info
Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
OT? - If Trump becomes president....
1,924 views
Skip to first unread message
gggg...@gmail.com
Feb 29, 2016, 5:07:19 PM2/29/16
to
Why this is marked as abuse? It has been marked as abuse.
Report not abuse
...Does the classical music world need to start worrying?
gggg...@gmail.com
Feb 29, 2016, 5:19:31 PM2/29/16
to
Why this is marked as abuse? It has been marked as abuse.
Report not abuse
On Monday, February 29, 2016 at 12:07:19 PM UTC-10, gggg...@gmail.com wrote:
> ...Does the classical music world need to start worrying?
At best, will he consider us remote, staid and irrelevant?:
> ...Does the classical music world need to start worrying?
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/rec.music.classical/y_14uPJMeEQ
hownhe...@yahoo.co.uk
Feb 29, 2016, 5:31:11 PM2/29/16
to
Why this is marked as abuse? It has been marked as abuse.
Report not abuse
On Monday, 29 February 2016 22:07:19 UTC, gggg...@gmail.com wrote:
> ...Does the classical music world need to start worrying?
Dear gggg,
> ...Does the classical music world need to start worrying?
What is your opinion????
Howard in Wales.
Frank Berger
Feb 29, 2016, 5:48:03 PM2/29/16
to
Why this is marked as abuse? It has been marked as abuse.
Report not abuse
laraine
Feb 29, 2016, 6:27:38 PM2/29/16
to
Why this is marked as abuse? It has been marked as abuse.
Report not abuse
On Monday, February 29, 2016 at 4:07:19 PM UTC-6, gggg...@gmail.com wrote:
> ...Does the classical music world need to start worrying?
BION, Glenn Gould and Beverly Sills got his attention for their hard work
> ...Does the classical music world need to start worrying?
ethic anyway, according to this 2011 wqxr article:
http://www.wqxr.org/#!/story/125660-donald-trump-strident-billionaire-classical-connoisseur/
C.
graham
Feb 29, 2016, 6:29:57 PM2/29/16
to
Graham
P
Feb 29, 2016, 7:10:34 PM2/29/16
to
Why this is marked as abuse? It has been marked as abuse.
Report not abuse
The classical music world wouldn't have anything more to fear from a Trump presidency than the world in general.
Which is to say, a whole lot!
Any of our perennial Republicans and Republican sympathizers care to comment on their party's impending Trump nomination? Specifically, to refute the claim on the left that Trump's rise proves what they had been saying for years: that the GOP since the civil rights era has used thinly veiled racist dog whistles (selling food stamps for drugs! welfare queens!) to win Archie Bunker types to their party, then once in power focusing only on elite priorities such as serving up tax cuts and dismantling the safety net to serve the country-club donor class?
-P
Which is to say, a whole lot!
Any of our perennial Republicans and Republican sympathizers care to comment on their party's impending Trump nomination? Specifically, to refute the claim on the left that Trump's rise proves what they had been saying for years: that the GOP since the civil rights era has used thinly veiled racist dog whistles (selling food stamps for drugs! welfare queens!) to win Archie Bunker types to their party, then once in power focusing only on elite priorities such as serving up tax cuts and dismantling the safety net to serve the country-club donor class?
-P
gggg...@gmail.com
Mar 1, 2016, 3:40:19 AM3/1/16
to
Why this is marked as abuse? It has been marked as abuse.
Report not abuse
On Monday, February 29, 2016 at 12:48:03 PM UTC-10, Frank Berger wrote:
- How Musical Was My Valley
> On 2/29/2016 5:31 PM, wrote:
> > On Monday, 29 February 2016 22:07:19 UTC, gggg...@gmail.com wrote:
> >> ...Does the classical music world need to start worrying?
> >
> > Dear gggg,
> >
> > What is your opinion????
> >
> > Howard in Wales.
> >
>
> More importantly, do the Welsh need start worrying?
Who knows? Someday in the future, someone may write a book entitled:
> > On Monday, 29 February 2016 22:07:19 UTC, gggg...@gmail.com wrote:
> >> ...Does the classical music world need to start worrying?
> >
> > Dear gggg,
> >
> > What is your opinion????
> >
> > Howard in Wales.
> >
>
> More importantly, do the Welsh need start worrying?
- How Musical Was My Valley
hownhe...@yahoo.co.uk
Mar 1, 2016, 6:08:05 AM3/1/16
to
Why this is marked as abuse? It has been marked as abuse.
Report not abuse
Many thanks for your amusing e-mails. It is St.David's day here in Wales and the rain is raining while our rugby team is mulling over the problem of how to legally maim England next week.
My wife who is Scottish tells me that the Scots are more worried about Mr.Trump as he may fill the sea with wind farms outside his golf course. When he is President he may of course buy all of St.Andrews.
Pob Hwyl,
Howard.
O
Mar 1, 2016, 8:50:15 AM3/1/16
to
In article <dd433190-69c5-4b4b...@googlegroups.com>,
> Specifically, to refute the
> claim on the left that Trump's rise proves what they had been saying for
> years: that the GOP since the civil rights era has used thinly veiled racist
> dog whistles (selling food stamps for drugs! welfare queens!) to win Archie
> Bunker types to their party, then once in power focusing only on elite
> priorities such as serving up tax cuts and dismantling the safety net to
> serve the country-club donor class?
It's claims like the above on even moderate Republicans that have been
made so often that those sticks and stones don't break any bones
anymore.
Like Pat Buchanan said, the left paints Trump as a rascist, bigoted,
rich fool, but that's what they paint EVERY Republican.
The most refreshing part about this race is the fact that, in both
Trump and Sanders, we have two candidates who are not hiding behind
political handlers who try to cover their candidates with a plastic
"everybody likes me" coat. With Trump and Sanders, you at least know
what you're getting when you vote for them. In effect, they are the
only real people running for office, all the rest are saying things to
try to appeal to their base, while T&S say what they think, no matter
who it turns off.
I think that the American voters, when allowed to see real people as
candidates, have responded positively, which is what we've seen.
In effect, both Sanders and Trump have enabled each other, because
without one of them, the remainder would have been the only iconoclast,
which isolates him. Having two iconoclasts splits the media and public
attention, and allows them to prosper. Kind of like, "If people can
vote for Trump, whom I hate, I can vote for Sanders" and vice-versa.
The only thing Hillary has going for her is her political machine,
which is formidable and won't be discounted. When she gets trounced in
New Hampshire, but still ends up tied in (super)delegate votes, it
shows the fix is in from the Democratic party. Whether Bernie can
survive that machine attacks is up in the air.
The rest of the Republican party candidates will probably wallow in
their mediocrity and will probably be out of the race as of today. The
Republican field, a hapless bunch of also-rans, stumbled over their own
ideology and lack of distinction. Excepting Trump, they were all
poorer politicians than Mitt Romney.
-Owen
<aaro...@gmail.com> wrote:
> The classical music world wouldn't have anything more to fear from a Trump
> presidency than the world in general.
>
> Which is to say, a whole lot!
>
> Any of our perennial Republicans and Republican sympathizers care to comment
> on their party's impending Trump nomination?
Trolling, P?
> The classical music world wouldn't have anything more to fear from a Trump
> presidency than the world in general.
>
> Which is to say, a whole lot!
>
> Any of our perennial Republicans and Republican sympathizers care to comment
> on their party's impending Trump nomination?
> Specifically, to refute the
> claim on the left that Trump's rise proves what they had been saying for
> years: that the GOP since the civil rights era has used thinly veiled racist
> dog whistles (selling food stamps for drugs! welfare queens!) to win Archie
> Bunker types to their party, then once in power focusing only on elite
> priorities such as serving up tax cuts and dismantling the safety net to
> serve the country-club donor class?
made so often that those sticks and stones don't break any bones
anymore.
Like Pat Buchanan said, the left paints Trump as a rascist, bigoted,
rich fool, but that's what they paint EVERY Republican.
The most refreshing part about this race is the fact that, in both
Trump and Sanders, we have two candidates who are not hiding behind
political handlers who try to cover their candidates with a plastic
"everybody likes me" coat. With Trump and Sanders, you at least know
what you're getting when you vote for them. In effect, they are the
only real people running for office, all the rest are saying things to
try to appeal to their base, while T&S say what they think, no matter
who it turns off.
I think that the American voters, when allowed to see real people as
candidates, have responded positively, which is what we've seen.
In effect, both Sanders and Trump have enabled each other, because
without one of them, the remainder would have been the only iconoclast,
which isolates him. Having two iconoclasts splits the media and public
attention, and allows them to prosper. Kind of like, "If people can
vote for Trump, whom I hate, I can vote for Sanders" and vice-versa.
The only thing Hillary has going for her is her political machine,
which is formidable and won't be discounted. When she gets trounced in
New Hampshire, but still ends up tied in (super)delegate votes, it
shows the fix is in from the Democratic party. Whether Bernie can
survive that machine attacks is up in the air.
The rest of the Republican party candidates will probably wallow in
their mediocrity and will probably be out of the race as of today. The
Republican field, a hapless bunch of also-rans, stumbled over their own
ideology and lack of distinction. Excepting Trump, they were all
poorer politicians than Mitt Romney.
-Owen
Herman
Mar 1, 2016, 9:36:25 AM3/1/16
to
Why this is marked as abuse? It has been marked as abuse.
Report not abuse
On Tuesday, March 1, 2016 at 2:50:15 PM UTC+1, O wrote:
> With Trump and Sanders, you at least know
> what you're getting when you vote for them.
That's what they're telling you. However, both make outrageous promises that no one can fulfill. A giant wall; deporting millions of illegals? Beat Isis, and take all the oil? Impossible. Free tuition? Persuade Congress to subdue Wall St? Impossible.
> With Trump and Sanders, you at least know
> what you're getting when you vote for them.
John Thomas
Mar 1, 2016, 9:44:47 AM3/1/16
to
Why this is marked as abuse? It has been marked as abuse.
Report not abuse
On Monday, February 29, 2016 at 2:07:19 PM UTC-8, gggg...@gmail.com wrote:
> ...Does the classical music world need to start worrying?
Please don't start another 367 post political thread here. We've managed to get through the election so far without one and all such threads are pointless. Neither Trump nor Sanders will be the their Party's nominees and this thread is just another silly OT from the king of silly OT's.
> ...Does the classical music world need to start worrying?
Frank Berger
Mar 1, 2016, 10:22:05 AM3/1/16
to
Why this is marked as abuse? It has been marked as abuse.
Report not abuse
asserting that neither Trump nor Sanders would be nominated,
which basically says that you think you can make political
statements here but no one else should.
Tony
Mar 1, 2016, 11:05:26 AM3/1/16
to
Why this is marked as abuse? It has been marked as abuse.
Report not abuse
On Tuesday, March 1, 2016 at 4:44:47 PM UTC+2, John Thomas wrote:
>
>Neither Trump......will be the their Party's nominees
Why not? Do you expect him to become independent even if he gets a landslide today?
