Re: Richard Branson "disturbed and saddened" after meeting with Trump

[abelard]

On Sun, 23 Oct 2016 01:06:12 +0100, "James Harris"
<james.h...@gmail.com> wrote:

>
>"abelard" <abel...@abelard.org> wrote in message
>news:nfsn0c1a5g64h4es8...@4ax.com...
>> On Sun, 23 Oct 2016 00:01:02 +0100, "James Harris"
>> <james.h...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>"Basil Jet" <ba...@spamspamspam.com> wrote in message
>>>news:nugmjn$f9e$1...@dont-email.me...
>>>> On 2016\10\22 22:29, James Harris wrote:
>>>>> On 22/10/2016 16:52, foxit wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> ...
>>>>>
>>>>>> ""What concerns me most, based upon my personal experience with
>>>>>> Donald
>>>>>> Trump, is his vindictive streak, which could be so dangerous if he
>>>>>> got
>>>>>> into the White House. For somebody who is running to be the leader
>>>>>> of the
>>>>>> free world to be wrapped up in himself, rather than concerned with
>>>>>> global
>>>>>> issues, is very worrying."
>>>>>
>>>>> Trump is self absorbed, thin skinned and narcissistic.
>>>>
>>>> Are you suggesting Hillary isn't?
>>>
>>>Well, I sat down to watch the first TV debate with an open mind but
>>>basically favouring Trump for a few reasons (I had heard he would
>>>shake
>>>up the US system, his comments on a UK trade deal were more positive,
>>>and I have long thought that the US very much needs a right-wing
>>>leader
>>>for a change). But what I saw during that debate was a man with
>>>serious
>>>character flaws. And his performance that day was not a one off. The
>>>two
>>>subsequent debates have not changed my view.
>>>
>>>As much as I still believe that the US (and the world) needs a change
>>>from the Democrats, Trump is not it. ISTM his character flaws make him
>>>unsuitable for the role.
>>
>> you can do better than that...list these alleged 'character flaws'
>> and support them with some pretence at data...
>
>I saw in the first debate that he repeatedly failed to stick to the
>question asked. Seemed to be rambling, just saying anything to keep
>talking or because he lost concentration. His answer multiple times was:
>"I'll bomb ISIL" even when the question was about something else
>entirely. Suggests a dead cat approach or limited mental capacity or
>lack of planning.

without detailed analysis...yes, he was probably out of his depth...

he wasn't a politician giving stereotyped non-responsive responses

>When attacked he takes it personally. Starts to bluster. Fails to
>answer. For example, the third debate began really well for both of
>them, I thought - each made clear statements about policies - but at
>about 15 minutes in he seemed to take umbridge against a question and
>his thought processes began to fall apart.

imv he tore 'Liary apart in the third debate...he was almost all
substance and she was almost all dodge and distract...

1)that looks like fast learning to me...
2)i think he is far brighter than conventional people believe
or understand...
he's game playing (in a technical sense)...in a crude sense
he's trying to win a game show

>He repeatedly overclaims: "No one has more respect for women than me."

the vast mass of the electorate function on an emotional level...
the women around him appear to respect him...his children
are highly functional...

it is of the nature of 'i'm married to the best woman on the planet'
or 'my children are wonderful'...or even 'everybody loved him and
he was a promising footballer'....nobody sane takes such comments
to be scientifically objective!

>"I will make it beautiful." "I will make them pay." And didn't he
>promise to publish his tax returns if he ran for President? But then in
>the first debate changed the condition: "I'll publish my tax returns
>_if_ Hillary publishes her emails" and we've also had "I'll publish my
>tax returns once they have been audited" So far, nothing. I don't
>believe his tax returns for the past many years are all being audited.
>He comes across as a liar. And he seems to have something to hide.

why give dishonest socialists a fake issue...

he probably pays very little taxes in a perfectly legal manner...
liars like 'Liary will go on about 'not paying his share' in a
totally dishonest manner

>Hillary Clinton was challenged too but dealt with it quite differently.
>When asked about her famous email server she held her hands up and said
>she had got it wrong and wouldn't do the same again. That defused the
>issue. I remember Trump, by contrast, taking umbridge at any criticism.
>Too thin skinned. Can't accept that he is not perfect, perhaps?

you are far too naive on media...'Liary knew full well she was
breaking the law....she was lecturing others at the time on
computer security
her server was to hide her activity and behaviour

she can't remember indeed...a basic ploy of criminals in court

>He seems to suffer from paranoia and live in a personal fantasy world
>where everyone likes him and he is wonderful. Anyone who doesn't agree
>with him is obviously wrong or biassed. For example, he keeps saying
>that the debate polls all put him ahead even when we could see for
>ourselves polls saying that Clinton won. He seems to argue that black is
>white because he wants it to be white.

you trust polls too?!

of course he tells the masses that he is wonderful...most every
person seeking office does that!

