that distracts from
> his program of self-publicity, and krw wants to keep his thinking running
> in the same rut that he's used to, so neither of them like it. Tough.


Trump is simply stating his view as many other Americans are. Someone has
to come out and give some scheme for dealing with the black issue, and say,
let's play ball, and abide by Obamas military NFL money initiative to have
players stand for supporting the Anthem. Unfortunately Obama before leaving
gave his support to protest. Wrong move. Reverse move. He could have made
it easy.

Greg

[Cursitor Doom]

On Wed, 27 Sep 2017 00:11:11 +0000, Jasen Betts wrote:


> seems you failed to check your facts.
>
> http://www.snopes.com/clinton-newsweek-cover/

SNOPES??

ROTFLMAO!!!!!!!!!!





--
This message may be freely reproduced without limit or charge only via
the Usenet protocol. Reproduction in whole or part through other
protocols, whether for profit or not, is conditional upon a charge of
GBP10.00 per reproduction. Publication in this manner via non-Usenet
protocols constitutes acceptance of this condition.

[Cursitor Doom]

On Tue, 26 Sep 2017 17:27:02 -0700, John Larkin wrote:

> Hillary isn't President, either.

Thank God! The interests of a peaceful world are better served without
her filthy warmongering.

[Cursitor Doom]

On Tue, 26 Sep 2017 19:42:35 -0700, John Larkin wrote:

> No, other people are doing that.

Yup, the Antifa anti-democracy anarchists for a start.

[lonm...@gmail.com]

Perhaps he wasn't suffering from dementia at that time. I've come across a few examples of his dealings from decades ago, and he actually seemed more pleasant and business-like. Also, nobody from the outside really knows what he's worth because he won't release his tax records like every other candidate has, probably because he's hiding something.

> You don't understand or like his way of winning.
>

I do, sort of. Reminds me a lot of bullies in junior high and high school. They got by on insults, coercion, and their big mouth, but that isn't sustainable.

> He did explain it in a book.
>
> It's not my style either, but it works in his world.
>

I'd love to read it but my free time is very limited. Kids do that.

[Steve Wilson]

John Larkin <jjla...@highlandtechnology.com> wrote:

>>Instead of the will of hundreds of millions of people, your country
>>rests in the hands or around 512 people.

> Electors? They are commited to follow the popular vote.

Didn't happen. If they follow the popular vote, the why did trump win.

> California is still beautiful in a lot of places.

> https://www.dropbox.com/s/f1nem0n9xsz1zez/Valley_St_1.JPG?raw=1

> https://www.dropbox.com/s/9vrnv6fy8j42kas/MtLincolnDropoff.jpg?raw=1

> Like anywhere else: Just find and enjoy the beautiful stuff and avoid
> the rest. Or get worked up and bummed out. Your choice.

California has some beautiful scenery. I used to fly my Malibu along the
Pacific coast on the way to San Diego Lindbergh Field for a hamburger.
Absolutely stunning. You have no idea how much money the rich people have.

I have seen Russian River and the Sequoias. Unbelievable.

Colorado has some gorgeous sweeping vistas. Cannot find them anywhere else.
I got trapped in a mountain channel once. No escape and no way back.

Fortunately the Malibu has a 25,000 foot ceiling. I found an hole in the
clouds and climbed above them. To get above the clouds, I had to go above
18,000 feet, IFR territory. Illegal to fly in without clearance.

I called central to tell them I was there, and they asked how many people
on board and how much fuel I had. I told them one aboard and enough fuel to
go to San Diego and back.

They put me on IFR, even though I was not qualified yet. Made it back to
San Jose with no problems. You should learn how to fly.

Virginia, Kentucky, and many other states have gorgeous view you can only
see from the air. Fly across the gulf of Mexico from New Orleans to West
Palm Beach, Florida. You fly above St Peteresburg. Absolutely stunning. And
the Key Lime Pie in Florida is unbelievable.