>
>Neither Trump......will be the their Party's nominees
Why not? Do you expect him to become independent even if he gets a landslide today?
laraine
Mar 1, 2016, 1:55:09 PM3/1/16
to
On Tuesday, March 1, 2016 at 7:50:15 AM UTC-6, O wrote:
....
personally on the campaign trail, particularly with minorities.
I recently glanced at the beginning of her latest book
--much more open and fun than I had expected.
C.
....
> The only thing Hillary has going for her is her political machine,
> which is formidable and won't be discounted. When she gets trounced in
> New Hampshire, but still ends up tied in (super)delegate votes, it
> shows the fix is in from the Democratic party. Whether Bernie can
> survive that machine attacks is up in the air.
>
She has lately had some success connecting with people
> which is formidable and won't be discounted. When she gets trounced in
> New Hampshire, but still ends up tied in (super)delegate votes, it
> shows the fix is in from the Democratic party. Whether Bernie can
> survive that machine attacks is up in the air.
>
personally on the campaign trail, particularly with minorities.
I recently glanced at the beginning of her latest book
--much more open and fun than I had expected.
C.
JohnGavin
Mar 1, 2016, 2:19:44 PM3/1/16
to
Why this is marked as abuse? It has been marked as abuse.
Report not abuse
Isn't it ironic that the only candidate who speaks the most substantial and unadulterated truth and isn't owned by corporate interests has the initials BS?
But if I say that politically I am for BS, people might mistake me for a Republican :) This is a dilemma.
But if I say that politically I am for BS, people might mistake me for a Republican :) This is a dilemma.
Message has been deleted
gggg...@gmail.com
Mar 1, 2016, 3:37:28 PM3/1/16
to
Why this is marked as abuse? It has been marked as abuse.
Report not abuse
On Monday, February 29, 2016 at 2:10:34 PM UTC-10, P wrote:
> The classical music world wouldn't have anything more to fear from a Trump presidency than the world in general.
>
> Which is to say, a whole lot!
>
> Any of our perennial Republicans and Republican sympathizers care to comment on their party's impending Trump nomination?...
> The classical music world wouldn't have anything more to fear from a Trump presidency than the world in general.
>
> Which is to say, a whole lot!
>
After Super Tuesday, will Trump's favorite song be?:
- It's MY party and I'll try if I want to, try if I want to, try if I want to,
You would try too if it happened to you.
Steven Bornfeld
Mar 1, 2016, 4:47:51 PM3/1/16
to
On 3/1/2016 2:19 PM, JohnGavin wrote:
> Isn't it ironic that the only candidate who speaks the most substantial and unadulterated truth and isn't owned by corporate interests has the initials BS?
>
> But if I say that politically I am for BS, people might mistake me for a Republican :) This is a dilemma.
>
You're just "feelin' the Bern".
> Isn't it ironic that the only candidate who speaks the most substantial and unadulterated truth and isn't owned by corporate interests has the initials BS?
>
> But if I say that politically I am for BS, people might mistake me for a Republican :) This is a dilemma.
>
As another liberal Democrat (the lamented Paul Wellstone) once said,
"I represent the Democratic wing of the Democratic party."
That's not so hard to understand.
Hoping for the best (but bracing for the worst)
Steve
Steven Bornfeld
Mar 1, 2016, 4:49:33 PM3/1/16
to
On 3/1/2016 2:22 PM, laraine wrote:
>
> The newspapers have pretty much predicted Trump the winner
> in a few states unless some miracle occurs.
>
> I was thinking if nominated he might pick Rubio for VP, but
> don't know if that will happen now.
>
> C.
>
>
I think Gary Busey is available.
>
> The newspapers have pretty much predicted Trump the winner
> in a few states unless some miracle occurs.
>
> I was thinking if nominated he might pick Rubio for VP, but
> don't know if that will happen now.
>
> C.
>
>
I think Gary Busey is available.
gggg...@gmail.com
Mar 1, 2016, 9:05:31 PM3/1/16
to
On Tuesday, March 1, 2016 at 4:36:25 AM UTC-10, Herman wrote:
> On Tuesday, March 1, 2016 at 2:50:15 PM UTC+1, O wrote:
>
> > With Trump and Sanders, you at least know
> > what you're getting when you vote for them.
>
> That's what they're telling you. However, both make outrageous promises that no one can fulfill...
> On Tuesday, March 1, 2016 at 2:50:15 PM UTC+1, O wrote:
>
> > With Trump and Sanders, you at least know
> > what you're getting when you vote for them.
>
- As capitalism falters, the rich move their money out of the country, violence increases, and politicians promising prosperity are elected.
Robert Kiyosaki
Andrew Clarke
Mar 1, 2016, 11:13:35 PM3/1/16
to
On Tuesday, March 1, 2016 at 9:07:19 AM UTC+11, gggg...@gmail.com wrote:
> ...Does the classical music world need to start worrying?
In the USA, no, because so far as I know, the classical music world doesn't receive the same largesse from government as is usually the case in Europe. Cf the debate about ENO and its Arts Council funding that is going on in the UK at the moment.
> ...Does the classical music world need to start worrying?
Andrew Clarke
Canberra
Herman
Mar 2, 2016, 3:25:32 AM3/2/16
to
gggg...@gmail.com
Mar 2, 2016, 3:44:17 AM3/2/16
to
- A fo ben, bid bont.
(If you want to be a leader, be a bridge.)
hownhe...@yahoo.co.uk
Mar 2, 2016, 5:17:03 AM3/2/16
to
>
> Considering that Trump seems to have no fear when it comes to alienating people, maybe he should consider the following:
>
> - A fo ben, bid bont.
>
> (If you want to be a leader, be a bridge.)
You must be one of us? !!!!I have heard your sentence quoted as "bid ben bid bont".I suppose in modern Welsh it would be "bydded ben bydded bont". However I may be wrong.
In Mrs Clinton's case it might be " dyfal donc a dirr y garreg " [a deliberate smack breaks the rock ]
Hwyl,
Howard
O
Mar 2, 2016, 9:05:14 AM3/2/16
to
In article <baacb86d-30a7-4627...@googlegroups.com>,
As opposed to lesser politicians who promise us less but don't fulfill
that either? As opposed to the same politicians we've had the last 4
decades? How well has that worked out?
-Owen
that either? As opposed to the same politicians we've had the last 4
decades? How well has that worked out?
-Owen
Tony
Mar 2, 2016, 10:55:14 AM3/2/16
to
It's funny that flip-flopper Clinton, who's been proven to say anything to get a vote- is amassing the African American community. Aren't they as a whole supposed to be more liberal? Consequently favouring Sanders? I've seen two online interviews with black voters who have said they've never heard of Sanders. So Clinton has lost a huge mass of white voters, possibly a majority, yet is basically being powered up by black voters. Rightly or wrongly I'm getting the feeling that Trump will be receiving quite a few secret votes from one-time Sanders supporters when it's eventually Clinton/Trump.
Herman
Mar 2, 2016, 11:08:33 AM3/2/16
to
On Wednesday, March 2, 2016 at 4:55:14 PM UTC+1, Tony wrote:
> It's funny that flip-flopper Clinton, who's been proven to say anything to get a vote- is amassing the African American community. Aren't they as a whole supposed to be more liberal? Consequently favouring Sanders? I've seen two online interviews with black voters who have said they've never heard of Sanders. So Clinton has lost a huge mass of white voters, possibly a majority, yet is basically being powered up by black voters. Rightly or wrongly I'm getting the feeling that Trump will be receiving quite a few secret votes from one-time Sanders supporters when it's eventually Clinton/Trump.
Tony, let's not get started on flipflopping, because Trump would outflipflop the biggest of 'em.
> It's funny that flip-flopper Clinton, who's been proven to say anything to get a vote- is amassing the African American community. Aren't they as a whole supposed to be more liberal? Consequently favouring Sanders? I've seen two online interviews with black voters who have said they've never heard of Sanders. So Clinton has lost a huge mass of white voters, possibly a majority, yet is basically being powered up by black voters. Rightly or wrongly I'm getting the feeling that Trump will be receiving quite a few secret votes from one-time Sanders supporters when it's eventually Clinton/Trump.
Tony
Mar 2, 2016, 11:14:55 AM3/2/16
to
Bozo
Mar 2, 2016, 11:15:29 AM3/2/16
to
>On Wednesday, March 2, 2016 at 9:55:14 AM UTC-6, Tony wrote:
>....when it's eventually Clinton/Trump.
May be Trump and Clinton. May be Trump,Sanders,Clinton,Kasich,the first 2 as Independents.
Trump has a civil fraud case pending in California over his "University" with possible trial in Fall , lost an important ruling yesterday in the similar New York civil fraud case, issues with tax return questions,KKK flub, NY Times tapes.
Clinton has the email scandal , Foundation favors questions,"super predator" comment,Whitewater revival.
>....when it's eventually Clinton/Trump.
May be Trump and Clinton. May be Trump,Sanders,Clinton,Kasich,the first 2 as Independents.
Trump has a civil fraud case pending in California over his "University" with possible trial in Fall , lost an important ruling yesterday in the similar New York civil fraud case, issues with tax return questions,KKK flub, NY Times tapes.
Clinton has the email scandal , Foundation favors questions,"super predator" comment,Whitewater revival.
Frank Berger
Mar 2, 2016, 11:16:41 AM3/2/16
to
closer to the center (they all do). Will he be able to
attract enough non-right wing anti-establishment votes to beat
Clinton? Perhaps enough if the Democratic turnout in
November is as low as currently predicted?
Who knows?
Frank Berger
Mar 2, 2016, 11:19:16 AM3/2/16
to
Oscar
Mar 2, 2016, 11:26:38 AM3/2/16
to
On Wednesday, March 2, 2016 at 10:55:14 AM, Tony wrote:
>
> It's funny that flip-flopper Clinton...
Her name is Cheshire Clinton the Pandering Penguin. I have already reserved the web site and filed for trademark status, btw.
"But I don't want to go among mad people," Alice remarked.
"Oh, you can't help that," said the Cat: "we're all mad here. I'm mad. You're mad."
"How do you know I'm mad?" said Alice.
"You must be," said the Cat, "or you wouldn't have come here."
Resemblance?
Hillary: http://tinyurl.com/jxkm7fq
Cheshire Cat: http://tinyurl.com/hp9qthz
>
> It's funny that flip-flopper Clinton...
Her name is Cheshire Clinton the Pandering Penguin. I have already reserved the web site and filed for trademark status, btw.
"But I don't want to go among mad people," Alice remarked.
"Oh, you can't help that," said the Cat: "we're all mad here. I'm mad. You're mad."
"How do you know I'm mad?" said Alice.
"You must be," said the Cat, "or you wouldn't have come here."
Resemblance?