>Stuff like that.

looks more like the sort of stuff the fossil media reptiles pump
out every day...

>BTW, he reminds me a bit of the Prime Minister in a comedy (called,
>IIRC. Whoops Apocalypse) who said that if the Soviets attacked with
>nuclear bombs it wasn't a problem because he would simply push the
>country out of the way. Of course that's for comedic purposes but Trump
>keeps saying he'll make things wonderful and I don't see any evidence
>that that is anything but bravado or part of the fantasy world that goes
>on inside his head.

i haven't seen your fictional film..and i doubt it is relevant...

he is running somewhere near par with 'Liary despite a deluge of
anti propaganda...that alone should tell you something...

i have no useful way of knowing what goes on in another person's
head

do you understand what cameron and osborne did to start on
the long path to rebuilding the uk after 15 years of socialism?

o'barmy and 'Liary have run up $10 trillion(doubling) of debt...
do you understand what is necessary to stop that chaos?

watch the innumerates and lead swingers whining daily in britain

work it out for yourself!


--
www.abelard.org

[James Harris]

On 23/10/2016 10:19, abelard wrote:
> On Sun, 23 Oct 2016 01:06:12 +0100, "James Harris"
> <james.h...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> "abelard" <abel...@abelard.org> wrote in message
>> news:nfsn0c1a5g64h4es8...@4ax.com...

...

>>> you can do better than that...list these alleged 'character flaws'
>>> and support them with some pretence at data...
>>
>> I saw in the first debate that he repeatedly failed to stick to the
>> question asked. Seemed to be rambling, just saying anything to keep
>> talking or because he lost concentration. His answer multiple times was:
>> "I'll bomb ISIL" even when the question was about something else
>> entirely. Suggests a dead cat approach or limited mental capacity or
>> lack of planning.
>
> without detailed analysis...yes, he was probably out of his depth...
>
> he wasn't a politician giving stereotyped non-responsive responses
>
>> When attacked he takes it personally. Starts to bluster. Fails to
>> answer. For example, the third debate began really well for both of
>> them, I thought - each made clear statements about policies - but at
>> about 15 minutes in he seemed to take umbridge against a question and
>> his thought processes began to fall apart.
>
> imv he tore 'Liary apart in the third debate...he was almost all
> substance and she was almost all dodge and distract...

Don't get me wrong. I thought that he generally had the best policies. I
really don't like a lot of what Clinton would do. Some of the things
Trump said were far better. It is just that Trump seems to be by far the
most flawed choice, the bigger danger to the USA and to the world.

> 1)that looks like fast learning to me...
> 2)i think he is far brighter than conventional people believe
> or understand...
> he's game playing (in a technical sense)...in a crude sense
> he's trying to win a game show
>
>> He repeatedly overclaims: "No one has more respect for women than me."
>
> the vast mass of the electorate function on an emotional level...
> the women around him appear to respect him...his children
> are highly functional...
>
> it is of the nature of 'i'm married to the best woman on the planet'
> or 'my children are wonderful'...or even 'everybody loved him and
> he was a promising footballer'....nobody sane takes such comments
> to be scientifically objective!

That is maybe true but it is similar to his comments about carpet
bombing (a war crime) and building a wall (that Mexico will pay for). If
we cannot take those comments seriously then who knows what can we believe.

>> "I will make it beautiful." "I will make them pay." And didn't he
>> promise to publish his tax returns if he ran for President? But then in
>> the first debate changed the condition: "I'll publish my tax returns
>> _if_ Hillary publishes her emails" and we've also had "I'll publish my
>> tax returns once they have been audited" So far, nothing. I don't
>> believe his tax returns for the past many years are all being audited.
>> He comes across as a liar. And he seems to have something to hide.
>
> why give dishonest socialists a fake issue...
>
> he probably pays very little taxes in a perfectly legal manner...
> liars like 'Liary will go on about 'not paying his share' in a
> totally dishonest manner
>
>> Hillary Clinton was challenged too but dealt with it quite differently.
>> When asked about her famous email server she held her hands up and said
>> she had got it wrong and wouldn't do the same again. That defused the
>> issue. I remember Trump, by contrast, taking umbridge at any criticism.
>> Too thin skinned. Can't accept that he is not perfect, perhaps?
>
> you are far too naive on media...

