Climate of Complete Certainty

On Wednesday, February 12, 2020 at 2:42:08 PM UTC+11, dagmarg...@yahoo.com wrote:
On Monday, February 10, 2020 at 10:37:20 PM UTC-5, George Herold wrote:
On Monday, February 10, 2020 at 7:05:24 PM UTC-5, dagmarg...@yahoo.com wrote:
On Monday, February 10, 2020 at 4:27:55 PM UTC-5, John Larkin wrote:
On Mon, 10 Feb 2020 21:43:38 +0200, Dimiter_Popoff <dp@tgi-sci.com
wrote:

On 2/9/2020 1:47, Les Cargill wrote:
whit3rd wrote:
On Friday, February 7, 2020 at 2:34:27 PM UTC-8, John Larkin wrote:

Americans buy the products that work, whether Scientists were
involved or not. Often, they weren't.

Somehow, Americans bought President Trump.   It's not working.

Works for me.



Not just "somehow" - the guy's a master manipulator. He went "Boo!" at the Republican Party and by the time they changed their pants, he was the nominee. "Insane Clown President" covers this....

This was a master stroke, really.

Yes. But I think he clearly does not possess half the brains it takes
to mastermind what happened.

Hillary's team had a mountain of brains, and money, and lost.

Who is the real puppeteer can only be speculated in a conspiracy
theory mode of course (I do not think it was the Russians though
they did some of the work, nor do I think it was anyone US based....),
we are unlikely to know the truth in our lifetimes.
I don't think Trump knows that himself either.

He has common sense, a will to win, and luck.

Super smart people I admire have met with Trump privately.
They were blown away. They say the man's brilliant.

Trump is loved here. I've never seen anything like it.
(I'm ~60) I see no such enthusiasm on the left.
And much as I like Joe Rogan, if Bernie was the D nominee..
I'd be hard pressed to vote for either he or T.
I'm amazed at the level of his opposition's ignorance. PBS'
Newshour's Mark Shields and David Gergen, for example.
I try to listen to as little news as possible.
Sports and weather are OK. Except for my below average
hockey team.

I mostly keep up with events on the internet, which makes it easy
to check what is and is not true. For example, I'll read the
news coverage, then watch video of the president making a
statement, and marvel that the coverage isn't anything like
what was actually said. It's amazing. Orwellian.

Unfortunately for James Arthur, he's a much better example of Orwellian double-think than he seems to realise. When the news doesn't present reality the way he wants them to, he's happy to accuse them of distorting reality, when the real problem is that they don't see what's going on from his bizarre point of view.

Easing obnoxious regs and lowering the marginal corporate tax
rate have re-ignited half the country (or more).
Yeah more deficit spending. If you can borrow at ~zero interest
it seems silly not to... but it's not what I would do.

Deficit spending eventually destroys a country. But we can't blame
the president.

Why not? Republicans always cut taxes more than they should, and Trump ought to have had more sense than to go along with them, but Republican presidents never take balancing the budget as seriously as romancing their richer supporters.

The president's policies have raised more revenues,
but the House of Representatives sets the spending, and they insist
on spending it all and more.

Revenues are up under the new tax rules, not down.

Not because of the new tax rules, excerpt perhaps from the new tariffs which rip off the consumers who end up paying them

Booming economy
and companies repatriating have added overall revenue.

Which companies have repatriated anything? They've mostly moved from China to other low wage nations.

But the Dems wanted more welfare, and the Repubs weren't averse to spending in
their states, either.

The Democrats have worked out that adequate welfare pays off in the long term. It hasn't hurt the Swedish economy, and there the children of single mothers do just as well as the children of couples.

I heard a good piece today pointing out that the president's
budget request promotes fiscal restraint, which the Congress
insists on larding up with gimmedats.

Trump is great on public relations. Less effective at getting anything useful to happen.

But no one's backed him on it, so there's been no point in the
prez going after the deficit -- it's a losing battle. A second
term sans witch hunts might include that fight.

Which leaves us here: Dems always wanting to spend much more is
a given, so if Repubs won't fight for fiscal sanity, insanity
shall prevail.

The Republican's sham enthusiasm for fiscal restraint doesn't extend to balancing the budget.