On the other side, one approach to Utah has some pretty rough mountains.
Impossible to land if your engine quits. They call it the badlands. Good
name. You die quick.

You have to watch out for the military areas. I was flying with flight
watch through an authorized channel, when a bunch of F-16's came down from
high altitude and passed my left wing. Boy, they go fast. I had absolutely
no chance to maneuver or get out of their way.

You really have to respect the skill of some people.

>>But with the recent changes, I'd never go back.Flight restrictions,
>>No-Fly lists, border inspections, asset forfeiture, and most of all,
>>your POTUS.

> OK, I think we might manage without you.

Typical JL response. Ignore the facts, insult the person.

What happened to JFK. "Look not for what your country can do for you. Look
for what you can do for your country."

A totally different world.

[lonm...@gmail.com]

On Wednesday, September 27, 2017 at 4:22:48 AM UTC-5, Cursitor Doom wrote:
> On Wed, 27 Sep 2017 00:11:11 +0000, Jasen Betts wrote:
>
>
> > seems you failed to check your facts.
> >
> > http://www.snopes.com/clinton-newsweek-cover/
>
>
> SNOPES??
>
> ROTFLMAO!!!!!!!!!!
>
>
>

Snopes is quite widely regarded as the go-to place to determine the validity of a claim. That is the purpose of the website.

Now, you "ROTFLMAO" over the usage of Snopes to debunk a claim, but what have you provided? An eBay listing? I've seen grilled cheese sandwiches sold on there that purportedly contained traces of divine intervention. I could sell a chunk of dirt from my yard if I marketed it well.

You like to say others are not living in the real world and don't check their facts. Yet you laugh off Snopes without providing any reasoning beyond the image of you laughing on the floor like a mental patient.

You proudly proclaim that RT is one of your trusted news sources, yet they are unapologetically a Russian propaganda machine. You proclaim the quality of Express, which according to Wikipedia is "Hard Euroscepticism", "Right-wing populism", and "UKIP".

Yougov ranks Express as the 2nd most right-wing publication in the UK:

https://yougov.co.uk/news/2017/03/07/how-left-or-right-wing-are-uks-newspapers/


Your only defence (see what I did there) is to ROFL or stubbornly claim your unquestionably hard-biased news sources are indeed good, unbiased sources of news. Yet you are unable to substantiate them from a mainstream news source that actually has to maintain some level of credibility.

I doubt you've read this far, because I doubt you can. Instead you likely got distracted and started reading RT or Express for your daily dose of what you want to hear.

[lonm...@gmail.com]

On Wednesday, September 27, 2017 at 4:25:40 AM UTC-5, Cursitor Doom wrote:
> On Tue, 26 Sep 2017 17:27:02 -0700, John Larkin wrote:
>
> > Hillary isn't President, either.
>
> Thank God! The interests of a peaceful world are better served without
> her filthy warmongering.
>

Ugh. Are you for real? Putting "Trump" and "peaceful" into the same sentence alone could start a war.

And you accuse Hilary of "warmongering"? Have you seen any of the exchange between Trump and DPRK? That is an actual, real, worrisome thing going on right now.

Have you been screened for dementia?

[bill....@ieee.org]

On Wednesday, September 27, 2017 at 5:55:18 PM UTC+10, Gz wrote:
> <bill....@ieee.org> wrote:
> > On Tuesday, September 26, 2017 at 11:03:30 AM UTC+10, k...@notreal.com wrote:
> >> On Mon, 25 Sep 2017 16:17:45 -0400, bitrex
> >> <bit...@de.lete.earthlink.net> wrote:
> >>
> >>> On 09/25/2017 03:57 PM, k...@notreal.com wrote:
> >
> > <snip>
> >
> >> Hint: People in the real world are fed up with leftists politicizing
> >> _everything_.
> >
> > Cops shooting disproportionately more blacks than whites is a political
> > issue, and anybody of any political persuasion should find it unacceptable.
> >
> > Getting the idea that it's important across to right-wing clowns like krw
> > and Trump does take an effort. Trump resents anything that distracts from
> > his program of self-publicity, and krw wants to keep his thinking running
> > in the same rut that he's used to, so neither of them like it. Tough.
>
> Trump is simply stating his view as many other Americans are.