Well, my views on Trump and Clinton are based on what I heard in the
debates, rather than the media, albeit that I am projecting character
assessments based on seeing just a few hours of their performances.

> 'Liary knew full well she was
> breaking the law....she was lecturing others at the time on
> computer security
> her server was to hide her activity and behaviour
>
> she can't remember indeed...a basic ploy of criminals in court
>
>> He seems to suffer from paranoia and live in a personal fantasy world
>> where everyone likes him and he is wonderful. Anyone who doesn't agree
>> with him is obviously wrong or biassed. For example, he keeps saying
>> that the debate polls all put him ahead even when we could see for
>> ourselves polls saying that Clinton won. He seems to argue that black is
>> white because he wants it to be white.
>
> you trust polls too?!

No. And that's not the point. The point is that Trump appears to believe
things which are demonstrably untrue. Hence, he is a fantasist.

> of course he tells the masses that he is wonderful...most every
> person seeking office does that!

True. So do some children. But you wouldn't want a child to be US
President.

In fact, ISTM Trump is a bit like a spoiled child - used to getting his
own way, perhaps used to being surrounded by people who nourish his ego,
taking offence at criticism, expecting that what he says will be done, etc.

>> Stuff like that.
>
> looks more like the sort of stuff the fossil media reptiles pump
> out every day...
>
>> BTW, he reminds me a bit of the Prime Minister in a comedy (called,
>> IIRC. Whoops Apocalypse) who said that if the Soviets attacked with
>> nuclear bombs it wasn't a problem because he would simply push the
>> country out of the way. Of course that's for comedic purposes but Trump
>> keeps saying he'll make things wonderful and I don't see any evidence
>> that that is anything but bravado or part of the fantasy world that goes
>> on inside his head.
>
> i haven't seen your fictional film..and i doubt it is relevant...

It was a TV series. But that doesn't matter.

> he is running somewhere near par with 'Liary despite a deluge of
> anti propaganda...that alone should tell you something...

Oh, I don't know. There is a "deluge" of propaganda against Clinton too.
I've seen some of it and it is generally ridiculous.

For example, on the Benghazi snipers she completely overexaggerated but
I can accept that she remembered it as more dangerous than it was. That
could be a normal human and emotional reaction to fear and excitement.

Another was her opponents pointing out that she had a box under her
dress and a wire going up her back. They said she was being fed the
answers. LOL! They omitted to mention that both she and Trump were
wearing radio mics.

> i have no useful way of knowing what goes on in another person's
> head
>
> do you understand what cameron and osborne did to start on
> the long path to rebuilding the uk after 15 years of socialism?
>
> o'barmy and 'Liary have run up $10 trillion(doubling) of debt...
> do you understand what is necessary to stop that chaos?

As I've said, I very much feel that America needs a right winger now.
But from what I've seen, Trump cannot be recommended. Clinton has known
bad points. Trump has too many unknowns, too many indications of flaws,
and carries too large a risk for that job, IMO.

I regret that they will have to wait another four years. It might be a
good opportunity for the Republicans to do some soul searching and fix
the problems they have - and have had for some years - within their
movement. Defeat now may help them come back stronger, and more fit for
power.

--
James Harris

[abelard]

they'd shoot him if he got out of hand...this isn't england you
know :-)

>> you are far too naive on media...
>
>Well, my views on Trump and Clinton are based on what I heard in the
>debates, rather than the media, albeit that I am projecting character
>assessments based on seeing just a few hours of their performances.

imv you will have to get better at that!