> America's a pretty nice country, a beacon of hope and freedom.

If you are in the part of the population that has an income in the top 1% of the income distribution.

It unique selling point amongst advanced industrial countries is it's very high level of income inequality, which seems to be associated with low life expectancy, expensive health care that doesn't serve the bulk of the population particularly, and a host of social problems that correlate with income inequality on a US state to US state basis to much the same extents as the correlate between advanced industrial countries.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Spirit_Level_(book)

James Arthur seems to have spent enough time in right-wing de-education programs to be immunised against this kind of exposition of inconvenient facts..

The world would be a much worse place without it. It sure would
be a shame to have world-wide freedom and self-rule collapse in
a fiscal conflagration, just because some pointy-headed People
Who Know Better couldn't live within our means.

At the moment the pointy-headed top 1% of the US income distribution - who do very well out of the USA as it is - are spending loads of money to keep it running in the way that suits them. The country's capacity to train able people and take advantage of the innovations that they might come up with is going down the tubes, but the Republicans don't care - the people taht own the country are governing the country in a way that seems to them to work to their short-term advantage.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney
 
On 2/11/20 9:16 PM, Bill Sloman wrote:
On Wednesday, February 12, 2020 at 12:56:55 PM UTC+11, bitrex wrote:
On 2/11/20 8:37 PM, John Larkin wrote:
On Tue, 11 Feb 2020 18:06:23 -0500, bitrex <user@example.net> wrote:

On 2/11/20 5:40 PM, John Robertson wrote:

Wow, not only does he like being lied to but he'll even help craft the
lies he is to be told! A true fan.

I'm not a fan of anyone. But it is interesting to have a President who
was never a lawyer, never held office before, and got rich *before* he
was an elected official.


He got rich because his daddy both financed and then would bail him out.
It is not like Dwight who started from scratch!

DJT is just another shyster. Blue Suede Shoe salesman...

I get the impression DJT was never very naturally good with women or did
very well without a billion dollar bankroll behind his propositions.

Therefore I suspect he was never particular good at "sales." Show me a
man who can walk into a downtown bar on a Saturday night in T-shirt and
jeans with ten dollars in his pocket and walk out with a lovely young
lass on his arm four hours later and I'll show you a salesman.

Is that what you want in a President?


No, I don't particularly want a salesman for President but if we were to
have a salesman as President I'd at least want some objective
confirmation they had been good at the job! At least some positive Yelp
reviews or something.

In any case Trump was in real-estate speculation/finance he was a
hustler, sales/marketing not really his department.

And "his" book on the subject - "The Art of the Deal" - was ghost-written.

Trump doesn't seem to have the attention span to write a paragraph, let alone a book.

He likes Twitter because he can keep focused for long enough to string together up to 280 characters. Apparently, he still seems to be confining himself to the old 140 character limit, which might say something about his attention span.

Trump seems to have mostly bullied other speculators and finance-types
for a living, the goal seemingly to be the biggest bully in a room of
bullies.

Sounds like a logical strategy when dealing with lawyers, speculators,
and finance-types I can't really argue with that, often have to speak a
language they understand.

Doesn't have a lot to do with sales, though. Outside of real-estate
hustling Trump seems to have regularly experimented with actual sales
and marketing of tangible goods direct to consumers like airline
service, vodka, steaks, mortgages, and home furnishings, nearly all of
which aside from his hotel/resort chains seem to have been pretty big fails.

Most entrepreneurs experience failures it comes with the territory of
trying to do anything but rarely so consistently while still remaining a
household name
 
On 12/02/2020 03:59, whit3rd wrote:
On Tuesday, February 11, 2020 at 7:46:11 PM UTC-8, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
On Tue, 11 Feb 2020 15:29:11 -0800 (PST), whit3rd <whit3rd@gmail.com
wrote:

But, climatology DOES have predictive value.

Since when? It's been making absurd predictions for about 50 years...

Climate change/global warming is one, about 30 years old now.
It's a pretty big one, how could you have missed it?

He only reads paranoid right wing denier sites and will not accept that
there is a problem. Typical of a paranoid right wing science denier.

