Donald The Progressive

[wellwisher]

Not undercover video: Donald Trump promises (ok, boasts) to keep America in suspense about whether he will accept the outcome of the general election.

Which pales in comparison to the above, of course, because of all the evidence that Trump rallies are entirely peaceful gatherings . . .

Trump answered that question properly. Had Trump said that he would accept the result if Hilary won, the media would have reported Trumps admits Hillary has won the election. He knows it is not about truth in media.

Trump could have pulled a Gore or Kerry and said he will accept the result and then sue afterwards. However, Democrats are never held up to their hypocrisy as are the Republicans, by the media. Trump told the truth, and did not lie like is expected in PC. As Hillary said, she has two opinions, one for the masses and one for the insiders. Trump knows how things are corrupt and two faced, and reserved the right, not to be two faced.

 

[sculptor]

there’s absolutely no evidence to support the statement that we’re the greatest country in the world. We’re 7th in literacy, 27th in math, 22nd in science, 49th in life expectancy, 178th in infant mortality, 3rd in median household income, Number 4 in labor force and Number 4 in exports. We lead the world in only three categories: Number of incarcerated citizens per capita, number of adults who believe angels are real, and defense spending. Where spend more than the next 26 countries combined, 25 of whom are allies.

 

[iceaura]

that are inefficient, cost way to much to run and cause way to much pollution to the environment. Sewer systems in the free-market, would be generating electricity, producing petrochemicals and other useful items.

Sewer systems in the free-market would be restricted to those who could pay for them, and wanted to. Since few of the benefits of a sewer system accrue to anyone unless almost everyone is hooked up, the costs increase substantially with lower percentages hooked up, and most people will be unable or unwilling to pay for a more costly system that provides almost no benefit to them, the free market will produce the nearest equilibrium - dumping everything into the nearest street, when it piles up guttering it into the nearest river. That is in fact what the free market produced, throughout human history, everywhere on the planet. So reality matches theory, as anyone would expect by now with such well-established theory.

Econ 101.

You see a sewer system, and you assume it's great - not noticiing the hundreds of years of lost opportunity, which simply never became a reality

There haven't been hundreds of years of lost opportunity in India, China, Brazil, Polynesia, Saudi Arabia, - - - - or Denver, Cheyenne, Missoula, Winnipeg, Houston, Tijuana, Juarez, Dubai;

is your contention that the people of Houston and Dubai and Mumbai are blind to the free-market potential of major industrial opportunities? Because all these billions of people are overlooking the same opportunities you say I am, opportunities that are right in front of them right now.

Our roads suck and kill tens of thousands of people each year due to poor quality. They also cost too much and there's too many of them. See, in a world where we didn't have GiverMint, we would NOT have all these roads.... AND GET THIS, our entire society, the way our cities, towns and farms are structured to how we interact with one another, would all be totally different. We'd probably live in much more sensible sustainable towns. Our environments would be better. Who knows, we may be nicer people.

You make a good point - we'd have been far better off without this private car, trucking firm, free market transportation bs abetted by government roads. But it's a democracy - people wanted to drive cars and stuff.

LOL! As you now know full and well, functional illiteracy is higher NOW compared to 100 years ago in many Black Communities.

Uh, no, your fantasy life does not extend back in time - only forwards. In the second place, the gains in black literacy between 1867 and 1917 were entirely in government schools - there was no teaching one's children to read in a home in which none of the adults can read.

'You're fifty years late - the big movement to private schools started in 1954, really caught on in the mid '60s."
Yes, and some of those schools were and are great schools. Other's are simply recreating a Government School - only for the rich and high IQ children

Yes, you were fifty years late. You have screwed up your history again. And that's part of the reason you compare the US schools with others and blame "the government" for the US school system's problems - you have overlooked the unusual influence of private schools on the US system, for a long time now.

Meanwhile: No, that's not what happened. The great schools stayed great most often because they imitated the great Government schools they fled, sometimes without leaving the building and keeping the same teachers, curriculum, everything. The lesser ones, and the private ones for the rich, often modified their pedagogy to fit a religion, or the needs of the wealthy - but mostly the rich kid's schools became great in that fashion.