Hillary: http://tinyurl.com/jxkm7fq
Cheshire Cat: http://tinyurl.com/hp9qthz
Bob Harper
Mar 2, 2016, 12:17:40 PM3/2/16
to
Daniels--the modern reincarnation of Calvin Coolidge, the last President
who truly understood and believed in the constitutional role of the
Presidency and of the Federal Government. It won't happen, of course,
and whether he could defeat the whited sepulcher of mendacity that is
Hillary I don't know. Given the likely outcome of the current races, I
think what remains of the Republic the Founders gave us is shuffling
towards the exits. I don't know what will follow, but I'm fairly certain
neither I nor anyone else here is going to like it.
Bob Harper
Bob Harper
Mar 2, 2016, 12:28:26 PM3/2/16
to
Bob Harper
O
Mar 2, 2016, 1:15:57 PM3/2/16
to
In article <vqudnfALScp4jErL...@supernews.com>, Frank
According to the Boston Herald and MA Secretary of State, 20,000
Democrats left the party to vote for Trump.
<http://www.bostonherald.com/news/us_politics/2016/02/amid_trump_surge_n
early_20000_mass_voters_quit_democratic_party>
-Owen
Democrats left the party to vote for Trump.
<http://www.bostonherald.com/news/us_politics/2016/02/amid_trump_surge_n
early_20000_mass_voters_quit_democratic_party>
-Owen
Bob Harper
Mar 2, 2016, 2:49:07 PM3/2/16
to
On 3/2/16 10:15 AM, O wrote:
> According to the Boston Herald and MA Secretary of State, 20,000
> Democrats left the party to vote for Trump.
>
>
> <http://www.bostonherald.com/news/us_politics/2016/02/amid_trump_surge_n
> early_20000_mass_voters_quit_democratic_party>
>
> -Owen
>
Ah, but did they do this because they favor Trump, or because they
> According to the Boston Herald and MA Secretary of State, 20,000
> Democrats left the party to vote for Trump.
>
>
> <http://www.bostonherald.com/news/us_politics/2016/02/amid_trump_surge_n
> early_20000_mass_voters_quit_democratic_party>
>
> -Owen
>
believe he will be easier for Herself to defeat?
Bob Harper
O
Mar 2, 2016, 4:04:13 PM3/2/16
to
In article <MsHBy.11432$Ou7....@fx21.iad>, Bob Harper
Here's the rub: Massachusetts was a shoe-in for Trump, he was going to
win anyway. He won by almost 200,000 votes. Hillary, on the other
hand, won in a close race by about 22,000 votes, and the polls had
correctly predicted it. So, these 20,000 had much more of a chance to
make a difference as Democrats than Republicans.
-Owen
win anyway. He won by almost 200,000 votes. Hillary, on the other
hand, won in a close race by about 22,000 votes, and the polls had
correctly predicted it. So, these 20,000 had much more of a chance to
make a difference as Democrats than Republicans.
-Owen
Norman Schwartz
Mar 2, 2016, 8:20:22 PM3/2/16
to
graham wrote:
> On 29/02/2016 3:47 PM, Frank Berger wrote:
Two other branches of the US govenment exist which would spare "USians" of
worry. (They could stop the Donald in his tracks in the event he became
President and wanted to do anything foolish. Additionally no POTUS is
immune to impeachment.)
> Graham
> On 29/02/2016 3:47 PM, Frank Berger wrote:
>> On 2/29/2016 5:31 PM, hownhe...@yahoo.co.uk wrote:
>>> On Monday, 29 February 2016 22:07:19 UTC, gggg...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>> ...Does the classical music world need to start worrying?
>>>
>>> Dear gggg,
>>>
>>> What is your opinion????
>>>
>>> Howard in Wales.
>>>
>>
>> More importantly, do the Welsh need start worrying?
>
> USians certainly do!
>>> On Monday, 29 February 2016 22:07:19 UTC, gggg...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>> ...Does the classical music world need to start worrying?
>>>
>>> Dear gggg,
>>>
>>> What is your opinion????
>>>
>>> Howard in Wales.
>>>
>>
>> More importantly, do the Welsh need start worrying?
>
Two other branches of the US govenment exist which would spare "USians" of
worry. (They could stop the Donald in his tracks in the event he became
President and wanted to do anything foolish. Additionally no POTUS is
immune to impeachment.)
> Graham
Oscar
Mar 2, 2016, 9:40:42 PM3/2/16
to
On Wednesday, March 2, 2016 at 8:20:22 PM, Norman Schwartz wrote:
>
> Two other branches of the US govenment exist which would spare "USians" of
> worry. (They could stop the Donald in his tracks in the event he became
> President and wanted to do anything foolish...)
>
> Two other branches of the US govenment exist which would spare "USians" of
> worry. (They could stop the Donald in his tracks in the event he became
Right. And if I may provide an example: a President may nominate judicial appointees only with the "Advice and Consent" of the Senate, specifically by a two-thirds vote. So, don't be getting foolish, Barack. The Senate will stop you in your tracks.
advice and consent - Under the Constitution, presidential nominations for executive and judicial posts take effect only when confirmed by the Senate, and international treaties become effective only when the Senate approves them by a two-thirds vote.
http://www.senate.gov/reference/glossary_term/advice_and_consent.htm
Oscar
Mar 2, 2016, 9:47:07 PM3/2/16
to
On Wednesday, March 2, 2016 at 8:20:22 PM, Norman Schwartz wrote:
>
>
> Two other branches of the US govenment exist which would spare "USians" of
> worry. (They could stop the Donald in his tracks in the event he became
> President and wanted to do anything foolish. Additionally no POTUS is
> immune to impeachment.)
Appointments Clause of the Constitution of the United States of America (1789):
> worry. (They could stop the Donald in his tracks in the event he became
> President and wanted to do anything foolish. Additionally no POTUS is
> immune to impeachment.)
The President . . . shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law. . .
(Article II, Section 2, Clause 2)
From heritage.org:
From Advice and Consent: What the Constitution Says
By John McGinnis
. . . The other principal controversy arising from the Appointments Clause has concerned the authority of the Senate to reject nominees. The Senate has independent authority in that it may constitutionally refuse to confirm a nominee for any reason. While ideology and jurisprudential "point of view" were not among the kinds of concerns listed by the Framers as justifying the requirement of advice and consent, nothing in the text of the clause appears to limit the kind of considerations the Senate can take up. It is thus reasonable to infer that the Framers located the process of advice and consent in the Senate as a check to prevent the President from appointing people who have unsound principles as well as blemished characters. As the President has complete discretion in the use of his veto power, the Senate has complete and final discretion in whether to accept or approve a nomination.
Because the President has the initiative of choice in the appointments to the executive branch and the judiciary, the views of his prospective appointees are more likely to become a presidential campaign issue than in senatorial campaigns. Since he possesses the greatest discretion, the political process fastens upon him the greatest accountability. However, when a substantial number of Senators assert that there are strong and compelling political reasons to reject a nominee (as opposed to rejecting one because of a flawed character), the Constitution's structure ensures a confirmation battle. As such, the Constitution contains mechanisms designed to contain conflict within the republican process in order to protect against the degeneration of the Republic's original ideals and thus ensure the Republic's stability. The Appointments Clause is a prime example of such a mechanism. It structures the confirmation process so that when two of the Republic's national governing branches are in fundamental disagreement, there will be a struggle to persuade the people of the correctness of their respective positions. In the case of a struggle over constitutional interpretation as in a Supreme Court nomination, the public will be forced to consider the first principles of the Republic-in this case, the role of the judiciary and the proper method of interpreting its governing document. Citizens will thus vicariously enjoy some measure of the experience of the Framing of the Constitution, thus contributing to the Republic's self-regeneration.
http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2005/07/advice-and-consent-what-the-constitution-says
chax...@williams.edu
Mar 2, 2016, 9:49:40 PM3/2/16
to
Oscar
Mar 2, 2016, 9:52:22 PM3/2/16
to
On Wednesday, March 2, 2016 at 9:49:40 PM, chax...@williams.edu wrote:
>
> That's not what the text you linked to says about judicial appointments, Bengazi Oscar. Read it
> again The two-thirds applies only to treaties.
That was a typo.
>
> That's not what the text you linked to says about judicial appointments, Bengazi Oscar. Read it
> again The two-thirds applies only to treaties.
Oscar
Mar 2, 2016, 9:52:29 PM3/2/16
to
On Wednesday, March 2, 2016 at 9:40:42 PM, Oscar wrote:
>
> Right. And if I may provide an example: a President may nominate judicial appointees only with the
> "Advice and Consent" of the Senate, specifically by a two-thirds vote.
Majority vote.
>
> Right. And if I may provide an example: a President may nominate judicial appointees only with the
> "Advice and Consent" of the Senate, specifically by a two-thirds vote.
Over the last 227 years, the Senate has denied 36 out of 160 nominees. 25 out of those 36 never made it past the Judiciary Committee to receive a vote on the Senate floor. It has been over 76 years since a Supreme Court Justice was nominated and confirmed during a presidential election year, and since 1900, the Supreme Court has functioned despite the absence of at least one justice 60 different times.
P
Mar 2, 2016, 10:20:33 PM3/2/16
to
>Majority vote.
>Over the last 227 years, the Senate has denied 36 out of 160 nominees. 25 out of those 36 never made it past the Judiciary Committee to receive a vote on the Senate floor. It has been over 76 years since a Supreme Court Justice was nominated and confirmed during a presidential election year, and since 1900, the Supreme Court has functioned despite the absence of at least one...
It shouldn't be controversial that McConnell is threatening to block any Obama nominees. It was, however, outrageous of him to suggest that it would be improper for Obama even to nominate one, and that within hours of the news of Scalia's passing.
Obama has a constitutional right to nominate whomever the hell he wants to up until the day President Clinton (c'mon, it's inevitable at this point) is sworn into office. It is also McConnell's constitutional right to deny a vote on said nominee, and every senator's right to vote against said nominee if a vote is held. Both sides should respect that arrangement.
I do think time will prove McConnell's obstructionist stance to be rather imprudent. Just as the GOP could have gotten a more Republucan friendly health reform bill or tax bill passed had they not been bent on non-cooperation as a strategy, McConnell here is giving up the chance to get a moderate on the court. With eight more years of a Democrat in the White House virtually guaranteed at this point, he is missing a historic opportunity. McConnell's all-or-nothing strategy has pretty consistently left his party with nothing.
-P
>Over the last 227 years, the Senate has denied 36 out of 160 nominees. 25 out of those 36 never made it past the Judiciary Committee to receive a vote on the Senate floor. It has been over 76 years since a Supreme Court Justice was nominated and confirmed during a presidential election year, and since 1900, the Supreme Court has functioned despite the absence of at least one...
It shouldn't be controversial that McConnell is threatening to block any Obama nominees. It was, however, outrageous of him to suggest that it would be improper for Obama even to nominate one, and that within hours of the news of Scalia's passing.
Obama has a constitutional right to nominate whomever the hell he wants to up until the day President Clinton (c'mon, it's inevitable at this point) is sworn into office. It is also McConnell's constitutional right to deny a vote on said nominee, and every senator's right to vote against said nominee if a vote is held. Both sides should respect that arrangement.