There's nothing simple about Trumps antics. He's a polished performer, but as a confidence man, not a politician, where pathological lying counts as a weakness.

> Someone has to come out and give some scheme for dealing with the black issue, > and say, let's play ball, and abide by Obamas military NFL money initiative to > have players stand for supporting the Anthem. Unfortunately Obama before
> leaving gave his support to protest. Wrong move.

Probably not.

> Reverse move. He could have made it easy.

Obama has ethics and principles. Trump doesn't. You don't seem to know what they might be.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

[bill....@ieee.org]

On Wednesday, September 27, 2017 at 7:22:48 PM UTC+10, Cursitor Doom wrote:
> On Wed, 27 Sep 2017 00:11:11 +0000, Jasen Betts wrote:
>
>
> > seems you failed to check your facts.
> >
> > http://www.snopes.com/clinton-newsweek-cover/
>
>
> SNOPES??
>
> ROTFLMAO!!!!!!!!!!

Snopes does jeer at at lot of the nonsense that Cursitor Doom finds attractive.

Unsurprisingly, the gullible clown prefers to swallow the guff he gets from the Daily Mail and Russia Today.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

[bill....@ieee.org]

On Wednesday, September 27, 2017 at 7:27:52 PM UTC+10, Cursitor Doom wrote:
> On Tue, 26 Sep 2017 19:42:35 -0700, John Larkin wrote:
>
> > No, other people are doing that.
>
> Yup, the Antifa anti-democracy anarchists for a start.

Got any more alphabet soup from your favourite right-wing misinformation sources?

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

[bill....@ieee.org]

Trump didn't write it. The guy who did write it had a problem with Trump's attention span, which wasn't long enough to let Trump tell the writer enough to put together anything convincing. In the end the ghost-writer had to tap Trump's phone to get enough material to make a book.

https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2016/07/25/donald-trumps-ghostwriter-tells-all

Not a good read.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

[John Larkin]

On Wed, 27 Sep 2017 11:28:34 GMT, Steve Wilson <n...@spam.com> wrote:

>John Larkin <jjla...@highlandtechnology.com> wrote:
>
>>>Instead of the will of hundreds of millions of people, your country
>>>rests in the hands or around 512 people.
>
>> Electors? They are commited to follow the popular vote.
>
>Didn't happen. If they follow the popular vote, the why did trump win.

Because electors are quantized by state.

>
>> California is still beautiful in a lot of places.
>
>> https://www.dropbox.com/s/f1nem0n9xsz1zez/Valley_St_1.JPG?raw=1
>
>> https://www.dropbox.com/s/9vrnv6fy8j42kas/MtLincolnDropoff.jpg?raw=1
>
>> Like anywhere else: Just find and enjoy the beautiful stuff and avoid
>> the rest. Or get worked up and bummed out. Your choice.
>
>California has some beautiful scenery. I used to fly my Malibu along the
>Pacific coast on the way to San Diego Lindbergh Field for a hamburger.
>Absolutely stunning. You have no idea how much money the rich people have.

You can hike or camp most anywhere in California for free.

>
>I have seen Russian River and the Sequoias. Unbelievable.

Yes. I grew up in Louisiana, flat mud and swamps, and the 3Dness of
California still amazes me. My kid was born here and takes it for
granted.

>
>Colorado has some gorgeous sweeping vistas. Cannot find them anywhere else.
>I got trapped in a mountain channel once. No escape and no way back.
>
>Fortunately the Malibu has a 25,000 foot ceiling. I found an hole in the
>clouds and climbed above them. To get above the clouds, I had to go above
>18,000 feet, IFR territory. Illegal to fly in without clearance.
>
>I called central to tell them I was there, and they asked how many people
>on board and how much fuel I had. I told them one aboard and enough fuel to
>go to San Diego and back.
>
>They put me on IFR, even though I was not qualified yet. Made it back to
>San Jose with no problems. You should learn how to fly.