>> 'Liary knew full well she was
>> breaking the law....she was lecturing others at the time on
>> computer security
>> her server was to hide her activity and behaviour
>>
>> she can't remember indeed...a basic ploy of criminals in court
>>
>>> He seems to suffer from paranoia and live in a personal fantasy world
>>> where everyone likes him and he is wonderful. Anyone who doesn't agree
>>> with him is obviously wrong or biassed. For example, he keeps saying
>>> that the debate polls all put him ahead even when we could see for
>>> ourselves polls saying that Clinton won. He seems to argue that black is
>>> white because he wants it to be white.
>>
>> you trust polls too?!
>
>No. And that's not the point. The point is that Trump appears to believe
>things which are demonstrably untrue. Hence, he is a fantasist.

so does every socialist politician

he hasn't been running the known universe...he's only been
running a profitable company...
some of the 'rules' are different...imv he is a fast study

>> of course he tells the masses that he is wonderful...most every
>> person seeking office does that!
>
>True. So do some children. But you wouldn't want a child to be US
>President.

you've had one for 8 years...and the sad old world spins ever on

>In fact, ISTM Trump is a bit like a spoiled child - used to getting his
>own way, perhaps used to being surrounded by people who nourish his ego,
>taking offence at criticism, expecting that what he says will be done, etc.

happens to almost every leader

>>> Stuff like that.
>>
>> looks more like the sort of stuff the fossil media reptiles pump
>> out every day...
>>
>>> BTW, he reminds me a bit of the Prime Minister in a comedy (called,
>>> IIRC. Whoops Apocalypse) who said that if the Soviets attacked with
>>> nuclear bombs it wasn't a problem because he would simply push the
>>> country out of the way. Of course that's for comedic purposes but Trump
>>> keeps saying he'll make things wonderful and I don't see any evidence
>>> that that is anything but bravado or part of the fantasy world that goes
>>> on inside his head.
>>
>> i haven't seen your fictional film..and i doubt it is relevant...
>
>It was a TV series. But that doesn't matter.

agreed

>> he is running somewhere near par with 'Liary despite a deluge of
>> anti propaganda...that alone should tell you something...
>
>Oh, I don't know. There is a "deluge" of propaganda against Clinton too.
>I've seen some of it and it is generally ridiculous.
>
>For example, on the Benghazi snipers she completely overexaggerated but
>I can accept that she remembered it as more dangerous than it was. That
>could be a normal human and emotional reaction to fear and excitement.
>
>Another was her opponents pointing out that she had a box under her
>dress and a wire going up her back. They said she was being fed the
>answers. LOL! They omitted to mention that both she and Trump were
>wearing radio mics.

*what* *difference* *does* *it* *matter*...that i got some people
killed because i'm a lazy irresponsible mediocrity?

>> i have no useful way of knowing what goes on in another person's
>> head
>>
>> do you understand what cameron and osborne did to start on
>> the long path to rebuilding the uk after 15 years of socialism?
>>
>> o'barmy and 'Liary have run up $10 trillion(doubling) of debt...
>> do you understand what is necessary to stop that chaos?
>
>As I've said, I very much feel that America needs a right winger now.
>But from what I've seen, Trump cannot be recommended. Clinton has known
>bad points. Trump has too many unknowns, too many indications of flaws,
>and carries too large a risk for that job, IMO.

c'mon...have some courage...jump out of the frying pan!

>I regret that they will have to wait another four years. It might be a
>good opportunity for the Republicans to do some soul searching and fix
>the problems they have - and have had for some years - within their
>movement. Defeat now may help them come back stronger, and more fit for
>power.

more like they will return to their losing ways and believe
they've survived the storm...
and therefore return to complacent lazy mindedness...

throw over the table and trust in the lord!!




--
www.abelard.org

[Osmium]

"abelard" wrote:

> he probably pays very little taxes in a perfectly legal manner...
> liars like 'Liary will go on about 'not paying his share' in a
> totally dishonest manner

Hillary said she will increase Social Security tax so an increased tax on
her and him 'if he can't get around it" - paraphrased.

As far as I know, neither one of them has a job, so they don't even *pay* SS
tax.

[abelard]

On Sun, 23 Oct 2016 09:22:36 -0500, "Osmium" <r124c...@comcast.net>
wrote:

his businesses of course pay it along with the wages of thousands...

and other various taxes



--
www.abelard.org

[James Harris]

On 23/10/2016 15:15, abelard wrote:
> On Sun, 23 Oct 2016 14:54:46 +0100, James Harris
> <james.h...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On 23/10/2016 10:19, abelard wrote:

...

>> The point is that Trump appears to believe
>> things which are demonstrably untrue. Hence, he is a fantasist.
>
> so does every socialist politician
>
> he hasn't been running the known universe...he's only been
> running a profitable company...

Has he? Isn't it true that a number of his companies have folded, and
that he has taken bankruptcy four times, and that he lost so much one
year that we know of that he could write off tax for over a decade
thereafter?