I do think time will prove McConnell's obstructionist stance to be rather imprudent. Just as the GOP could have gotten a more Republucan friendly health reform bill or tax bill passed had they not been bent on non-cooperation as a strategy, McConnell here is giving up the chance to get a moderate on the court. With eight more years of a Democrat in the White House virtually guaranteed at this point, he is missing a historic opportunity. McConnell's all-or-nothing strategy has pretty consistently left his party with nothing.
-P
Oscar
Mar 2, 2016, 10:42:12 PM3/2/16
to
On Wednesday, March 2, 2016 at 10:20:33 PM, P wrote:
>
> Obama has a constitutional right to nominate whomever the hell he wants to up until the day
> President Clinton (c'mon, it's inevitable at this point) is sworn into office.
Oh, I beg to differ, sir!
>
> Obama has a constitutional right to nominate whomever the hell he wants to up until the day
> President Clinton (c'mon, it's inevitable at this point) is sworn into office.
Bob Harper
Mar 2, 2016, 10:55:34 PM3/2/16
to
alone; the power to give advice and consent belongs to the Senate alone;
once consent has been given, then, and only then, does the President
receive the power of appointment.
Bob Harper
Oscar
Mar 2, 2016, 11:00:14 PM3/2/16
to
On Wednesday, March 2, 2016 at 10:55:34 PM, Bob Harper wrote:
>
> Slight correction: The power to *nominate* belongs to the President
> alone; the power to give advice and consent belongs to the Senate alone;
> once consent has been given, then, and only then, does the President
> receive the power of appointment.
Thank you, Mr. Harper.
>
> Slight correction: The power to *nominate* belongs to the President
> alone; the power to give advice and consent belongs to the Senate alone;
> once consent has been given, then, and only then, does the President
> receive the power of appointment.
Frank Berger
Mar 2, 2016, 11:56:06 PM3/2/16
to
Clinton's election. Wait, can Bill run again?
gggg...@gmail.com
Mar 3, 2016, 3:59:12 AM3/3/16
to
Same old, same old, no doubt.
Give it a rest, Bill.
Tony
Mar 3, 2016, 9:43:47 AM3/3/16
to
Interesting Guardian article of emails from secret Trump supporters.
http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/mar/03/secret-donald-trump-voters-speak-out
Bottom line I get here and elsewhere is that if it's Clinton / Trump, many Bernie supporters will vote for Trump.
http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/mar/03/secret-donald-trump-voters-speak-out
Bottom line I get here and elsewhere is that if it's Clinton / Trump, many Bernie supporters will vote for Trump.
Frank Berger
Mar 3, 2016, 9:55:51 AM3/3/16
to
voters is representative?
Tony
Mar 3, 2016, 10:27:39 AM3/3/16
to
If Clinton is nominated, will she try to counter Trump by taking a more central, moderate stance, or try to somewhat occupy Bernie's space? I don't see people believing the latter, and the former will also cause an outflux of Bernie supporters IMO. There's a whole grey zone between the Bernie/Trump vote-for-change that Clinton will have trouble hoovering up.
I find the idea of voting for HIllary because she's a woman and it's her turn just as retarded as some of the reasoning in voting for Trump.
Herman
Mar 3, 2016, 10:49:30 AM3/3/16
to
On Thursday, March 3, 2016 at 4:27:39 PM UTC+1, Tony wrote:
> I find the idea of voting for HIllary because she's a woman and it's her turn just as retarded as some of the reasoning in voting for Trump.
People can also vote for her because she has immense experience in government and she's the most competent person for the job in either party.
> I find the idea of voting for HIllary because she's a woman and it's her turn just as retarded as some of the reasoning in voting for Trump.
and, no, she doesn't stand for radical change. But Bernie can stand for change and not accomplish a single thing due to Congress.
O
Mar 3, 2016, 11:42:53 AM3/3/16
to
In article <9d7c4574-945f-49f4...@googlegroups.com>,
her to concoct a health care plan, which she did without input from
anyone outside here group, that was soundly critiqued and failed
miserably.
She served well as Senator from New York, parlaying her first ladyship
into an electoral win.
She served adequately as Secretary of State, until the Benghazi mess
blew up on her. While I think the Republicans have overplayed this
hand, it's really the biggest critical mark against her. That and the
boldface lie she told about landing under fire. Neither of those will
affect the electorate much. Even her illegal emails are falling off
the teflon, unless she gets indicted, which is the only thing that
could derail her, if even that.
So "most competent?" Possibly, but I think Bernie's distinguished
record in the Senate gives him the edge in that book. He's served
without the mayhem and drama of Hillary.
So more competent than Trump, the only real opponent at this stage? If
government experience is your only qualifier, then it's a no brainer,
but Trump's fans are not of that ilk. Trump is like the boss in your
job who has made a lot of money and everybody looks to for leadership.
It's a role he's played not only in real life, but on TV "reality"
shows.
The public feels that they know Trump better than any of the other
candidates. They feel that the attacks are just smears trying to bring
him down, but they've seen him on TV, and they know what he's like, and
how he really thinks. (or so they think) And the truth of the matter
that most of these attacks are just political "gotcha" smears. In some
ways, Trump is the financial genius role model they all wish they were.
Being rich, married to a supermodel, is the lottery player's jackpot.
And a lot of Trump guys also play the lottery.
>
> and, no, she doesn't stand for radical change. But Bernie can stand for
> change and not accomplish a single thing due to Congress.
In the eyes of the Democratic Party, this is Hillary's Year. It's Her
Turn because she stepped aside for Barack to get elected, much like
McCain stepped aside for George W. to get elected, then it was His
Turn.
Poor Bernie's the victim of his own Party. I doubt that he'll try an
independent run if he doesn't muster a turnaround. But maybe next time
it'll be His Turn, if he lives long enough. It's rather sad that two
candidates who have received a very similar amount of popular votes
have such a wide disparity of delegate counts, but that's politics for
you.
-Owen
Herman <her...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Thursday, March 3, 2016 at 4:27:39 PM UTC+1, Tony wrote:
>
>
> > I find the idea of voting for HIllary because she's a woman and it's her
> > turn just as retarded as some of the reasoning in voting for Trump.
>
> People can also vote for her because she has immense experience in government
> and she's the most competent person for the job in either party.
Let's look at the record. When her husband was President, he tasked
> On Thursday, March 3, 2016 at 4:27:39 PM UTC+1, Tony wrote:
>
>
> > I find the idea of voting for HIllary because she's a woman and it's her
> > turn just as retarded as some of the reasoning in voting for Trump.
>
> People can also vote for her because she has immense experience in government
> and she's the most competent person for the job in either party.
her to concoct a health care plan, which she did without input from
anyone outside here group, that was soundly critiqued and failed
miserably.
She served well as Senator from New York, parlaying her first ladyship
into an electoral win.
She served adequately as Secretary of State, until the Benghazi mess
blew up on her. While I think the Republicans have overplayed this
hand, it's really the biggest critical mark against her. That and the
boldface lie she told about landing under fire. Neither of those will
affect the electorate much. Even her illegal emails are falling off
the teflon, unless she gets indicted, which is the only thing that
could derail her, if even that.
So "most competent?" Possibly, but I think Bernie's distinguished
record in the Senate gives him the edge in that book. He's served
without the mayhem and drama of Hillary.
So more competent than Trump, the only real opponent at this stage? If
government experience is your only qualifier, then it's a no brainer,
but Trump's fans are not of that ilk. Trump is like the boss in your
job who has made a lot of money and everybody looks to for leadership.
It's a role he's played not only in real life, but on TV "reality"
shows.
The public feels that they know Trump better than any of the other
candidates. They feel that the attacks are just smears trying to bring
him down, but they've seen him on TV, and they know what he's like, and
how he really thinks. (or so they think) And the truth of the matter
that most of these attacks are just political "gotcha" smears. In some
ways, Trump is the financial genius role model they all wish they were.
Being rich, married to a supermodel, is the lottery player's jackpot.
And a lot of Trump guys also play the lottery.
>
> and, no, she doesn't stand for radical change. But Bernie can stand for
> change and not accomplish a single thing due to Congress.
Turn because she stepped aside for Barack to get elected, much like
McCain stepped aside for George W. to get elected, then it was His
Turn.
Poor Bernie's the victim of his own Party. I doubt that he'll try an
independent run if he doesn't muster a turnaround. But maybe next time
it'll be His Turn, if he lives long enough. It's rather sad that two
candidates who have received a very similar amount of popular votes
have such a wide disparity of delegate counts, but that's politics for
you.
-Owen
Frank Berger
Mar 3, 2016, 12:32:23 PM3/3/16
to
a zillion years ago, most people don't vote based on a
consistent ideology (like I try to). As I recall the main
motivations were something like:
1. good times/bad times - if you perceive times are good
vote for the incumbents, otherwise throw the bums out.
2. historical - my father was a democrat, my grandfather
was a democrat......
3. affiliation - I'm a union guy so I vote democratic.
4. personal looks, charisma of the candidate.
5. issues/ideology
Or something like that.
JohnGavin
Mar 3, 2016, 12:36:51 PM3/3/16
to
On Thursday, March 3, 2016 at 11:42:53 AM UTC-5, O wrote:
> In article <9d7c4574-945f-49f4...@googlegroups.com>,
> Herman <her...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
> The public feels that they know Trump better than any of the other
> candidates. They feel that the attacks are just smears trying to bring
> him down, but they've seen him on TV, and they know what he's like, and
> how he really thinks. (or so they think) And the truth of the matter
> that most of these attacks are just political "gotcha" smears. In some
> ways, Trump is the financial genius role model they all wish they were.
> Being rich, married to a supermodel, is the lottery player's jackpot.
> And a lot of Trump guys also play the lottery.
Just trying to figure out whether this constitutes an endorsement from you Owen. I'm not quite sure.
> In article <9d7c4574-945f-49f4...@googlegroups.com>,
> Herman <her...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
> The public feels that they know Trump better than any of the other
> candidates. They feel that the attacks are just smears trying to bring
> him down, but they've seen him on TV, and they know what he's like, and
> how he really thinks. (or so they think) And the truth of the matter
> that most of these attacks are just political "gotcha" smears. In some
> ways, Trump is the financial genius role model they all wish they were.
> Being rich, married to a supermodel, is the lottery player's jackpot.
> And a lot of Trump guys also play the lottery.
>
> In the eyes of the Democratic Party, this is Hillary's Year. It's Her
> Turn
> Turn.
>
> Poor Bernie's the victim of his own Party.
Actually, Bernie is the only true Democrat running - Hillary is in actuality a moderate Republican.
Oscar
Mar 3, 2016, 12:50:04 PM3/3/16
to
On Thursday, March 3, 2016 at 11:42:53 AM, O wrote:
>
> In some ways, Trump is the financial genius role model they all wish they were.
A man may also be judged by his children, and Trump's children are nothing if not models of elegant, educated, sophisticated young adults. No tattoos, no drugs, just well-dressed, well-spoken, proud, professional. And then there's Chelsea "I'm allergic to gluten" Clinton...still "finding her way" all these years later.