I've flown with people in small planes, but it doesn't interest me;
too much like driving. Aerobatic soaring would be fun, but I'll
peobably never get around to it. And I hate being a beginner at
anything.

>
>Virginia, Kentucky, and many other states have gorgeous view you can only
>see from the air. Fly across the gulf of Mexico from New Orleans to West
>Palm Beach, Florida. You fly above St Peteresburg. Absolutely stunning. And
>the Key Lime Pie in Florida is unbelievable.

New Orleans stunning? I don't remember that.

>
>On the other side, one approach to Utah has some pretty rough mountains.
>Impossible to land if your engine quits. They call it the badlands. Good
>name. You die quick.
>
>You have to watch out for the military areas. I was flying with flight
>watch through an authorized channel, when a bunch of F-16's came down from
>high altitude and passed my left wing. Boy, they go fast. I had absolutely
>no chance to maneuver or get out of their way.
>
>You really have to respect the skill of some people.
>
> >>But with the recent changes, I'd never go back.Flight restrictions,
>>>No-Fly lists, border inspections, asset forfeiture, and most of all,
>>>your POTUS.
>
>> OK, I think we might manage without you.
>
>Typical JL response. Ignore the facts, insult the person.

That wasn't an insult. It was an expression of gratitude.

>
>What happened to JFK. "Look not for what your country can do for you. Look
>for what you can do for your country."

That's not exactly what he said.

>
>A totally different world.

People are pretty much the same, which is the problem.

[bitrex]

Here's a quote regarding Trump:

"Donald has always managed to walk into a meeting and say something
nobody else ever expected him ever to say, upend the entire meeting,
leave everybody agog and control every situation that way..."

I guess there are different types of people in the world. There's the
type of person who's impressed with that sort of 'brutal honesty' and
'aggressive Americanism' and think it's representative of real
confidence and self-esteem. They're often the type of person who enjoys
the kind of stand-up humor from comics like Bill Burr, etc. where the
act is to be outrageous and "say all the unpolite things everyone
supposedly thinks."

There's also the type of person who thinks "This person is just a
standard-issue whackoff with a bigger mouth than most, and doesn't know
when to shut it. What a fuckin' fronter. I'd pay $100 just for the
pleasure of laughing and walking out on such a blowhard."

New Engalnd Presbyterians definitely fall into the latter camp.

[lonm...@gmail.com]

It's clear Trump believes he's all-important and is the star when he walks into a room. What else would one expect from a reality TV, pussy-grabbing maniac?

[bitrex]

On 09/27/2017 05:27 AM, Cursitor Doom wrote:
> On Tue, 26 Sep 2017 19:42:35 -0700, John Larkin wrote:
>
>> No, other people are doing that.
>
> Yup, the Antifa anti-democracy anarchists for a start.
>
>
>

Neo-Nazis should consistently be amazed that others are so tolerant of
their "philosophies" that they aren't simply shot and stabbed to death
in the street. Well, that's gratitude for ya.

[bitrex]

On 09/26/2017 10:46 PM, John Larkin wrote:

>> Thanks for stating the obvious. I feel the undertone is, paraphrased of course: "Yeah Trump is a mental case but he's president and you're not, na na na boo boo".
>
> Nobody who could survive in high-stakes NYC real estate could be
> mentally incompetant. You don't understand or like his way of winning.
>
> He did explain it in a book.
>
> It's not my style either, but it works in his world.
>
>

He barely survived and came into the game with a couple hundred million
in assets from Dad. There are a number billionaires who came from
nothing and did better.

He was never the wealthiest businessman in the world, country, or even
NYC as far as I know. Might be interesting to read a book on business
from the most successful businessman in the world, not the 528th.