Sooner rather than later California will run out of water then perhaps
he might take climate change a little more seriously. New Mexico is
already under considerably more water stress but not as populous.

https://www.nationalgeographic.com/news/2015/04/150406-california-drought-snowpack-map-water-science/

--
Regards,
Martin Brown
 
On 11/02/2020 18:05, John Larkin wrote:
On Tue, 11 Feb 2020 08:31:16 +0000, Martin Brown
'''newspam'''@nezumi.demon.co.uk> wrote:

On 10/02/2020 17:26, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
On Mon, 10 Feb 2020 07:17:51 -0800 (PST), George Herold
ggherold@gmail.com> wrote:

Oh I didn't read the NY times article. There is much that is kinda 'broken'
in science that many on the left don't want to see.
Take peer-review as one problem. Peer review can operate as a gate keeper
for ideas, and not to get the 'best' science published.
GH


Exactly. In some areas of study, having an unorthodox idea can be
career-ending. Peer review is one enforcement mechanism to suppress
genuinely new ideas. Of course, the more a science is subject to
experimental verification, the more tolerant it is of radical ideas.

Only if it is an unorthodox view that conflicts with one of the
conservation laws, flat Earth, alien abduction or psychic powers.

Extraordinary claims require *EXTRAORDINARY* proof.

Even then the odd senior physics researcher has survived being conned by
the likes of Uri Geller without too much damage to their conventional
research career. The amazing Randi designed experiments that were much
less inclined to to succumb to his "psychic powers" than those designed
by physicists. Physics is not used to experimental subjects that cheat.

Unfortunately, in some so-called sciences, there is no proof.

There is no *PROOF* in any of the sciences.

Only disproof when an existing law, hypothesis or conjecture is found to
no longer predict accurately what happens in particular circumstances.

Science is a game of successive approximation to reality with nature
being the final arbiter of what is correct and what is not. We become
more certain of things enough to call them laws of physics the longer
and more comprehensively that they have been tested and work. But you
can never be certain that in some extreme case they might break down.

If you design an experiment that breaks the current prevailing paradigm
wide open you typically get a Nobel prize pretty quickly.

If you want proof then you are in the realm of mathematics. Even then
you have to explicitly state your starting axioms since useful things
can stem from violating some of the ancient basic classical axioms.

Non-Euclidean geometries and tensor calculus for instance which make
relativity much easier to work with. There is an interesting correlation
between new mathematics development and novel theoretical physics. It
remains to be seen whether or not string theory is one of those moments.

--
Regards,
Martin Brown
 
On 12/02/20 03:47, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
On Tue, 11 Feb 2020 19:48:55 +0000, Tom Gardner
spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:

On 11/02/20 18:05, John Larkin wrote:
On Tue, 11 Feb 2020 08:31:16 +0000, Martin Brown
'''newspam'''@nezumi.demon.co.uk> wrote:

On 10/02/2020 17:26, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
On Mon, 10 Feb 2020 07:17:51 -0800 (PST), George Herold
ggherold@gmail.com> wrote:

Oh I didn't read the NY times article. There is much that is kinda 'broken'
in science that many on the left don't want to see.
Take peer-review as one problem. Peer review can operate as a gate keeper
for ideas, and not to get the 'best' science published.
GH


Exactly. In some areas of study, having an unorthodox idea can be
career-ending. Peer review is one enforcement mechanism to suppress
genuinely new ideas. Of course, the more a science is subject to
experimental verification, the more tolerant it is of radical ideas.

Only if it is an unorthodox view that conflicts with one of the
conservation laws, flat Earth, alien abduction or psychic powers.

Extraordinary claims require *EXTRAORDINARY* proof.

Even then the odd senior physics researcher has survived being conned by
the likes of Uri Geller without too much damage to their conventional
research career. The amazing Randi designed experiments that were much
less inclined to to succumb to his "psychic powers" than those designed
by physicists. Physics is not used to experimental subjects that cheat.

Unfortunately, in some so-called sciences, there is no proof.

In that case it isn't a science.


As Phil says, if it has "Science" in its name, it isn't one.