>
> In some ways, Trump is the financial genius role model they all wish they were.
From The Telegraph, June 22, 2014 http://tiny.cc/q53r9x
<< Chelsea Clinton interview: 'I will always work harder than anyone'
It was almost inevitable that Bill and Hillary's daughter would join the Clinton machine - try as she might to resist. But can she ever emerge from their shadows?
For a decade after graduating from Stanford in 2001, Chelsea experimented with the world beyond the Clinton machine. In peripatetic bursts, she tried out international relations, then management consulting, then Wall Street, then a PhD. She even signed on as an NBC News "special correspondent". She rationalises this career promiscuity as a hallmark of being just another Millennial, experimenting until she figures out her professional purpose.
"It is frustrating, because who wants to grow up and follow their parents?" admits Chelsea. "I've tried really hard to care about things that were very different from my parents. I was curious if I could care about [money] on some fundamental level, and I couldn't. That wasn't the metric of success I wanted in my life." >>
Ms. Clinton is married to hedge fund manager Marc Mezvinsky, lives in a $11 million home, had a wedding that cost more than $3 million, and was paid $600,000 a year for filing a smattering of reports as "special correspondent" for NBC News in 2011-2014.
HT
Mar 3, 2016, 1:07:35 PM3/3/16
to
> Ms. Clinton is married to hedge fund manager Marc Mezvinsky, lives in a $11 million home, had a wedding that cost more than $3 million, and was paid $600,000 a year for filing a smattering of reports as "special correspondent" for NBC News in 2011-2014.
henk
Oscar
Mar 3, 2016, 1:23:41 PM3/3/16
to
On Thursday, March 3, 2016 at 1:07:35 PM, HT wrote:
>
> Hmmm. Isn't it un-American to blame someone for doing well? <g>
Not my point at all; you completely missed it. She said in that interview with the Telegraph that, "I was curious if I could care about [money] on some fundamental level, and I couldn't. That wasn't the metric of success I wanted in my life." Meanwhile, she is married to a hedge fund manager, living in a $11 million house and collected almost $2 million from NBC News to file a handful of reports. Sure, she doesn't care about money or, as you say, "doing well". No wonder Bernie Sanders is taking the youth vote and the under-45 woman vote, with dippy comments like that coming from the likes Ms. Clinton.
>
> Hmmm. Isn't it un-American to blame someone for doing well? <g>
Chelsea has done very little with her life. It's okay to say it.
Oscar
Mar 3, 2016, 1:24:10 PM3/3/16
to
On Thursday, March 3, 2016 at 11:42:53 AM, O wrote:
>
>
> In some ways, Trump is the financial genius role model they all wish they were.
> Being rich, married to a supermodel, is the lottery player's jackpot. And a lot of
> Trump guys also play the lottery.
Speaking of rich, remember when Bill Clinton posed for that picture with the XXX actresses at Prince Albert's shindig in 2012?
> Being rich, married to a supermodel, is the lottery player's jackpot. And a lot of
> Trump guys also play the lottery.
From New York Daily News:
<< Brooklyn Lee, an award-winning porn star, said she noticed Clinton eyeing their table at Wednesday's Nights in Monaco fund-raiser, which was benefitting the William J. Clinton Foundation and the Prince Albert II of Monaco Foundation.
Lee and fellow skin flick siren Tasha Reign said they were at the event as guests of Marc Bell, the CEO of the company that owns Penthouse magazine.
The women wanted to meet Clinton, but were turned away, they say.
"The Secret Service guy wasn't having it, but then (Clinton) let us come over," Lee told TMZ in a phone call from Cannes.
Clinton apparently allowed the two, along with a third woman, to take a picture with him. Their conversation was brief, Lee said.
"I just said he was a great President," she told TMZ.
"He just kind of winked and smiled and gave us hugs," she added. >>
Herman
Mar 3, 2016, 1:54:01 PM3/3/16
to
On Thursday, March 3, 2016 at 6:50:04 PM UTC+1, Oscar wrote:
> On Thursday, March 3, 2016 at 11:42:53 AM, O wrote:
> >
> > In some ways, Trump is the financial genius role model they all wish they were.
>
> A man may also be judged by his children,
Or by the way Trump said he would like to date his daughter, she was so hot looking.
> On Thursday, March 3, 2016 at 11:42:53 AM, O wrote:
> >
> > In some ways, Trump is the financial genius role model they all wish they were.
>
> A man may also be judged by his children,
You're not voting for the kids, you idiot. You're going to vote for a man who marries one model after another and unabashedly talks about the way he'd like to do various women he likes the looks of (including his daughter) while his wife is sitting nearby.
That they appear to be not crazy insane (but that may just be a matter of well-handled PR is not to his credit, but to theirs.
Oscar
Mar 3, 2016, 2:21:46 PM3/3/16
to
On Thursday, March 3, 2016 at 1:54:01 PM, Herman wrote:
>
> You're not voting for the kids, you idiot. You're going to vote for a man blah blah blah...
Correct. I'm voting, you're not. You have no voice over there in Old Europe. You should really be more concerned with Paris and Cologne and the "Brexit" and that sluggish economy:
<< EU economic growth had picked up to 0.5% in the first quarter of 2015 (compared with the final quarter of 2014), the strongest performance since the upswing started in the spring of 2013. Since then, however, the pace of expansion has slackened, to 0.4% last spring and an average quarterly rate of 0.3% in the second half of last year. Indeed, euro-zone GDP in the final quarter of 2015 was still below its pre-crisis peak of early 2008 whereas America's was almost 10% above its peak of late 2007. >>
Lost decade anyone?
(Did I mention the poor, benevolent migrants?)
>
> You're not voting for the kids, you idiot. You're going to vote for a man blah blah blah...
Correct. I'm voting, you're not. You have no voice over there in Old Europe. You should really be more concerned with Paris and Cologne and the "Brexit" and that sluggish economy:
<< EU economic growth had picked up to 0.5% in the first quarter of 2015 (compared with the final quarter of 2014), the strongest performance since the upswing started in the spring of 2013. Since then, however, the pace of expansion has slackened, to 0.4% last spring and an average quarterly rate of 0.3% in the second half of last year. Indeed, euro-zone GDP in the final quarter of 2015 was still below its pre-crisis peak of early 2008 whereas America's was almost 10% above its peak of late 2007. >>
Lost decade anyone?
(Did I mention the poor, benevolent migrants?)
Frank Berger
Mar 3, 2016, 2:23:56 PM3/3/16
to
Frank Berger
Mar 3, 2016, 2:27:54 PM3/3/16
to
On 3/3/2016 12:36 PM, JohnGavin wrote:
> On Thursday, March 3, 2016 at 11:42:53 AM UTC-5, O
> wrote:
>> In article
>> <9d7c4574-945f-49f4...@googlegroups.com>,
>>
>>
Herman <her...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>
>>
>> The public feels that they know Trump better than any
>> of the other candidates. They feel that the attacks
>> are just smears trying to bring him down, but they've
>> seen him on TV, and they know what he's like, and how
>> he really thinks. (or so they think) And the truth of
>> the matter that most of these attacks are just
>> political "gotcha" smears. In some ways, Trump is the
>> financial genius role model they all wish they were.
>> Being rich, married to a supermodel, is the lottery
>> player's jackpot. And a lot of Trump guys also play the
>> lottery.
>
> Just trying to figure out whether this constitutes an
> endorsement from you Owen. I'm not quite sure.
>
Obviously, Owen can answer for himself, but not every comment
> On Thursday, March 3, 2016 at 11:42:53 AM UTC-5, O
> wrote:
>> In article
>> <9d7c4574-945f-49f4...@googlegroups.com>,
>>
>>
Herman <her...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>
>>
>> The public feels that they know Trump better than any
>> of the other candidates. They feel that the attacks
>> are just smears trying to bring him down, but they've
>> seen him on TV, and they know what he's like, and how
>> he really thinks. (or so they think) And the truth of
>> the matter that most of these attacks are just
>> political "gotcha" smears. In some ways, Trump is the
>> financial genius role model they all wish they were.
>> Being rich, married to a supermodel, is the lottery
>> player's jackpot. And a lot of Trump guys also play the
>> lottery.
>
> Just trying to figure out whether this constitutes an
> endorsement from you Owen. I'm not quite sure.
>
contains a judgement. There is such a thing as
dispassionate analysis. Some people can't do it, though.
>
>
Oscar
Mar 3, 2016, 2:29:32 PM3/3/16
to
On Thursday, March 3, 2016 at 1:54:01 PM, Herman wrote:
> >
> >
> > A man may also be judged by his children,
>
> Or by the way Trump said he would like to date his daughter, she was so hot looking.
Oh, so Bill hasn't done any creepy shtuff? Raping women, maybe? Juanita Broaddrick. Look her up. Perving on his intern and abusing his power and ruining the girl's life forever (with the help of his so-called scorned wife)? Maybe a foot-in-mouth comment isn't so bad after all, herman, when you approach it from a relative perspective.
>
> Or by the way Trump said he would like to date his daughter, she was so hot looking.
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/430081/she-threatened-me-juanita-broaddrick-hillarys-role-covering-bill-clinton
JohnGavin
Mar 3, 2016, 3:26:12 PM3/3/16
to
On Thursday, March 3, 2016 at 12:50:04 PM UTC-5, Oscar wrote:
> On Thursday, March 3, 2016 at 11:42:53 AM, O wrote:
> >
> > In some ways, Trump is the financial genius role model they all wish they were.
>
> A man may also be judged by his children, and Trump's children are nothing if not models of elegant, educated, sophisticated young adults. No tattoos, no drugs, just well-dressed, well-spoken, proud, professional. And then there's Chelsea "I'm allergic to gluten" Clinton...still "finding her way" all these years later.
>
Hunting down and killing endangered species in Africa, and then posing with the carcass in a photograph isn't elegant or sophisticated.
> On Thursday, March 3, 2016 at 11:42:53 AM, O wrote:
> >
> > In some ways, Trump is the financial genius role model they all wish they were.
>
> A man may also be judged by his children, and Trump's children are nothing if not models of elegant, educated, sophisticated young adults. No tattoos, no drugs, just well-dressed, well-spoken, proud, professional. And then there's Chelsea "I'm allergic to gluten" Clinton...still "finding her way" all these years later.
>
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/07/29/donald-trump-s-sons-killed-exotic-animals.html
JohnGavin
Mar 3, 2016, 3:28:40 PM3/3/16
to
Frank Berger
Mar 3, 2016, 4:06:34 PM3/3/16
to
endangered. Do you think legal and illegal hunting have the
same moral issues?
Frank Berger
Mar 3, 2016, 4:08:26 PM3/3/16
to
fact. And my statement didn't rule out anything. And I
can offer criticism and commentary wherever and whenever I
damn want.
Oscar
Mar 3, 2016, 4:30:06 PM3/3/16
to
On Thursday, March 3, 2016 at 4:06:34 PM, Frank Berger wrote:
> >
> > Hunting down and killing endangered species in Africa, and then posing with the carcass in a
> > photograph isn't elegant or sophisticated.