[John Larkin]

On Wed, 27 Sep 2017 10:59:43 -0400, bitrex

I do that sometimes, say what nobody else is willing to say. It often
works, but has to be carefully calibrated to have the right effect.
Just saying stuff that feels good can backfire.

>
>I guess there are different types of people in the world. There's the
>type of person who's impressed with that sort of 'brutal honesty' and
>'aggressive Americanism' and think it's representative of real
>confidence and self-esteem. They're often the type of person who enjoys
>the kind of stand-up humor from comics like Bill Burr, etc. where the
>act is to be outrageous and "say all the unpolite things everyone
>supposedly thinks."

It helps to say things that are true, to cut through evolved but wrong
group-think.

>
>There's also the type of person who thinks "This person is just a
>standard-issue whackoff with a bigger mouth than most, and doesn't know
>when to shut it. What a fuckin' fronter. I'd pay $100 just for the
>pleasure of laughing and walking out on such a blowhard."
>
>New Engalnd Presbyterians definitely fall into the latter camp.
>

In electronic design, opinions and testosterone are superseded by what
works or doesn't work.

[John Larkin]

And he's only the 45th President.

[bitrex]

On 09/26/2017 09:21 PM, lonm...@gmail.com wrote:

>> Trump is a billionaire, and you're not.
>>
>> Trump is President, and you're not.
>>
>> Hillary isn't President, either.
>>
>>
>

> Thanks for stating the obvious. I feel the undertone is, paraphrased of course: "Yeah Trump is a mental case but he's president and you're not, na na na boo boo".

There was an actual self-made billionaire in the 2016 race, his name was
Rocky De La Fuente and he got 0.02% of the vote in the Florida primary, lol.

Just like America had its protestant Christan minster moral-majority
president, his name was "Jimmy Carter" and people didn't like him.

Lol, Americans don't really care about the things they say they do and
are often full of shit. But everyone knew that, that's why the
Australians call us "septics"

[bitrex]

His fault for not being born in 1720.

[John Larkin]

On Wed, 27 Sep 2017 11:55:21 -0400, bitrex
<bit...@de.lete.earthlink.net> wrote:

>On 09/26/2017 09:21 PM, lonm...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>>> Trump is a billionaire, and you're not.
>>>
>>> Trump is President, and you're not.
>>>
>>> Hillary isn't President, either.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Thanks for stating the obvious. I feel the undertone is, paraphrased of course: "Yeah Trump is a mental case but he's president and you're not, na na na boo boo".
>
>There was an actual self-made billionaire in the 2016 race, his name was
>Rocky De La Fuente and he got 0.02% of the vote in the Florida primary, lol.
>
>Just like America had its protestant Christan minster moral-majority
>president, his name was "Jimmy Carter" and people didn't like him.

And he was an engineer. That's embarassing.

>
>Lol, Americans don't really care about the things they say they do and
>are often full of shit. But everyone knew that, that's why the
>Australians call us "septics"

And buy our chips.

[lonm...@gmail.com]

On Wednesday, September 27, 2017 at 11:42:00 AM UTC-5, John Larkin wrote:
> On Wed, 27 Sep 2017 11:55:21 -0400, bitrex
> <bit...@de.lete.earthlink.net> wrote:
>
> >On 09/26/2017 09:21 PM, lonm...@gmail.com wrote:
> >
> >>> Trump is a billionaire, and you're not.
> >>>
> >>> Trump is President, and you're not.
> >>>
> >>> Hillary isn't President, either.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> >> Thanks for stating the obvious. I feel the undertone is, paraphrased of course: "Yeah Trump is a mental case but he's president and you're not, na na na boo boo".
> >
> >There was an actual self-made billionaire in the 2016 race, his name was
> >Rocky De La Fuente and he got 0.02% of the vote in the Florida primary, lol.
> >
> >Just like America had its protestant Christan minster moral-majority
> >president, his name was "Jimmy Carter" and people didn't like him.
>
> And he was an engineer. That's embarassing.