If you've got to say you are a lady, then you ain't :)
 
On 11/02/2020 16:36, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
On Tue, 11 Feb 2020 18:14:10 +0200, Dimiter_Popoff <dp@tgi-sci.com
wrote:

On 2/11/2020 5:09, Les Cargill wrote:
 Dimiter_Popoff wrote:

Who is the real puppeteer can only be speculated in a conspiracy
theory mode of course (I do not think it was the Russians though
they did some of the work, nor do I think it was anyone US based...),
we are unlikely to know the truth in our lifetimes.
I don't think Trump knows that himself either.


There is no puppeteer.

Not in the literal sense of course, nobody is - or could - be
micromanaging him.
Whether there is one or not can only be speculated of course; what
I think is that someone with long term (as opposed to mandated)
power has been helpful putting him there, probably having something
on him. Not unlike anybody else.... I expect this would be
the modus operandi of those who retain some level of control to
former colonies etc. Enforcing a couple of crucial decisions per
mandate would be plenty - and not necessarily bad for society.
But this is not even a conspiracy theory, just a hypothesis which
cannot be proven wrong - and it may well be that.

Dimiter

There is another, even worse conspiracy theory. Millions of flyover
state voters elected him because he's on their side.

ITYM they think he is on their side which is not the same thing at all.
Trump is exclusively on the side of selfish multibillionaire oligarchs
and plutocrats like himself. US elected dictatorship in progress.

--
Regards,
Martin Brown
 
Martin Brown <'''newspam'''@nezumi.demon.co.uk> wrote:

On 11/02/2020 16:36, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:

There is another, even worse conspiracy theory. Millions of flyover
state voters elected him because he's on their side.

ITYM they think he is on their side which is not the same thing at all.
Trump is exclusively on the side of selfish multibillionaire oligarchs
and plutocrats like himself. US elected dictatorship in progress.

+1
 
John Robertson <spam@flippers.com> wrote in
news:Sf6dnbdS4d71sN7DnZ2dnUU7-I3NnZ2d@giganews.com:

> DJT is just another shyster. Blue Suede Shoe salesman...

I cannot believe that so many Americans were so stupid that that
cannot see that.

Straight out of a Twilight Zone episode for that last 5 years. Rod
Serling turned in his grave, but recent events flat made the dude
explode.

Absolutely unfrigginbelieveble what has taken place.

I have to give the bastard one credit thought. He woke me up the
the level of Udumbinatti the republican party is. The crap about
biden was crafted by them regardless of it being Trump that started
it, and it continues, and I think that SEVERAL players should go to
prison.

We need term limits and we need laws that allow that bastards to
not only be ousted, but to be prosecuted and imprisoned.

Otherwise, there is nothing stopping the stupid, oath ignoring
bastards.
 
bitrex <user@example.net> wrote in
news:VrG0G.420004$K87.213456@fx46.iad:

Therefore I suspect he was never particular good at "sales." Show
me a man who can walk into a downtown bar on a Saturday night in
T-shirt and jeans with ten dollars in his pocket and walk out with
a lovely young lass on his arm four hours later and I'll show you
a salesman.

Women today...

The bulge criteria would ultimately decide.

Fuck the bucks, they want you to fuck 'em like a buck.
Then cast you away, just like we did them for so long.

"Where are the white women at?" -Blazing Saddles

More like "Where are the hot women bars at?"

Skin tone don't matter. That was just the first movie line that
popped into my head.
 
On Wed, 12 Feb 2020 08:46:55 +0000, Martin Brown
<'''newspam'''@nezumi.demon.co.uk> wrote:

On 11/02/2020 16:36, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
On Tue, 11 Feb 2020 18:14:10 +0200, Dimiter_Popoff <dp@tgi-sci.com
wrote:

On 2/11/2020 5:09, Les Cargill wrote:
 Dimiter_Popoff wrote:

Who is the real puppeteer can only be speculated in a conspiracy
theory mode of course (I do not think it was the Russians though
they did some of the work, nor do I think it was anyone US based...),
we are unlikely to know the truth in our lifetimes.
I don't think Trump knows that himself either.


There is no puppeteer.