Lehman Brothers were "a profitable company" at one point.

...

>>> he is running somewhere near par with 'Liary despite a deluge of
>>> anti propaganda...that alone should tell you something...
>>
>> Oh, I don't know. There is a "deluge" of propaganda against Clinton too.
>> I've seen some of it and it is generally ridiculous.
>>
>> For example, on the Benghazi snipers she completely overexaggerated but
>> I can accept that she remembered it as more dangerous than it was. That
>> could be a normal human and emotional reaction to fear and excitement.
>>
>> Another was her opponents pointing out that she had a box under her
>> dress and a wire going up her back. They said she was being fed the
>> answers. LOL! They omitted to mention that both she and Trump were
>> wearing radio mics.
>
> *what* *difference* *does* *it* *matter*...that i got some people
> killed because i'm a lazy irresponsible mediocrity?

I don't expect politicians to be perfect. They will all make mistakes.
Clinton has been in the system for 30 years. How could she not make a
number of errors in three decades?

I am not excusing her. But I am pointing out that she has been under
scrutiny for much of her life. In all that time Trump's real activities
have largely been hidden.

>>> i have no useful way of knowing what goes on in another person's
>>> head
>>>
>>> do you understand what cameron and osborne did to start on
>>> the long path to rebuilding the uk after 15 years of socialism?
>>>
>>> o'barmy and 'Liary have run up $10 trillion(doubling) of debt...
>>> do you understand what is necessary to stop that chaos?
>>
>> As I've said, I very much feel that America needs a right winger now.
>> But from what I've seen, Trump cannot be recommended. Clinton has known
>> bad points. Trump has too many unknowns, too many indications of flaws,
>> and carries too large a risk for that job, IMO.
>
> c'mon...have some courage...jump out of the frying pan!

If he does win it will be "interesting" to see how the next four years
turn out. You may live to regret your support for him.

--
James Harris

[abelard]

On Sun, 23 Oct 2016 16:52:04 +0100, James Harris

<james.h...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On 23/10/2016 15:15, abelard wrote:
>> On Sun, 23 Oct 2016 14:54:46 +0100, James Harris
>> <james.h...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On 23/10/2016 10:19, abelard wrote:
>
>...
>
>>> The point is that Trump appears to believe
>>> things which are demonstrably untrue. Hence, he is a fantasist.
>>
>> so does every socialist politician
>>
>> he hasn't been running the known universe...he's only been
>> running a profitable company...
>
>Has he? Isn't it true that a number of his companies have folded, and
>that he has taken bankruptcy four times, and that he lost so much one
>year that we know of that he could write off tax for over a decade
>thereafter?
>
>Lehman Brothers were "a profitable company" at one point.

trump still is...

a standard business practice is to set up various companies
handling different parts of the empire...
if one gets in trouble, you declare it bankrupt and ditch the
problem...this practice is very widespread

in the usa there is also chapter 11....which isn't bankruptcy...
it just shields you against your debts until you can rearrange
your affairs...
people often confuse(or deliberately) confuse that with
bankruptcy...

there is an american expression...'if you haven't gone bankrupt
at least 3 times you have no business experience'

>> *what* *difference* *does* *it* *matter*...that i got some people
>> killed because i'm a lazy irresponsible mediocrity?
>
>I don't expect politicians to be perfect. They will all make mistakes.
>Clinton has been in the system for 30 years. How could she not make a
>number of errors in three decades?
>
>I am not excusing her. But I am pointing out that she has been under
>scrutiny for much of her life.

and has been followed by scandals all that time...

i don't think 'Liary's problems are 'mistakes' i believes she is
highly corrupt

>In all that time Trump's real activities
>have largely been hidden.

there are many books on his activities and they are reported
regularly in the business press

>>>> i have no useful way of knowing what goes on in another person's
>>>> head
>>>>
>>>> do you understand what cameron and osborne did to start on
>>>> the long path to rebuilding the uk after 15 years of socialism?
>>>>
>>>> o'barmy and 'Liary have run up $10 trillion(doubling) of debt...
>>>> do you understand what is necessary to stop that chaos?
>>>
>>> As I've said, I very much feel that America needs a right winger now.
>>> But from what I've seen, Trump cannot be recommended. Clinton has known
>>> bad points. Trump has too many unknowns, too many indications of flaws,
>>> and carries too large a risk for that job, IMO.
>>
>> c'mon...have some courage...jump out of the frying pan!
>
>If he does win it will be "interesting" to see how the next four years
>turn out. You may live to regret your support for him.

life is a tale of regrets...if you think that way!

get on and enjoy the ride...all you can hope for is to do the
best you can

je ne regrette rien

without adventurers you'd still live in caves...
without the home makers we'd starve...