You do know what the great movement toward private schools in the US in the '50s and 60s - especially certain parts of the US - was all about, right? Same thing it is now, essentially.

"The thing about the ad guys, though, is that they aren't fooling themselves."
They're selling a tired ole' WarHarpy Insider as something other than the 4 more years of the same ole' shit that she is. While selling Trump, actual change, as a scary meany who might have, maybe, once, one time, at a night club 2 decades ago, maybe grabbed a pussy.

So when you try to sell us Trump like that, are you fooling yourself or not?

 

[Carcano]

Trump answered that question properly. Had Trump said that he would accept the result if Hilary won, the media would have reported Trumps admits Hillary has won the election. He knows it is not about truth in media.

Trump could have pulled a Gore or Kerry and said he will accept the result and then sue afterwards. However, Democrats are never held up to their hypocrisy as are the Republicans, by the media.

 

[iceaura]

Obama was correct then. He is correct now. The early voting Obama encouraged, and things like the timely threat of lawsuit against the election riggers in Ohio, may very well have preserved the election from theft.

It's called reality - it has a liberal bias these days.

 

[sculptor]

Projection?
We(NSA, CIA,etc...) hack damned near every leader on the planet, so, of course, they must be doing it to us?

The washington establishment is growing ever more paranoid.

 

[Michael]

Sewer systems in the free-market would

LOL
Sorry, didn't know you had solved the Problem of Induction? How? Oh, yes, that's right - your magic crystal ball.

Look, even North Koreans think Dear Leader is taking care of them. While eating other North Koreans in the Worker's Paradise. Complete religious nutty fruit cakes will blow themselves up to get Free-Shit (72 virgins). Jesus, all you have to do is vote - lucky you Essentially, there are no empirical arguments, any amount of evidence, nor deductively valid moral arguments, even moral quandaries that cannot be ignored, misconstrued, sidestepped or redefined in order for you to get some of that good Free-Shit the "Rich" are stealing from you (even though you live in the USA, and are therefor one of the richest humans on Earth - thus, according to your own reasoning, YOU are the thief, but never mind that, we have magic boarders, citizenship, central banks and etc....).

You know, in your world view people seem to be either so heinous, so much so that ONLY the 'rich' would be able to afford enough fiat currency units so as to poop in sewers if we didn't threaten violence against morally innocent humans within a geographical location. Or they're completely powerless and pathetic (re-read last sentence). Well, that's YOUR world. NOT the real world. Or even a possibility in a free world. You seem to view the people where you live with disdain. How you came to interpret their subjective state when you see their behaviors is beyond me. Anyway, peaceful logical parenting can deal with a lot of this misinterpretation of other conscious agents - if started at an early age. My guess is, you'll go down in bite sized chunks praising the State at a Progressive "Democratic" Socialist rally some day far off in the future as Redistributor The Great is ushered in.
LOL

In the meantime, should WarHarpy get to Wear the POTUS Magical Hat Of Power, let's hope she doesn't start WWIII.

"It should clear to everyone that a vote for Hillary Clinton is a vote for war."
— Dr. Jill Stein ✔ @DrJillStein
10:41 AM - 13 Oct 2016

 

[Michael]

LOL

"WHOOoopps"
-- CNN

 

[Michael]

Sewer systems in the free-market would be restricted to

... the rich.

Now? Where have we heard this whopper before? Oh, yes:
Without Institutionalized human Slavery, the poor would die in the streets, destitute, unclothed and of hunger.
- Econ 101

An Alien Invasion Could Fix the Economy (Paul Krugman)
-Econ 101

Now, let's all march right on down to the Magic Voting Booth and pull the magic lever for Change We Can Believe In, that can only be delivered by a crooked 30 year career Political Insider that somehow managed to make 100s of millions 'serving the public'.

Change You Can Believe In
- Warharpy Insider (2016)


"It should be clear to everyone that a vote for Hillary Clinton is a vote for war."
— Dr. Jill Stein ✔ @DrJillStein
10:41 AM - 13 Oct 2016


Note: A free-market is to say FREE PEOPLE. Thus, in iceaura's world view, apparently free people cannot manage to wipe their own arses without implicitly threatening morally innocent people. Yes, this is because (much like Slavery) that's the way things were in some cities in the past, so, this is the way it must be forever and ever and ever and ever. No amount of technology, ingenuity, nothing at all - not even the Gods, could prevent free people from shitting all over themselves.... therefor, we can't have free-markets / free societies. Now, Vote WarHerpies before we Peasants all start shitting ourselves

LOL

Like I said, we have to wait until the Progressive Socialists are actually eating themselves in a Worker's Paradise, and even then, they'll sing praises of Glory to The State.