Not in the literal sense of course, nobody is - or could - be
micromanaging him.
Whether there is one or not can only be speculated of course; what
I think is that someone with long term (as opposed to mandated)
power has been helpful putting him there, probably having something
on him. Not unlike anybody else.... I expect this would be
the modus operandi of those who retain some level of control to
former colonies etc. Enforcing a couple of crucial decisions per
mandate would be plenty - and not necessarily bad for society.
But this is not even a conspiracy theory, just a hypothesis which
cannot be proven wrong - and it may well be that.

Dimiter

There is another, even worse conspiracy theory. Millions of flyover
state voters elected him because he's on their side.

ITYM they think he is on their side which is not the same thing at all.
Trump is exclusively on the side of selfish multibillionaire oligarchs
and plutocrats like himself. US elected dictatorship in progress.

You are being silly and tribal and hysterical. T is doing sensible
stuff that is benefitting small businesses, owned by thousandaires,
who create real jobs.



--

John Larkin Highland Technology, Inc

The cork popped merrily, and Lord Peter rose to his feet.
"Bunter", he said, "I give you a toast. The triumph of Instinct over Reason"
 
On Wed, 12 Feb 2020 08:44:49 +0000, Martin Brown
<'''newspam'''@nezumi.demon.co.uk> wrote:

On 12/02/2020 03:59, whit3rd wrote:
On Tuesday, February 11, 2020 at 7:46:11 PM UTC-8, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
On Tue, 11 Feb 2020 15:29:11 -0800 (PST), whit3rd <whit3rd@gmail.com
wrote:

But, climatology DOES have predictive value.

Since when? It's been making absurd predictions for about 50 years...

Climate change/global warming is one, about 30 years old now.
It's a pretty big one, how could you have missed it?

He only reads paranoid right wing denier sites and will not accept that
there is a problem. Typical of a paranoid right wing science denier.

Sooner rather than later California will run out of water then perhaps
he might take climate change a little more seriously. New Mexico is
already under considerably more water stress but not as populous.

https://www.nationalgeographic.com/news/2015/04/150406-california-drought-snowpack-map-water-science/

That link wants to harvest my email address. No thanks. The long-term
snowpack map is very noisy but has no obvious trend. 1881, 1925, 1977,
2015 were bad years. 2011 was radical.

https://www.dropbox.com/s/eyn3w1vv6mbbj73/July_4_2011.jpg?raw=1

https://www.dropbox.com/s/bgu1x1ajlk3rpit/July_4_Bikini.jpg?raw=1

https://www.dropbox.com/s/1iwpt4buld2n1xm/July_4_Ticket.jpg?raw=1


The water problems in California are dominated by agriculture, namely
growing enormous amounts of water-hungry crops like almonds and cotton
for export. There are lots of people here, but we use a small fraction
of the water. "Urban use" is about 10% of the water supply, and that
is dominated by silly stuff like lawns and swimming pools.

The biggest "use" for water in California is "environmental", which is
precisely not use.



--

John Larkin Highland Technology, Inc

The cork popped merrily, and Lord Peter rose to his feet.
"Bunter", he said, "I give you a toast. The triumph of Instinct over Reason"
 
whit3rd <whit3rd@gmail.com> wrote in
news:d6c88e0f-a2b0-45cd-b218-d2572417378b@googlegroups.com:

On Tuesday, February 11, 2020 at 10:05:09 AM UTC-8, John Larkin
wrote:

Unfortunately, in some so-called sciences, there is no proof.

Meaningless. Proof is a concept applicable in logic and
mathematics. In science, we can disprove, or test, or measure.

What in the world do you mean by 'so-called sciences' ?
Astrology, because it ends in '-ology'?

Metrology Calibrate me, baby...

Cosmology Tell me what it is I see... up there...

Cosmetology Make me look good, but no Donald J. Trump obvious
indicators.
 
whit3rd <whit3rd@gmail.com> wrote in
news:12cc7339-d79c-4047-a37a-27ea264929da@googlegroups.com:

On Tuesday, February 11, 2020 at 2:58:48 PM UTC-8, bitrex wrote:

The most recent Presidents I can think of that were somewhat
legitimate "self-made-men" that were born into at best
lower-middle class families were LBJ and Ronald Reagan.

Why not Barak Obama?

Paid $90k a year by Ayers' "FED funded foundation". (AND his wife too)

Yeah, sure... his rise was 100% legit. Right.
 