>
> >
> > Hunting down and killing endangered species in Africa, and then posing with the carcass in a
> > photograph isn't elegant or sophisticated.
>
> The article specifies the animals hunted as "exotic," not
> endangered. Do you think legal and illegal hunting have the
> same moral issues?
That's right, Frank. No mention of "endangered species" anywhere; the kills were legal. And this in an article by race-baiting Daily Beast "senior entertainment editor" Marlow Stern titled "Donald Trump's Sons Killed Exotic Animals". If the Trump-obsessed Stern can't find anything illegal about the trip, then it wasn't. The boys kill and eat their meat, and they have the means to fly around the world to do it, legally. What is immoral about that? Perhaps the _only_ immoral part of it is that they did it in the failed state of Zimbabwe, led by the racist, corrupt and inept policies of Robert Mugabe.
> endangered. Do you think legal and illegal hunting have the
> same moral issues?
<< "Anyone who thinks hunters are just 'bloodthirsty morons' hasn't looked into hunting," said Donald Jr. "If you wait through long, cold hours in the November woods with a bow in your hands hoping a buck will show or if you spend days walking in the African bush trailing Cape buffalo while listening to lion's roar, you're sure to learn hunting isn't about killing. Nature actually humbles you. Hunting forces a person to endure, to master themselves, even to truly get to know the wild environment. Actually, along the way, hunting and fishing makes you fall in love with the natural world. This is why hunters so often give back by contributing to conservation."
Trump Sr. made it clear that he did not believe in hunting. "My sons love hunting. They're hunters and they've become good at it," he told TMZ. "I am not a believer in hunting and I'm surprised they like it." >>
As re "morality", from the aforementioned Telegraph article:
<< "I was a vegetarian for 10 years, a pescatarian for eight. Then I woke up one day when I was 29 and craved red meat," says Chelsea, now 34, who recently announced she is expecting her first child. "I'm a big believer in listening to my body's cravings." >>
Yep, Chelsea has forsaken "morality" to satisfy her own pure delight and (gluten-free) red meat cravings. But at least her hands are clean (and the meat is kosher).
gggg...@gmail.com
Mar 3, 2016, 5:05:54 PM3/3/16
to
gggg...@gmail.com
Mar 3, 2016, 5:10:59 PM3/3/16
to
On Thursday, March 3, 2016 at 7:50:04 AM UTC-10, Oscar wrote:
> On Thursday, March 3, 2016 at 11:42:53 AM, O wrote:
> >
> > In some ways, Trump is the financial genius role model they all wish they were.
>
> A man may also be judged by his children, and Trump's children are nothing if not models of elegant, educated, sophisticated young adults. No tattoos, no drugs, just well-dressed, well-spoken, proud, professional. And then there's Chelsea "I'm allergic to gluten" Clinton...still "finding her way" all these years later.
>
> From The Telegraph, June 22, 2014 http://tiny.cc/q53r9x
>
> << Chelsea Clinton interview: 'I will always work harder than anyone'
> It was almost inevitable that Bill and Hillary's daughter would join the Clinton machine - try as she might to resist. But can she ever emerge from their shadows?
>
> For a decade after graduating from Stanford in 2001, Chelsea experimented with the world beyond the Clinton machine. In peripatetic bursts, she tried out international relations, then management consulting, then Wall Street, then a PhD. She even signed on as an NBC News "special correspondent". She rationalises this career promiscuity...
> On Thursday, March 3, 2016 at 11:42:53 AM, O wrote:
> >
> > In some ways, Trump is the financial genius role model they all wish they were.
>
> A man may also be judged by his children, and Trump's children are nothing if not models of elegant, educated, sophisticated young adults. No tattoos, no drugs, just well-dressed, well-spoken, proud, professional. And then there's Chelsea "I'm allergic to gluten" Clinton...still "finding her way" all these years later.
>
> From The Telegraph, June 22, 2014 http://tiny.cc/q53r9x
>
> << Chelsea Clinton interview: 'I will always work harder than anyone'
> It was almost inevitable that Bill and Hillary's daughter would join the Clinton machine - try as she might to resist. But can she ever emerge from their shadows?
>
When it comes to promiscuity, as far as I am concerned, she and the daughter of another former high official should appear in an opera entitled COSI FAN TUTTE.
And an insertion duet should be composed just for them entitled:
- I do not want any lectures and I do not want any sympathy.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/reliable-source/wp/2015/06/25/bristol-palin-is-pregnant-again-and-doesnt-want-a-lecture-about-it/
Oscar
Mar 3, 2016, 5:18:28 PM3/3/16
to
On Thursday, March 3, 2016 at 5:05:54 PM, gggg wrote:
> >
> > "I was a vegetarian for 10 years, a pescatarian for eight. Then I woke up one day when I was 29
> > and craved red meat," says Chelsea, now 34, who recently announced she is expecting her first
> > child. "I'm a big believer in listening to my body's cravings."
>
> And we certainly know who SHE takes after.
We do: Webb Hubbell.
> >
> > "I was a vegetarian for 10 years, a pescatarian for eight. Then I woke up one day when I was 29
> > and craved red meat," says Chelsea, now 34, who recently announced she is expecting her first
> > child. "I'm a big believer in listening to my body's cravings."
>
> And we certainly know who SHE takes after.
Ricardo Jimenez
Mar 3, 2016, 5:39:42 PM3/3/16
to
On Thu, 03 Mar 2016 11:42:48 -0500, O <ow...@denofinequityx.com>
wrote:
>The public feels that they know Trump better than any of the other
>candidates. They feel that the attacks are just smears trying to bring
>him down, but they've seen him on TV, and they know what he's like, and
>how he really thinks. (or so they think) And the truth of the matter
>that most of these attacks are just political "gotcha" smears. In some
>ways, Trump is the financial genius role model they all wish they were.
>Being rich, married to a supermodel, is the lottery player's jackpot.
>And a lot of Trump guys also play the lottery.
My theory is that Trump is insecure about the fact that some people he
can be compared to are much wealthier. I think that is the root of
why he is reluctant to release his financial records and has
consistently lied about his net worth. He will never own up to the
fact that many of his business ventures were failures and he has
sought bankruptcy protection several times. In the Forbes listing of
the world's billionaires:
http://www.forbes.com/billionaires/list/#version:static
Michael Bloomberg is #8 at $40B, Sheldon Adelson is #22 at $25.2B and
Trump is tied with a bunch of others at #324 with $4.5B.
wrote:
>The public feels that they know Trump better than any of the other
>candidates. They feel that the attacks are just smears trying to bring
>him down, but they've seen him on TV, and they know what he's like, and
>how he really thinks. (or so they think) And the truth of the matter
>that most of these attacks are just political "gotcha" smears. In some
>ways, Trump is the financial genius role model they all wish they were.
>Being rich, married to a supermodel, is the lottery player's jackpot.
>And a lot of Trump guys also play the lottery.
can be compared to are much wealthier. I think that is the root of
why he is reluctant to release his financial records and has
consistently lied about his net worth. He will never own up to the
fact that many of his business ventures were failures and he has
sought bankruptcy protection several times. In the Forbes listing of
the world's billionaires:
http://www.forbes.com/billionaires/list/#version:static
Michael Bloomberg is #8 at $40B, Sheldon Adelson is #22 at $25.2B and
Trump is tied with a bunch of others at #324 with $4.5B.
O
Mar 3, 2016, 6:02:13 PM3/3/16
to
In article <2d13cd64-a201-4eb5...@googlegroups.com>,
why?
preferred form.
made me do it?" That's a cop-out. The Democratic party is what it is,
and where they are is where they want to be. Four years ago, they
controlled both the Presidency and Congress. The GOP couldn't make
them do anything they didn't want to do.
> He's not a victim of true progressives,
> or people who are clear enough to recognize greed and self-centered political
> ambition.
Unfortunately, there are either not enough "true progressives," or the
fix is in, because it looks like Bernie is tanking, even though some of
Hillary's wins have been by coin toss or party mechanics.
The whole superdelegate idea is to take the vote away from the people
and put it back into the hands of the party bosses.
>
> Actually, Bernie is the only true Democrat running - Hillary is in actuality a moderate Republican.
>
If you look at Trump's views on the issues, put aside the bombast and
exaggeration, and tabulate them, he's more of a moderate Republican
than most of the field. He's certainly more to the left than Cruz, or
Kasich. All his right wing views he shares with them, he's only more
noisy about it, and he's managed to subdue his left wing views (does
anyone think he's not really pro-choice?)
Hillary is whatever it takes to get elected, she'll be that. I
expected a better turnout for Sanders, and am disappointed he didn't
get it. I admire the man and his stance, because he's right about a
lot of things he says. It doesn't make sense that we require a 4 year
education to get any kind of a decent job, and then we saddle this poor
kid graduate with a $100K debt and still have to hardscrabble to get
that job. The education system and the government have been working
hand in hand to screw that kid, and it's good for Bernie to call that
out.
-Owen
JohnGavin <dag...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thursday, March 3, 2016 at 11:42:53 AM UTC-5, O wrote:
> > In article <9d7c4574-945f-49f4...@googlegroups.com>,
> > Herman <her...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
>
> >
> > The public feels that they know Trump better than any of the other
> > candidates. They feel that the attacks are just smears trying to bring
> > him down, but they've seen him on TV, and they know what he's like, and
> > how he really thinks. (or so they think) And the truth of the matter
> > that most of these attacks are just political "gotcha" smears. In some
> > ways, Trump is the financial genius role model they all wish they were.
> > Being rich, married to a supermodel, is the lottery player's jackpot.
> > And a lot of Trump guys also play the lottery.
>
> Just trying to figure out whether this constitutes an endorsement from you
> Owen. I'm not quite sure.
Would my words have greater or lesser import if I pick a side? If so,
> On Thursday, March 3, 2016 at 11:42:53 AM UTC-5, O wrote:
> > In article <9d7c4574-945f-49f4...@googlegroups.com>,
> > Herman <her...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
>
> >
> > The public feels that they know Trump better than any of the other
> > candidates. They feel that the attacks are just smears trying to bring
> > him down, but they've seen him on TV, and they know what he's like, and
> > how he really thinks. (or so they think) And the truth of the matter
> > that most of these attacks are just political "gotcha" smears. In some
> > ways, Trump is the financial genius role model they all wish they were.
> > Being rich, married to a supermodel, is the lottery player's jackpot.
> > And a lot of Trump guys also play the lottery.
>
> Just trying to figure out whether this constitutes an endorsement from you
> Owen. I'm not quite sure.
why?
>
>
>
> >
> > In the eyes of the Democratic Party, this is Hillary's Year. It's Her
> > Turn
>
> What's with the all the capital letters? She may be a favorite of
> mainstream corporate funded media, but even they haven't deified her :)
A concession to a medium that doesn't permit italic, which is my
>
>
> >
> > In the eyes of the Democratic Party, this is Hillary's Year. It's Her
> > Turn
>
> What's with the all the capital letters? She may be a favorite of
> mainstream corporate funded media, but even they haven't deified her :)
preferred form.