 

[sculptor]

anecdote:
As/re "sewer systems.
As part of the university's outreach program(read recruiting drive) my wife and a busload of other professors made a tour of small town Iowa. In one poor town their sewer system had collapsed, and they didn't have the money to build a new one.
(They were working on developing a "do it yourself" plan)

 

[Michael]

Poll Rigging: Wikileaks
Atlas polling recommendations.

I also want to get your Atlas folks to recommend oversamples for our polling before we start in February. By market, regions, etc. I want to get this all compiled into one set of recommendations so we can maximize what we get out of our media polling.

Research, microtargeting & polling projects
- Over-sample Hispanics
- Use Spanish language interviewing. (Monolingual Spanish-speaking voters are among the lowest turnout Democratic targets)
- Over-sample the Native American population

- Consistently monitor the sample to ensure it is not too old, and that it has enough African American and Hispanic voters to reflect the state.
- On Independents: Tampa and Orlando are better persuasion targets than north or south Florida (check your polls before concluding this). If there are budget questions or oversamples, make sure that Tampa and Orlando are included first.

--o--
LOL

Soon enough, we'll have enough Refugees that there won't be a need for poll sampling - finally, the Democrats can start ushering in our Progressive Utopia! (See: Detroit, Chiraq, etc....)

 

[Michael]

CHRIS WALLACE: Then there are the allegations about the Clinton Foundation and pay to play, which I asked Secretary Clinton about in the debate, and she turned into an attack on the Trump Foundation.

But, Bob, I want to go back to the conversation I was having with Robby Mook before. When -- when you see what seems to be clear evidence that Clinton Foundation donors were being treated differently than non-donors in terms of access, when you see this new -- new revelations about the $12 million deal between Hillary Clinton, the foundation, and the king of Morocco, are voters right to be troubled by this?

BOB WOODWARD (WaPo): I -- yes, it's a -- it’s corrupt. It's -- it’s a scandal. And she didn't answer your question at all. And she turned to embrace the good work that the Clinton Foundation has done. And she has a case there. But the mixing of speech fees, the Clinton Foundation, and actions by the State Department, which she ran, are all intertwined and it's corrupt. You know, I mean, you can't just say it's unsavory. But there's no formal investigation going on now, and there are outs that they have.

But the election isn't going to be decided on that. I mean Karl was making the point about this, I'm not going to observe the result of the election. I mean that's -- that’s absurd. I mean it has no consequence. If Trump loses, they're not going to let him in the White House. He’s not going to have a transition team. And -- and to focus on that, I think, is wrong. I think the issue is, what's going to be the aftermath of this campaign.

lol


NOTE: Left-leaning Bob Woodward, broke the Watergate scandal.


For Change Only a 30 Year Career Bureaucrat Can Bring
-- WarHarpy (2016)

 

[sculptor]

 

[Tiassa]

NOTE: Left-leaning Bob Woodward, broke the Watergate scandal.

I always find it interesting how conservative hardliners like you―

Even legends go through slumps. An iconic movie star might make a couple of box-office duds; star athletes may struggle for a while; pop stars might release some uninspired albums; and in Bob Woodward's case, a celebrated journalist might fall in a metaphorical ditch and inexplicably keep digging.

The heralded Washington Post reporter first ran into trouble with an op-ed on the sequester, which included a series of factually-inaccurate claims. Instead of running a correction, Woodward doubled down on his mistakes. As criticism mounted, Woodward appeared on msnbc yesterday to criticize President Obama, complaining that it's "madness" for the White House to follow federal laws written on a "piece of paper," giving the impression that he thinks it's inexcusable for the president to honor laws duly passed by Congress.

With many wondering aloud what's wrong with Woodward, the reporter, apparently eager to make himself the center of a larger story about himself, turned to Politico’s Mike Allen and Jim VandeHei to up the ante.