Why? Because he had the incorrect political party attached to his name? Carter is still out there doing charity work at his age. That's not embarrassing regardless of his political affiliation.

>
> >
> >Lol, Americans don't really care about the things they say they do and
> >are often full of shit. But everyone knew that, that's why the
> >Australians call us "septics"
>
> And buy our chips.
>

So? Are chips now supposed to be used a grudge for what the AUS population as a whole thinks of the US? Who the hell cares?

[John Larkin]

On Wed, 27 Sep 2017 04:43:16 -0700 (PDT), lonm...@gmail.com wrote:

>On Wednesday, September 27, 2017 at 4:25:40 AM UTC-5, Cursitor Doom wrote:
>> On Tue, 26 Sep 2017 17:27:02 -0700, John Larkin wrote:
>>
>> > Hillary isn't President, either.
>>
>> Thank God! The interests of a peaceful world are better served without
>> her filthy warmongering.
>>
>
>Ugh. Are you for real? Putting "Trump" and "peaceful" into the same sentence alone could start a war.
>
>And you accuse Hilary of "warmongering"?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FmIRYvJQeHM

That is terrifying. Lybia is a mess, and hundreds of thousands of
refugees are crossing the Mediterranean to europe.

--

John Larkin Highland Technology, Inc

picosecond timing precision measurement

jlarkin att highlandtechnology dott com
http://www.highlandtechnology.com

[lonm...@gmail.com]

On Wednesday, September 27, 2017 at 1:10:11 PM UTC-5, John Larkin wrote:
> On Wed, 27 Sep 2017 04:43:16 -0700 (PDT), lonm...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> >On Wednesday, September 27, 2017 at 4:25:40 AM UTC-5, Cursitor Doom wrote:
> >> On Tue, 26 Sep 2017 17:27:02 -0700, John Larkin wrote:
> >>
> >> > Hillary isn't President, either.
> >>
> >> Thank God! The interests of a peaceful world are better served without
> >> her filthy warmongering.
> >>
> >
> >Ugh. Are you for real? Putting "Trump" and "peaceful" into the same sentence alone could start a war.
> >
> >And you accuse Hilary of "warmongering"?
>
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FmIRYvJQeHM
>
> That is terrifying. Lybia is a mess, and hundreds of thousands of
> refugees are crossing the Mediterranean to europe.
>
>

Assuming for right now that she's solely responsible, are you saying she purposefully did this? Or was it an unintended consequence of an otherwise good intention? One can't expect a human to make the correct decisions all the time. All we can hope for is there's good intentions behind it.

On the other hand, calling a leader of another nation cutesy names and stating the US will "totally destroy" it is completely intentional and a little irresponsible, isn't it?

[Cursitor Doom]

On Wed, 27 Sep 2017 11:55:21 -0400, bitrex wrote:

> Lol, Americans don't really care about the things they say they do and
> are often full of shit. But everyone knew that, that's why the
> Australians call us "septics"

Er, no. It's only because "yank" rhymes with the "tank" of "septic tank"
actually. But never let the truth get in the way of your Lefty lies, eh?

[John Larkin]

On Wed, 27 Sep 2017 11:24:55 -0700 (PDT), lonm...@gmail.com wrote:

>On Wednesday, September 27, 2017 at 1:10:11 PM UTC-5, John Larkin wrote:
>> On Wed, 27 Sep 2017 04:43:16 -0700 (PDT), lonm...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>> >On Wednesday, September 27, 2017 at 4:25:40 AM UTC-5, Cursitor Doom wrote:
>> >> On Tue, 26 Sep 2017 17:27:02 -0700, John Larkin wrote:
>> >>
>> >> > Hillary isn't President, either.
>> >>
>> >> Thank God! The interests of a peaceful world are better served without
>> >> her filthy warmongering.
>> >>
>> >
>> >Ugh. Are you for real? Putting "Trump" and "peaceful" into the same sentence alone could start a war.
>> >
>> >And you accuse Hilary of "warmongering"?
>>
>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FmIRYvJQeHM
>>
>> That is terrifying. Lybia is a mess, and hundreds of thousands of
>> refugees are crossing the Mediterranean to europe.
>>
>>
>
>Assuming for right now that she's solely responsible, are you saying she purposefully did this?