On Thursday, February 13, 2020 at 1:28:00 AM UTC+11, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
On Wed, 12 Feb 2020 08:46:55 +0000, Martin Brown
'''newspam'''@nezumi.demon.co.uk> wrote:

On 11/02/2020 16:36, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
On Tue, 11 Feb 2020 18:14:10 +0200, Dimiter_Popoff <dp@tgi-sci.com
wrote:

On 2/11/2020 5:09, Les Cargill wrote:
 Dimiter_Popoff wrote:

<snip>

There is another, even worse conspiracy theory. Millions of flyover
state voters elected him because he's on their side.

ITYM they think he is on their side which is not the same thing at all.
Trump is exclusively on the side of selfish multibillionaire oligarchs
and plutocrats like himself. US elected dictatorship in progress.

You are being silly and tribal and hysterical. T is doing sensible
stuff that is benefitting small businesses, owned by thousandaires,
who create real jobs.

Which is to say that Trump's small business tax cut put money in John Larkin's pocket, for the moment.

It was deficit funded at a point when the economy didn't need any stimulus, so it was inflationary and a bad idea in the long term, but neither Trump nor John Larkin think about the long term, so neither could care less.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney
 
jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:

On Wed, 12 Feb 2020 08:44:49 +0000, Martin Brown
'''newspam'''@nezumi.demon.co.uk> wrote:

https://www.nationalgeographic.com/news/2015/04/150406-california-drought
-snowpack-map-water-science/

That link wants to harvest my email address. No thanks.

Turn javascript off. This kills most shenanigans on sites.

I normally keep javascript turned off when browsing. Some sites need it, such
as Google Search and many science sites, but they are easy to handle.

If you are running Firefox, you can use Richard Neomy's Toggle Javascript.
This makes it trivial to disable javascript. You also may need Hotfix for
Firefox bug 1548973.

You can also use disposable email addresses, such as https://www.e4ward.com/
 
On 2/11/20 10:54 PM, dagmargoodboat@yahoo.com wrote:
On Tuesday, February 11, 2020 at 11:16:34 AM UTC-5, bitrex wrote:
On 2/10/20 7:05 PM, dagmargoodboat@yahoo.com wrote:

Who is the real puppeteer can only be speculated in a conspiracy
theory mode of course (I do not think it was the Russians though
they did some of the work, nor do I think it was anyone US based...),
we are unlikely to know the truth in our lifetimes.
I don't think Trump knows that himself either.

He has common sense, a will to win, and luck.

Super smart people I admire have met with Trump privately.
They were blown away. They say the man's brilliant.

I'm amazed at the level of his opposition's ignorance. PBS'
Newshour's Mark Shields and David Gergen, for example.

Easing obnoxious regs and lowering the marginal corporate tax
rate have re-ignited half the country (or more).

Cheers,
James Arthur


Imagine being so ignorant of the potential geopolitical/military
consequences of assassinating Soleimani that no theater missile defense
systems were moved into position around the targets in Iraq that Iran
would be most likely to target in a retaliatory strike.

A retaliation in that fashion was entirely predictable and Iranian
missiles being shot out of the sky making a massive PR-lose for the
Iranians would have been entirely predictable to the Iranians as well,
making their decision to launch a lot more difficult at the very least.

Instead US forces had no option but to watch as the missiles fell on
their heads and it was mostly by good fortune that nobody was killed,
though many were injured and Trump has tried to down-play the injuries.

Yep, total unawareness of cause-and-effect can appear like wisdom for a
while. Must be a great feeling to see that while our Saudi Arabian
friends get a missile defense system the US-based Iraqi forces got
_nothing_.

I'm sure there will be someone who will argue what a "grand strategist"
he is, allowing US troops to have missiles fall on them with no
fore-thought and no means of defense.

A guy was killing lots of our guys, so we killed him instead.

The math ain't that complicated.

Rule of thumb: if it looks like the "math ain't that complicated" you're
being set up.

It's not like, for example, promoting all the wrong people in
an Arab 'Spring' that set that whole part of the world on fire,
producing the largest mass migration of refugees fleeing their
homelands in world history, and possibly destabilizing Europe.