>
>
>
> > Turn.
> >
> > Poor Bernie's the victim of his own Party.
>
> Bernie is a victim of the mainstream segment of the 2016 Democratic Party
> that has been pulled to the right by the radical GOP, and feeds off of
> corporate funds to do their bidding.
How can the radical GOP make the Democrats do anything? "My brother
>
>
> > Turn.
> >
> > Poor Bernie's the victim of his own Party.
>
> Bernie is a victim of the mainstream segment of the 2016 Democratic Party
> that has been pulled to the right by the radical GOP, and feeds off of
> corporate funds to do their bidding.
made me do it?" That's a cop-out. The Democratic party is what it is,
and where they are is where they want to be. Four years ago, they
controlled both the Presidency and Congress. The GOP couldn't make
them do anything they didn't want to do.
> He's not a victim of true progressives,
> or people who are clear enough to recognize greed and self-centered political
> ambition.
fix is in, because it looks like Bernie is tanking, even though some of
Hillary's wins have been by coin toss or party mechanics.
The whole superdelegate idea is to take the vote away from the people
and put it back into the hands of the party bosses.
>
> Actually, Bernie is the only true Democrat running - Hillary is in actuality a moderate Republican.
>
exaggeration, and tabulate them, he's more of a moderate Republican
than most of the field. He's certainly more to the left than Cruz, or
Kasich. All his right wing views he shares with them, he's only more
noisy about it, and he's managed to subdue his left wing views (does
anyone think he's not really pro-choice?)
Hillary is whatever it takes to get elected, she'll be that. I
expected a better turnout for Sanders, and am disappointed he didn't
get it. I admire the man and his stance, because he's right about a
lot of things he says. It doesn't make sense that we require a 4 year
education to get any kind of a decent job, and then we saddle this poor
kid graduate with a $100K debt and still have to hardscrabble to get
that job. The education system and the government have been working
hand in hand to screw that kid, and it's good for Bernie to call that
out.
-Owen
O
Mar 3, 2016, 6:11:14 PM3/3/16
to
In article <26ehdbp6sife2395i...@4ax.com>, Ricardo
Do you think Hillary is insecure? Chris Christie? I'll bet the two of
them are great candidates for therapists.
I've tended to find that the more successful someone seems to be (or
alternatively, the more beautiful and attractive the person), the more
insecure they are. I guess the more you have to lose, the more it
hurts to lose.
-Owen
them are great candidates for therapists.
I've tended to find that the more successful someone seems to be (or
alternatively, the more beautiful and attractive the person), the more
insecure they are. I guess the more you have to lose, the more it
hurts to lose.
-Owen
Bob Harper
Mar 3, 2016, 7:56:00 PM3/3/16
to
person for the job in either party.
There, fixed it for you.
Bob Harper
Herman
Mar 4, 2016, 2:12:08 AM3/4/16
to
On Friday, March 4, 2016 at 1:56:00 AM UTC+1, Bob Harper wrote:
> People can also vote for her because she has immense experience in
> government (which is *such* a plus today) and she's the most *corrupt*
> person for the job in either party.
>
> There, fixed it for you.
>
> Bob Harper
That especially funny since you're obviously dying to vote for Trump who's the embodiment of corruption.
> People can also vote for her because she has immense experience in
> government (which is *such* a plus today) and she's the most *corrupt*
> person for the job in either party.
>
> There, fixed it for you.
>
> Bob Harper
gggg...@gmail.com
Mar 4, 2016, 4:50:08 AM3/4/16
to
On Thursday, March 3, 2016 at 7:50:04 AM UTC-10, Oscar wrote:
And didn't Mrs. Romney say that when she and Mitt were starting out, they had to struggle just soooooooooooo much that they even had to resort to selling some of his stock?
Oh, life is TOUGH. The THINGS the 2 of you had to GO through. Don't I feel just soooooooooooooooo sorry for YOU.
I should have such STRUGGLES.
Roland van Gaalen
Mar 4, 2016, 6:38:47 AM3/4/16
to
The Republican primaries and debates are 'reality show' entertainment.
Within that frame, I want the most entertaining candidate to win.
I am aware of that and I admit it.
--
Roland van Gaalen
Amsterdam
Within that frame, I want the most entertaining candidate to win.
I am aware of that and I admit it.
--
Roland van Gaalen
Amsterdam
Herman
Mar 4, 2016, 6:40:54 AM3/4/16
to
On Friday, March 4, 2016 at 10:50:08 AM UTC+1, gggg...@gmail.com wrote:
> And didn't Hillary say that when she and her husband left the White House that they were "dead broke"?
>
> And didn't Mrs. Romney say that when she and Mitt were starting out, they had to struggle just soooooooooooo much that they even had to resort to selling some of his stock?
>
> Oh, life is TOUGH. The THINGS the 2 of you had to GO through. Don't I feel just soooooooooooooooo sorry for YOU.
>
> I should have such STRUGGLES.
what are you so angry about? The last time people voted for a candidate they'd like to have a beer with they got Dick Cheney and war in Iraq.
> And didn't Hillary say that when she and her husband left the White House that they were "dead broke"?
>
> And didn't Mrs. Romney say that when she and Mitt were starting out, they had to struggle just soooooooooooo much that they even had to resort to selling some of his stock?
>
> Oh, life is TOUGH. The THINGS the 2 of you had to GO through. Don't I feel just soooooooooooooooo sorry for YOU.
>
> I should have such STRUGGLES.
Bob Harper
Mar 4, 2016, 7:56:04 PM3/4/16
to
nomination--I think the odds are getting better every day--and I have NO
intention of voting for him, period. You have let your spleen get the
better of your brain.
Bob Harper
Herman
Mar 5, 2016, 4:18:45 AM3/5/16
to
On Saturday, March 5, 2016 at 1:56:04 AM UTC+1, Bob Harper wrote:
> Wow, are you mistaken! I am hopeful that he will not get the
> nomination--I think the odds are getting better every day--and I have NO
> intention of voting for him, period. You have let your spleen get the
> better of your brain.
>
> Bob Harper
Okay, glad to hear this.
> Wow, are you mistaken! I am hopeful that he will not get the
> nomination--I think the odds are getting better every day--and I have NO
> intention of voting for him, period. You have let your spleen get the
> better of your brain.
>
> Bob Harper
Tony
Mar 5, 2016, 5:31:27 AM3/5/16
to
It's fascinating how Trump's flipped the approach to China in his campaign speeches. Typically from what I recall a US politician will paint China as a rogue and cheat -- basically a country that's committed a crime devaluing its currency or whatnot. Trump on the other hand stands there and says he loves China, that he rents office space to a Chinese bank and makes millions selling apartments to them, and that Chinese leaders are very intelligent. The problem is that US politicians are too stupid and incompetent to deal with them. The onus for a trade deficit and the loss of jobs to China is because of morons in the government. He's pulling in voters from all corners with this.
Have you watched his campaign speeches? They are fierce entertainment -- the thrill of protestors being ejected, whoops and cheers every few minutes, a laugh every other, and a very decisive momentum that all problems can be fixed via business. As he talks he jumps around subjects like a person flipping channels on a TV. In terms of rousing presentation it's masterful, like it or not.
Have you watched his campaign speeches? They are fierce entertainment -- the thrill of protestors being ejected, whoops and cheers every few minutes, a laugh every other, and a very decisive momentum that all problems can be fixed via business. As he talks he jumps around subjects like a person flipping channels on a TV. In terms of rousing presentation it's masterful, like it or not.
Roland van Gaalen
Mar 5, 2016, 6:38:16 AM3/5/16
to
On Saturday, March 5, 2016 at 11:31:27 AM UTC+1, Tony wrote:
>
> Have you watched his campaign speeches? They are fierce entertainment -- the
> thrill of protestors being ejected, whoops and cheers every few minutes, a
> laugh every other, and a very decisive momentum that all problems can be
> fixed via business. As he talks he jumps around subjects like a person
> flipping channels on a TV. In terms of rousing presentation it's masterful,
> like it or not.
>
I agree completely.
>
> Have you watched his campaign speeches? They are fierce entertainment -- the
> thrill of protestors being ejected, whoops and cheers every few minutes, a
> laugh every other, and a very decisive momentum that all problems can be
> fixed via business. As he talks he jumps around subjects like a person
> flipping channels on a TV. In terms of rousing presentation it's masterful,
> like it or not.
>
(In the Republican debates, Ted Cruz stands out as a supporting actor playing the role of an amusingly sinister character reminiscent of lawyer Saul Goodman in _Breaking Bad_. That voice!)
JohnGavin
Mar 5, 2016, 11:55:49 AM3/5/16
to
On Saturday, March 5, 2016 at 5:31:27 AM UTC-5, Tony wrote:
> It's fascinating how Trump's flipped the approach to China in his campaign speeches. Typically from what I recall a US politician will paint China as a rogue and cheat -- basically a country that's committed a crime devaluing its currency or whatnot. Trump on the other hand stands there and says he loves China, that he rents office space to a Chinese bank and makes millions selling apartments to them, and that Chinese leaders are very intelligent. The problem is that US politicians are too stupid and incompetent to deal with them. The onus for a trade deficit and the loss of jobs to China is because of morons in the government. He's pulling in voters from all corners with this.
>
> Have you watched his campaign speeches? They are fierce entertainment -- the thrill of protestors being ejected, whoops and cheers every few minutes, a laugh every other, and a very decisive momentum that all problems can be fixed via business. As he talks he jumps around subjects like a person flipping channels on a TV. In terms of rousing presentation it's masterful, like it or not.
Yes, this sounds accurate - but he's so effective at least partially because of the dumbing down of the American public since 1980. Americans (very generally speaking) have lost their sense of discrimination due to the fact that life has become more outwardly demanding in order to keep up with the Jonses, and this is compounded by an increasing indulgence into escapism - via 300 television channels, internet etc. - it has rendered people unfocused and too exhausted to follow current events in depth. They are voting for the reality star with. Subtlety and nuance are dead! It's frightening.
> It's fascinating how Trump's flipped the approach to China in his campaign speeches. Typically from what I recall a US politician will paint China as a rogue and cheat -- basically a country that's committed a crime devaluing its currency or whatnot. Trump on the other hand stands there and says he loves China, that he rents office space to a Chinese bank and makes millions selling apartments to them, and that Chinese leaders are very intelligent. The problem is that US politicians are too stupid and incompetent to deal with them. The onus for a trade deficit and the loss of jobs to China is because of morons in the government. He's pulling in voters from all corners with this.
>
> Have you watched his campaign speeches? They are fierce entertainment -- the thrill of protestors being ejected, whoops and cheers every few minutes, a laugh every other, and a very decisive momentum that all problems can be fixed via business. As he talks he jumps around subjects like a person flipping channels on a TV. In terms of rousing presentation it's masterful, like it or not.