--
www.abelard.org

[James Hammerton]

On 23/10/2016 10:19, abelard wrote:

Haven't they steadily reduced the US deficit during the Obama years?

The UK's debt has increased throughout the Cameron/Osborne years, but
the deficit steadily declined and you praise them for that.

What's the difference with the US situation?

Regards,

James

--
James Hammerton,
http://jhammerton.wordpress.org/
http://www.magnacartaplus.org/news/
Follow on twitter: @JamesAHammerton

[Osmium]

She was referring to them as *individuals*.
What company employs Hillary Clinton?
What company employs Donald Trump?

[abelard]

On Sun, 23 Oct 2016 11:48:36 -0500, "Osmium" <r124c...@comcast.net>

'Liary's life is taking taxes from others...

trump's life is generating wealth...

'Liary's life is about trying to grab from that wealth...

there is no symmetry or analogy



--
www.abelard.org

[abelard]

i don't have the figures to hand to do the necessary calculations

i will assert that i have very little sympathy for socialists let
alone 'Liary and o'barmy as they have done so much damage
elsewhere

so i think you may have an uphill struggle!
money is far from everything



--
www.abelard.org

[First-Post]

On Sun, 23 Oct 2016 11:48:36 -0500, "Osmium" <r124c...@comcast.net>

Why would you want someone with the wealth of either to be able to
collect SSI when they have more for their retirement already than SSI
could ever pay them?
If they aren't ever going to need or collect SSI then there is no
reason for them to pay into it.

BTW, there are a ton of individuals out there who play by the same
rules and are not multi millionaires. Most are just independent
contractors that are self employed.

And you let the real point just fly right past you. If Hillary wins
and actually does increase the SSI tax so she can "make the wealthy
pay more of their fair share", then 9 chances out of 10 will mean that
the regular working class folks that are having a hard time already
will be the ones that actually have to support that burden.
Remember when her husband played that little game regarding tax
increases on the wealthy when president?
It ended up with the bottom half of the population having to pay more
in income taxes than anyone else. The wealthy just kept jumping
through those loopholes that Clinton conveniently left in.

[James Hammerton]

On 23/10/2016 18:28, abelard wrote:
> On Sun, 23 Oct 2016 17:46:26 +0100, James Hammerton
> <jamesha...@virginmedia.com> wrote:
>
>> On 23/10/2016 10:19, abelard wrote:
>>> On Sun, 23 Oct 2016 01:06:12 +0100, "James Harris"
>>> <james.h...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> "abelard" <abel...@abelard.org> wrote in message
>>>> news:nfsn0c1a5g64h4es8...@4ax.com...
>>>>> On Sun, 23 Oct 2016 00:01:02 +0100, "James Harris"
>>>>> <james.h...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "Basil Jet" <ba...@spamspamspam.com> wrote in message
>>>>>> news:nugmjn$f9e$1...@dont-email.me...
>>>>>>> On 2016\10\22 22:29, James Harris wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 22/10/2016 16:52, foxit wrote:

[snip]

>>> do you understand what cameron and osborne did to start on
>>> the long path to rebuilding the uk after 15 years of socialism?
>>>
>>> o'barmy and 'Liary have run up $10 trillion(doubling) of debt...
>>> do you understand what is necessary to stop that chaos?
>>
>> Haven't they steadily reduced the US deficit during the Obama years?
>>
>> The UK's debt has increased throughout the Cameron/Osborne years, but
>> the deficit steadily declined and you praise them for that.
>>
>> What's the difference with the US situation?
>
> i don't have the figures to hand to do the necessary calculations
>
> i will assert that i have very little sympathy for socialists let
> alone 'Liary and o'barmy as they have done so much damage
> elsewhere

You mentioned them running up $10 trillion of debt as an illustration of
"chaos" and wondered how to stop such chaos.

However ISTM equally you could accuse the Cameron governments of running
up a large amount of debt, which they did... yet you praise the Cameron
governments on their handling of the debt & defict.

In both cases the governments inherited a large deficit as fallout from
the 2008/2009 crash, in both cases there has been a steady reduction of
the deficit they inherited.