Bob Woodward called a senior White House official last week to tell him that in a piece in that weekend's Washington Post, he was going to question President Barack Obama's account of how sequestration came about – and got a major-league brushback. The Obama aide "yelled at me for about a half hour," Woodward told us in an hour-long interview yesterday around the Georgetown dining room table where so many generations of Washington's powerful have spilled their secrets.​

According to Woodward, when he prepared to publish his now-debunked op-ed, he received an angry call from Gene Sperling, a top economic aide to President Obama, who grew frustrated with Woodward's dubious claims. The reporter told Politico that Sperling made a veiled threat, telling Woodward he'll "regret" publishing the piece. He repeated the claim on CNN, insisting, "It was said very clearly, you will 'regret' doing this."

And at it was this very moment when Bob Woodward put his credibility as a journalist on the line – and lost.

(Benen↱)​

―see a reporter tanking a story in a manner that serves conservatives and rush to apply terms like "Left-leaning".

Of Woodward's pandering on behalf of Republicans, Michal Tomasky↱ wondered, "Why does Bob Woodward get to lie—twice!—and still be Bob Woodward?"

It's kind of like when the "liberal media conspiracy" is seen tanking against liberals.

Kind of blows a hole in such fantastic descriptions of whatever you're substituting for reality.
____________________

Notes:

Benen, Steve. "Defining 'threats' down". msnbc. 28 February 2013. msnbc.com. 24 October 2016. http://on.msnbc.com/1n3S6VL

Tomasky, Michael. "Bob Woodward and the Rules of Washington Morality". The Daily Beast. 3 March 2013. TheDailyBeast.com. 24 October 2016. http://thebea.st/2ezXuNk

 

[Michael]

I always find it interesting how conservative hardliners like you
....

I wonder, how many "conservative hardliners" (lol) are atheists? How many think drugs should be legalized? How many have lived in temples and sang songs in foreign languages to foreign gods? How many conservative hardliners think homosexuality is perfectly, biologically, natural? What else do "Conservative Hardliners" believe?

Oh, yes, Individualism. Okay, yes, I'll take that.

Yes, I do think we should treat people as individuals - based on individual merit. While generalizations can be made, they require empirical data and the conclusions must be restricted to that data-set. Thus, I have no problem with suggesting men generally have more body mass than women, so long as the data is measured correctly and each category can be defined, go ahead - do so. But any conclusions made cannot be generalized as collective categories which is what Socialists do. In the real world, normality curves overlap and some women are bigger, stronger, and faster than some men. Which is why we must treat people as individuals - not as collectives.

So, yes, I'll take Individualism over a Collectivist Socialistic Utopia any day of the week. Which, yes, would mean ending all the collectivist policies that discriminate against individuals based on a collectivist category. YOU as an individual are free to discriminate - I have no problem with that. Maybe you don't like chocolate? Okay, fine. Now, suppose the KKK were redefined as a poor little persecuted minority community. Should you be forced to support them? Well well, in a Socialistic society, you may well could be forced to do so. If people who are a part of this community feel they are being discriminated against, perhaps they need to be given special legal privileges? Um, no, I will never ever in a million years support that. And the same goes for other Supremist Ideologies: Third Wave Feminism, BLM, Islam, the KKK, and etc.... Individuals can support them - I shouldn't have to.

Fair enough? Think we can agree to that much?
Probably not.
Because I use the Roads!
LOL

Anyway, let's all go down there and pull the magic lever for Four More Years!.... of the same ole' shit

LOL

 

[pjdude1219]

Trump answered that question properly.

after this comment you can't be trusted anywhere near a fucking voting booth. your an enemy of democracy and the republic. there is something seriously wrong with you.

 

[iceaura]

You know, in your world view people seem to be either so heinous, so much so that ONLY the 'rich' would be able to afford enough fiat currency units so as to poop in sewers if we didn't threaten violence against morally innocent humans within a geographical location

In your world, as well as mine, no city has a sewer system unless a government has provided one and taxed its citizens to pay for it. In your world, as well as mine, standard economic and game theory explains that. The question of whether or not you are capable of "viewing" these basic facts of life in this physical world remains open.