Absolutely. She (and her political team) wanted to show that she was
tough enought to be President.

>Or was it an unintended consequence of an otherwise good intention?

Clintons? Good intentions?

>One can't expect a human to make the correct decisions all the time. All we can hope for is there's good intentions behind it.
>
>On the other hand, calling a leader of another nation cutesy names and stating the US will "totally destroy" it is completely intentional and a little irresponsible, isn't it?

Wait and see what Russia and China do.

[D B Davis]

gregz <ze...@comcast.net> wrote:

<snip>

Please leave the OT: prepended to the Subject: header. Do not remove the
OT from the front of the Subject: when you reply.

Thank you,

--
Don

[lonm...@gmail.com]

On Wednesday, September 27, 2017 at 1:51:32 PM UTC-5, John Larkin wrote:
> On Wed, 27 Sep 2017 11:24:55 -0700 (PDT), lonm...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> >On Wednesday, September 27, 2017 at 1:10:11 PM UTC-5, John Larkin wrote:
> >> On Wed, 27 Sep 2017 04:43:16 -0700 (PDT), lonm...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>
> >> >On Wednesday, September 27, 2017 at 4:25:40 AM UTC-5, Cursitor Doom wrote:
> >> >> On Tue, 26 Sep 2017 17:27:02 -0700, John Larkin wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> > Hillary isn't President, either.
> >> >>
> >> >> Thank God! The interests of a peaceful world are better served without
> >> >> her filthy warmongering.
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> >Ugh. Are you for real? Putting "Trump" and "peaceful" into the same sentence alone could start a war.
> >> >
> >> >And you accuse Hilary of "warmongering"?
> >>
> >> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FmIRYvJQeHM
> >>
> >> That is terrifying. Lybia is a mess, and hundreds of thousands of
> >> refugees are crossing the Mediterranean to europe.
> >>
> >>
> >
> >Assuming for right now that she's solely responsible, are you saying she purposefully did this?
>
> Absolutely. She (and her political team) wanted to show that she was
> tough enought to be President.

Sounds very speculative to me, but I'm open-minded and listening.

>
> >Or was it an unintended consequence of an otherwise good intention?
>
> Clintons? Good intentions?
>

I could replace "Clintons" with "Trump" and it would sound pretty good to me. Again, very speculative.

>
> >One can't expect a human to make the correct decisions all the time. All we can hope for is there's good intentions behind it.
> >
> >On the other hand, calling a leader of another nation cutesy names and stating the US will "totally destroy" it is completely intentional and a little irresponsible, isn't it?
>
> Wait and see what Russia and China do.
>
>

Which has little relevance in the current context. Supposedly the US president should be above spewing the same stuff as Kim, but it seems that's no longer the case with #45.

[lonm...@gmail.com]

On Wednesday, September 27, 2017 at 1:35:54 PM UTC-5, Cursitor Doom wrote:
> On Wed, 27 Sep 2017 11:55:21 -0400, bitrex wrote:
>
> > Lol, Americans don't really care about the things they say they do and
> > are often full of shit. But everyone knew that, that's why the
> > Australians call us "septics"
>
> Er, no. It's only because "yank" rhymes with the "tank" of "septic tank"
> actually. But never let the truth get in the way of your Lefty lies, eh?
>
>

From what I've seen, if a "lefty" is proven objectively wrong, most will accept it since we respect and like facts.

If an extreme righty is proven wrong, they'll simply claim the source is wrong regardless of what the source is. You know, like how you believe Snopes is total crap and Russian propaganda (RT) is gold, which is laughable to any reasonable person.