E.g for the US case, here are the figures for the deficit in nominal terms:

http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/federal_deficit_chart.html

...and as a %age of GDP:

http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/federal_deficit_percent_gdp

Note the decline from 2009 to 2015, I grant there's been an increase
reported for the 2016 estimate, but it is still a lot lower than 2009.

>
> so i think you may have an uphill struggle!
> money is far from everything

If you're saying that Obama and Hillary have been causing chaos in other
areas of policy then fine, but you specifically listed the debt as an
example of the chaos and here ISTM on the face it that the debt/deficit
situation is similar to that experienced in the UK under Cameron.

Regards

[First-Post]

On Sun, 23 Oct 2016 19:28:01 +0200, abelard <abel...@abelard.org>

Reducing the deficit just means that the government isn't spending as
much over budget. The budget that is set by the same government.
For many years congress has been playing the game of approving a
phenomenally large budget and then bragging that they have decreased
the deficit even though they continue to keep borrowing and spending
beyond the nation's means.
In the last two sessions congress approved budgets greater than ever
before in history so they could make it seem like they were decreasing
the deficit. And the end result is that we now owe more money to
other countries than we have in our entire monetary system.

In a nutshell, the deficit is a virtual term in the context that
congress and the pundits use it. It really means pretty much nothing
since they can always do their fuzzy bookkeeping to make it look like
whatever they want. Approve a trillion dollar budget and only spend
999 billion and you can brag that you have a surplus when there really
isn't one. The same damned game that Bill Clinton played with his
imaginary surplus back in the 90s.

If any president ever succeeds in actually reducing the national debt
instead of feeding us all lies about false surpluses, then and only
then can it be considered a real accomplishment.

[abelard]

On Sun, 23 Oct 2016 18:49:48 +0100, James Hammerton

a doubling in 8 years...

as another poster keeps repeating...you can's stop it without
either increasing tax or cutting expenditure...

it's obvious what the two candidates want...

>However ISTM equally you could accuse the Cameron governments of running
>up a large amount of debt, which they did... yet you praise the Cameron
>governments on their handling of the debt & defict.

the real debt is dropping in the uk

>In both cases the governments inherited a large deficit as fallout from
>the 2008/2009 crash, in both cases there has been a steady reduction of
>the deficit they inherited.

clinton one introduced laws which forced banks to take on
crap debts...
the clown knighted people who ignored risk management

>E.g for the US case, here are the figures for the deficit in nominal terms:
>
>http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/federal_deficit_chart.html
>
>...and as a %age of GDP:
>
>http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/federal_deficit_percent_gdp
>
>Note the decline from 2009 to 2015, I grant there's been an increase
>reported for the 2016 estimate, but it is still a lot lower than 2009.

thanx for digging that out

i'll focus on this chart...
http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/include/usgs_chartDp31f.png

yes, it looks like better control...of course the states and cities
also have much more power to run up debts...thus the data is
hard to assess...
many entitlements are moving towards unsustainability

imv they should never have digged the pit in the first place

>> so i think you may have an uphill struggle!
>> money is far from everything
>
>If you're saying that Obama and Hillary have been causing chaos in other
>areas of policy then fine, but you specifically listed the debt as an
>example of the chaos and here ISTM on the face it that the debt/deficit
>situation is similar to that experienced in the UK under Cameron.

cameron and osborne were not spreading chaos is every direction...
they have been kerbing the chaos....

i'm not nearly as cribbed up on american figures, so i have more to
truth their very dubious fossil media...

i'm told by that route that they've vastly increased the food stamp
hand outs(dependency) to about 50 million(~1/6th of the
population)
that unemployment is bad(that the figures are crap)

i do have direct contacts with people milking the dole in the usa
and it looks just as bad as fascist 'new' labour britain...

i'm very happy for you to add to or correct my beliefs/knowledge...

remember, i only look at this stuff to understand the mechanisms
and macroeconomics...

and i repeat

>> i will assert that i have very little sympathy for socialists let
>> alone 'Liary and o'barmy as they have done so much damage
>> elsewhere

if americans vote for them, much of that is not my problem...
until it intrudes on the uk...
the uk caused most of its own problems re the usa financial damage,
by foolishly buying/trading and gambling in american
sub prime paper...which they most clearly did not understand
as did several other eussr government banking systems...

britain's mess was mostly made in britain

i can't much blame america for uk foolishness



--
www.abelard.org

[Osmium]

*The* point I was trying to make is that she has very little notion of the
*real* world. They are just words to her, with very little meaning. Donald
is even worse. As far as I know, *if* Donald has an employer, there is no
way he could avoid SS tax. The money goes directly from the employer to
some destination specified by the US government. If a company doesn't pay,
after a few years the government will detect this problem and lecture then
sternly. Donald Trump is *not* a company.