Now? Where have we heard this whopper before? Oh, yes:
Without Institutionalized human Slavery, the poor would die in the streets, destitute, unclothed and of hunger.
- Econ 101

An Alien Invasion Could Fix the Economy (Paul Krugman)
-Econ 101

Neither of those things is in a basic economics textbook. Or anywhere else. You can't find them, and you never heard them from anyone. In point of fact, neither of them exists outside of your demented little brain - you can't even paraphrase Krugman accurately with the video right in front of you.

Yes, I do think we should treat people as individuals - based on individual merit.

Unless it's you, or Donald Trump, in which case we should treat everyone with civility and respect regardless of merit.

Right?
which reminds me:

So when you try to sell us Trump like that, are you fooling yourself or not?

Projection?
We(NSA, CIA,etc...) hack damned near every leader on the planet, so, of course, they must be doing it to us?

The washington establishment is growing ever more paranoid.

It's not "projection", its forensic analysis of the hack. Law enforcement. Evidence. That kind of stuff. Get a grip, eh?

 

[sculptor]

It's not "projection", its forensic analysis of the hack. Law enforcement. Evidence. That kind of stuff. Get a grip, eh?

Who do you trust?
The statement blaming Russia came from James R. Clapper, who had lied to the FBI and to congress about NSA spying on US citizens.
It seems that he lies for a living, and the most we should expect from him is a half truth in any public statement.
Know your sources!
No other intelligence source has been so bold nor definitive. “The emails released on sites like WikiLeaks are consistent with methods and motivations of Russian directed efforts,”

I wouldn't buy a used car from this guy.
Some people seem to want to be fooled.

 

[Tiassa]

Who do you trust?
The statement blaming Russia came from James R. Clapper, who had lied to the FBI and to congress about NSA spying on US citizens.
It seems that he lies for a living, and the most we should expect from him is a half truth in any public statement.
Know your sources!
No other intelligence source has been so bold nor definitive. “The emails released on sites like WikiLeaks are consistent with methods and motivations of Russian directed efforts,”

I wouldn't buy a used car from this guy.
Some people seem to want to be fooled.

We can always tell someone isn't thinking it through when they set up an either/or and forget the or.

So, what, now are we doing the antiborg? One of seventeen?

Who do I trust?

You know, I might disdain most of what the spooks do, but there's an old saying about how people might disagree but we're all supposed to be on the same team.

So, you know, the career spy turned politician who speaks a familiar political language still subject to the ritual demands of historical normalcy? How about the guy who makes a point of lying as much as possible?

See, that's the tricky part, isn't it? The part that you apparently aren't capable of figuring out? The bit about comparing what you're trying to denounce with, well, the even worse that you're pitching? A career spy or Donald Trump? Yeah, no wonder you can't finish the either/or. In that comparison, how could any intelligent person end up backing the less honest politician? I mean, sure, one is a career spy, but the other is Donald freaking Trump.

And, see, that's the puzzling thing. I get the part about disdain for various aspects of our society; what I don't get is why you would empower those aspects even further. It makes your whole pitch seem fundamentally dishonest, and that's well before we get to the deplorable "in lieu of principles" hatred. The idea that people like you are willing to try is one of those weird human stupidities that is also reality. The idea that you―what?―think it will work, or has some manner of decent merit in the human endeavor is preposterous, and in the question of sinister or stupid, it seems strange that you would want the range of our assessments so limited.

 

[iceaura]

Who do you trust?
The statement blaming Russia came from James R. Clapper, - -

And about thirty other sources, with various points of view and arguing from various aspects of the situation.

I don't "trust" anybody. I just look at the stuff, and assess it. You suggested that the major (and even only) reason we have for suspecting the Russians of hacking into US high official emails and using them to weaken US opposition to their agenda is projection of US hacking operations, and that such projection is paranoid. That strikes me as silly. I can think of several other reasons for presuming - not just as a possibility, but as the presumptive fact - that Russian hacking attempts on US officials have been diligent, frequent, sophisticated, at least occasionally successful, and employed for Russian advantage. There's nothing paranoid about that presumption - I would be badly disappointed in the naivety of anyone entrusted with US government computer security who thought otherwise.