Message has been deleted
laraine
Mar 5, 2016, 4:52:47 PM3/5/16
to
On Saturday, March 5, 2016 at 3:26:35 PM UTC-6, laraine wrote:
> One thing that was said about Cruz was that he preferred to have
> the gov't shut down rather than compromise with Obama (about
> Planned Parenthood, I believe), and fought hard for it. That is
> one reason some senators such as Dole think he's hard to work with.
> He does have the "suave" down, though, at least in a crowd.
>
> He also seems to possibly understand numbers, and Trump might not,
> considering that many are saying his budget plans aren't even close
> to adding up. That worries me.
>
> Rubio supporting Cruz might be the only way to stop Trump, and yet
> do we want someone who might shut down the gov't like that...
>
> C.
I looked up the details, at least as described for 'Ted Cruz'
in wikipedia, and he helped to achieve the partial shutdown
of the gov't in 2013, in an effort to defund Obamacare. Serious,
but perhaps not the end of the world, I guess.
C.
> the gov't shut down rather than compromise with Obama (about
> Planned Parenthood, I believe), and fought hard for it. That is
> one reason some senators such as Dole think he's hard to work with.
> He does have the "suave" down, though, at least in a crowd.
>
> He also seems to possibly understand numbers, and Trump might not,
> considering that many are saying his budget plans aren't even close
> to adding up. That worries me.
>
> Rubio supporting Cruz might be the only way to stop Trump, and yet
> do we want someone who might shut down the gov't like that...
>
> C.
I looked up the details, at least as described for 'Ted Cruz'
in wikipedia, and he helped to achieve the partial shutdown
of the gov't in 2013, in an effort to defund Obamacare. Serious,
but perhaps not the end of the world, I guess.
C.
laraine
Mar 5, 2016, 5:27:27 PM3/5/16
to
On Saturday, March 5, 2016 at 3:52:47 PM UTC-6, laraine wrote:
> >
> > Rubio supporting Cruz might be the only way to stop Trump, and yet
> > do we want someone who might shut down the gov't like that...
> >
> > C.
>
Oops... I almost forgot the 'carpetbombing', definitely a sinister idea.
> >
> > Rubio supporting Cruz might be the only way to stop Trump, and yet
> > do we want someone who might shut down the gov't like that...
> >
> > C.
>
And Cruz doesn't want deported immigrants to have a chance to come back.
I almost like the way Trump 'flexibly' softened his position, with
respect to such issues.
C.
Frank Berger
Mar 5, 2016, 7:53:24 PM3/5/16
to
On 3/5/2016 4:26 PM, laraine wrote:
> On Saturday, March 5, 2016 at 5:38:16 AM UTC-6, Roland
> van Gaalen wrote:
> On Saturday, March 5, 2016 at 5:38:16 AM UTC-6, Roland
> van Gaalen wrote:
> One thing that was said about Cruz was that he preferred
> to have the gov't shut down rather than compromise with
> Obama (about Planned Parenthood, I believe), and fought
> hard for it. That is one reason some senators such as
> Dole think he's hard to work with. He does have the
> "suave" down, though, at least in a crowd.
>
> He also seems to possibly understand numbers, and Trump
> might not, considering that many are saying his budget
> plans aren't even close to adding up. That worries me.
>
> to have the gov't shut down rather than compromise with
> Obama (about Planned Parenthood, I believe), and fought
> hard for it. That is one reason some senators such as
> Dole think he's hard to work with. He does have the
> "suave" down, though, at least in a crowd.
>
> He also seems to possibly understand numbers, and Trump
> might not, considering that many are saying his budget
> plans aren't even close to adding up. That worries me.
>
> Rubio supporting Cruz might be the only way to stop
> Trump, and yet do we want someone who might shut down the
> gov't like that...
>
> C.
>
>
Just wondering if you know what "government shutdown"
> Trump, and yet do we want someone who might shut down the
> gov't like that...
>
> C.
>
>
actually means, or if you think it really means a complete
shutdown of all government activity.
Frank Berger
Mar 5, 2016, 7:53:56 PM3/5/16
to
graham
Mar 5, 2016, 9:19:29 PM3/5/16
to
On 05/03/2016 2:52 PM, laraine wrote:
>
> I looked up the details, at least as described for 'Ted Cruz'
> in wikipedia, and he helped to achieve the partial shutdown
> of the gov't in 2013, in an effort to defund Obamacare. Serious,
> but perhaps not the end of the world, I guess.
>
> C.
>
The Birther Movement is strangely quiet:-)
>
> I looked up the details, at least as described for 'Ted Cruz'
> in wikipedia, and he helped to achieve the partial shutdown
> of the gov't in 2013, in an effort to defund Obamacare. Serious,
> but perhaps not the end of the world, I guess.
>
> C.
>
Graham
Herman
Mar 5, 2016, 9:44:28 PM3/5/16
to
On Saturday, March 5, 2016 at 11:27:27 PM UTC+1, laraine wrote:
>
> Oops... I almost forgot the 'carpetbombing', definitely a sinister idea.
> And Cruz doesn't want deported immigrants to have a chance to come back.
>
> I almost like the way Trump 'flexibly' softened his position, with
> respect to such issues.
>
> C.
No matter how long you look or listen to the GOp candidates' policy propositions, they are not going to make any sense. They are fundamentally unserious. It's not about policy or governance; it's a reality show, striving for the lowest denominator.
>
> Oops... I almost forgot the 'carpetbombing', definitely a sinister idea.
> And Cruz doesn't want deported immigrants to have a chance to come back.
>
> I almost like the way Trump 'flexibly' softened his position, with
> respect to such issues.
>
> C.
Try and compare with the way the Dem. candidates discuss their policy plans and you'll see a world of difference. These folks do not consider the election debates as a way to position themselves for crazy book tours or tv jobs, but as a way to talk about the way the US needs to be run.
Herman
Mar 5, 2016, 9:59:13 PM3/5/16
to
On Saturday, March 5, 2016 at 10:26:35 PM UTC+1, laraine wrote:
>
> He also seems to possibly understand numbers, and Trump might not,
> considering that many are saying his budget plans aren't even close
> to adding up. That worries me.
>
Cruz's tax plans make no sense whatsoever.
>
> He also seems to possibly understand numbers, and Trump might not,
> considering that many are saying his budget plans aren't even close
> to adding up. That worries me.
>
The irony is that if you're looking for a more or less moderate conservative your best options are Kasich or Clinton, who's more or less where a pre-Reagan Republican would be at. The whole spectrum has radicalized so crazily to the right.
gggg...@gmail.com
Mar 6, 2016, 1:42:11 AM3/6/16
to
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/humanities.classics/6NLgFF_zjKk
gggg...@gmail.com
Mar 6, 2016, 1:50:51 AM3/6/16
to
On Saturday, March 5, 2016 at 6:55:49 AM UTC-10, JohnGavin wrote:
- A population weakened and exhausted by battling against so many obstacles--whose needs are never satisfied and desires never fulfilled--is vulnerable to manipulation and regimentation. The struggle for survival is, above all, an exercise that is hugely time-consuming, absorbing and debilitating. If you create these "anti-conditions", your rule is guaranteed for a hundred years.
Ryszard Kapuscins
dk
Mar 6, 2016, 2:06:01 AM3/6/16
to
On Monday, February 29, 2016 at 2:07:19 PM UTC-8, gggg...@gmail.com wrote:
> ...Does the classical music world need to start worrying?
Didn't he say he wanted to shut down the internet? ;-)
Isn't this the clearest evidence he is different
from Al Gore? ;-)
dk
> ...Does the classical music world need to start worrying?
Didn't he say he wanted to shut down the internet? ;-)
Isn't this the clearest evidence he is different
from Al Gore? ;-)
dk
dk
Mar 6, 2016, 2:09:49 AM3/6/16
to
On Wednesday, March 2, 2016 at 6:05:14 AM UTC-8, O wrote:
> In article <baacb86d-30a7-4627...@googlegroups.com>,
> Herman <her...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > On Tuesday, March 1, 2016 at 2:50:15 PM UTC+1, O wrote:
> >
> > > With Trump and Sanders, you at least know
> > > what you're getting when you vote for them.
> >
> > That's what they're telling you. However, both make outrageous promises that
> > no one can fulfill. A giant wall; deporting millions of illegals? Beat Isis,
> > and take all the oil? Impossible. Free tuition? Persuade
> > Congress to subdue Wall St? Impossible.
>
> As opposed to lesser politicians who promise us less but don't fulfill
> that either? As opposed to the same politicians we've had the last 4
> decades? How well has that worked out?
The saddest thing about our nation is
that we have not had a real president
since Dwight Eisenhower.
dk
> In article <baacb86d-30a7-4627...@googlegroups.com>,
> Herman <her...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > On Tuesday, March 1, 2016 at 2:50:15 PM UTC+1, O wrote:
> >
> > > With Trump and Sanders, you at least know
> > > what you're getting when you vote for them.
> >
> > That's what they're telling you. However, both make outrageous promises that
> > no one can fulfill. A giant wall; deporting millions of illegals? Beat Isis,
> > and take all the oil? Impossible. Free tuition? Persuade
> > Congress to subdue Wall St? Impossible.
>
> As opposed to lesser politicians who promise us less but don't fulfill
> that either? As opposed to the same politicians we've had the last 4
> decades? How well has that worked out?
The saddest thing about our nation is
that we have not had a real president
since Dwight Eisenhower.
dk
gggg...@gmail.com
Mar 6, 2016, 3:20:05 AM3/6/16
to
On Wednesday, March 2, 2016 at 4:05:14 AM UTC-10, O wrote:
> In article <>,
Gore Vidal
> In article <>,
> Herman <> wrote:
>
> > On Tuesday, March 1, 2016 at 2:50:15 PM UTC+1, O wrote:
> >
> > > With Trump and Sanders, you at least know
> > > what you're getting when you vote for them.
> >
> > That's what they're telling you. However, both make outrageous promises that
> > no one can fulfill. A giant wall; deporting millions of illegals? Beat Isis,
> > and take all the oil? Impossible. Free tuition? Persuade Congress to subdue
> > Wall St? Impossible.
>
> As opposed to lesser politicians who promise us less but don't fulfill
> that either? As opposed to the same politicians we've had the last 4
> decades? How well has that worked out?
- As societies grow decadent, the language grows decadent, too. Words are used to disguise, not to illuminate, action: you liberate a city by destroying it. Words are to confuse, so that at election time people will solemnly vote against their own interests.
>
> > On Tuesday, March 1, 2016 at 2:50:15 PM UTC+1, O wrote:
> >
> > > With Trump and Sanders, you at least know
> > > what you're getting when you vote for them.
> >
> > That's what they're telling you. However, both make outrageous promises that
> > no one can fulfill. A giant wall; deporting millions of illegals? Beat Isis,
> > and take all the oil? Impossible. Free tuition? Persuade Congress to subdue
> > Wall St? Impossible.
>
> As opposed to lesser politicians who promise us less but don't fulfill
> that either? As opposed to the same politicians we've had the last 4
> decades? How well has that worked out?
Gore Vidal
It is loading more messages.
0 new messages