[abelard]

the us economy is around $17tr the debt is over $20tr...

and that is without state ana city debts...

os say over 100%

most of that will be owed to their own citizens...whom any
government can rip off all day long...

then of course there are all the pension and other 'promises'


like any socialist party, Liary and o'barmy are living off other
people's money and 'promises'

as the saying goes, there comes a time when socialist governments
run out of other people's money





--
www.abelard.org

[DoD]

"abelard" <abel...@abelard.org> wrote in message

news:9nnp0c5t05v3pra7i...@4ax.com...

What a first rate post, Abelard.

[James Harris]

On 23/10/2016 17:14, abelard wrote:
> On Sun, 23 Oct 2016 16:52:04 +0100, James Harris
> <james.h...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 23/10/2016 15:15, abelard wrote:
>>> On Sun, 23 Oct 2016 14:54:46 +0100, James Harris
>>> <james.h...@gmail.com> wrote:

...

>>>> As I've said, I very much feel that America needs a right winger now.
>>>> But from what I've seen, Trump cannot be recommended. Clinton has known
>>>> bad points. Trump has too many unknowns, too many indications of flaws,
>>>> and carries too large a risk for that job, IMO.
>>>
>>> c'mon...have some courage...jump out of the frying pan!
>>
>> If he does win it will be "interesting" to see how the next four years
>> turn out. You may live to regret your support for him.
>
> life is a tale of regrets...if you think that way!
>
> get on and enjoy the ride...all you can hope for is to do the
> best you can
>
> je ne regrette rien
>
> without adventurers you'd still live in caves...
> without the home makers we'd starve...

People are often keen to take a chance. There is a certain optimism in
the human animal. But, despite Edith's conclusion, some do end up
regretting it.

There are many examples in life of regretted decisions. There are even
many examples in this specific case, i.e. regretted leaders. Some
notorious ones from history spring to mind. Plus, AIUI, you weren't keen
on Tony Blair. Ask yourself whether you really don't regret any of the
bad leaders there have been!

--
James Harris

[abelard]

On Mon, 24 Oct 2016 00:26:02 +0100, James Harris

other people's acts are not my responsibility...

therefore it is not for me to regret them...only to be irritated
or discommoded by them

my job is to ensure that i make the best decisions and action
at any time that is within my power and ability...

when thence regret is a matter for idiots...



--
www.abelard.org

[abelard]

On Sun, 23 Oct 2016 20:23:43 -0500, super70s
<supe...@super70s.invalid> wrote:

>In article <9nnp0c5t05v3pra7i...@4ax.com>,

> abelard <abel...@abelard.org> wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 23 Oct 2016 16:52:04 +0100, James Harris
>> <james.h...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >Has he? Isn't it true that a number of his companies have folded, and
>> >that he has taken bankruptcy four times, and that he lost so much one
>> >year that we know of that he could write off tax for over a decade
>> >thereafter?
>>

>> there is an american expression...'if you haven't gone bankrupt
>> at least 3 times you have no business experience'
>

>Trying to rationalize 4 bankrupties involving hundreds of millions of
>dollars, huh. The only reason Citibank didn't hang him out to dry a long
>time ago is they thought he could be useful in selling off his
>distressed properties to some other sucker.
>
>He could just as easily have lost the shirt off his back and be scraping
>by right now collecting rent on a NYC rent-controlled building, instead
>of becoming the 21st century's answer to Joe McCarthy.

i can only be content that it is not you that has any power...

for you know nothing useful or relevant...


--
www.abelard.org

[abelard]

On Sun, 23 Oct 2016 15:58:11 -0500, "DoD" <danski...@gmail.com>
wrote:

>
>
>"abelard" <abel...@abelard.org> wrote in message

>> without adventurers you'd still live in caves...
>> without the home makers we'd starve...
>
>What a first rate post, Abelard.

thank you kind sir..


--
www.abelard.org

[Mr. B1ack]

Apparenty Sir Rich doesn't understand the difference
between campaign mode and regular mode in US
politics. May as well be parallel dimensions.