Cheers,
James Arthur
 
On Wed, 12 Feb 2020 11:56:45 -0500, bitrex <user@example.net> wrote:

On 2/11/20 11:04 PM, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:

Trump is loved here. I've never seen anything like it.
(I'm ~60) I see no such enthusiasm on the left.
And much as I like Joe Rogan, if Bernie was the D nominee..
I'd be hard pressed to vote for either he or T.
I'm amazed at the level of his opposition's ignorance. PBS'
Newshour's Mark Shields and David Gergen, for example.
I try to listen to as little news as possible.
Sports and weather are OK. Except for my below average
hockey team.

I mostly keep up with events on the internet, which makes it easy
to check what is and is not true. For example, I'll read the
news coverage, then watch video of the president making a
statement, and marvel that the coverage isn't anything like
what was actually said. It's amazing. Orwellian.

The lefty press like to insert "debunked" and "unproven" every chance
they get. There must be a mandatory list of insults with a daily quota
for the NYT, CNN, NPR reporters.

People do notice this. It makes some mad. It shows up in turnout.

With the US mostly divided into two tribes who are about as rational
as soccer fans, turnout is what will matter.


CNN didn't quote Bernie Sanders one time in today's article about his
victory in the NH primary it was all quotes from Buttigieg and Amy
Klobuchar.

Imagine writing an article about a sporting event where you don't quote
the winner you only quote second and third place.

The press is less and less about reporting and more and more about
promoting agendas. On both sides. Even the "scientific" press.

People eventually notice.



--

John Larkin Highland Technology, Inc

The cork popped merrily, and Lord Peter rose to his feet.
"Bunter", he said, "I give you a toast. The triumph of Instinct over Reason"
 
On 2/11/20 11:04 PM, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:

Trump is loved here. I've never seen anything like it.
(I'm ~60) I see no such enthusiasm on the left.
And much as I like Joe Rogan, if Bernie was the D nominee..
I'd be hard pressed to vote for either he or T.
I'm amazed at the level of his opposition's ignorance. PBS'
Newshour's Mark Shields and David Gergen, for example.
I try to listen to as little news as possible.
Sports and weather are OK. Except for my below average
hockey team.

I mostly keep up with events on the internet, which makes it easy
to check what is and is not true. For example, I'll read the
news coverage, then watch video of the president making a
statement, and marvel that the coverage isn't anything like
what was actually said. It's amazing. Orwellian.

The lefty press like to insert "debunked" and "unproven" every chance
they get. There must be a mandatory list of insults with a daily quota
for the NYT, CNN, NPR reporters.

People do notice this. It makes some mad. It shows up in turnout.

With the US mostly divided into two tribes who are about as rational
as soccer fans, turnout is what will matter.

CNN didn't quote Bernie Sanders one time in today's article about his
victory in the NH primary it was all quotes from Buttigieg and Amy
Klobuchar.

Imagine writing an article about a sporting event where you don't quote
the winner you only quote second and third place.
 
On 2/11/20 10:42 PM, dagmargoodboat@yahoo.com wrote:
On Monday, February 10, 2020 at 10:37:20 PM UTC-5, George Herold wrote:
On Monday, February 10, 2020 at 7:05:24 PM UTC-5, dagmarg...@yahoo.com wrote:
On Monday, February 10, 2020 at 4:27:55 PM UTC-5, John Larkin wrote:
On Mon, 10 Feb 2020 21:43:38 +0200, Dimiter_Popoff <dp@tgi-sci.com
wrote:

On 2/9/2020 1:47, Les Cargill wrote:
whit3rd wrote:
On Friday, February 7, 2020 at 2:34:27 PM UTC-8, John Larkin wrote:

Americans buy the products that work, whether Scientists were
involved or not. Often, they weren't.

Somehow, Americans bought President Trump.   It's not working.

Works for me.



Not just "somehow" - the guy's a master manipulator. He went "Boo!"
at the Republican Party and by the time they changed their pants, he was
the nominee. "Insane Clown President" covers this....

This was a master stroke, really.

Yes. But I think he clearly does not possess half the brains it takes
to mastermind what happened.

Hillary's team had a mountain of brains, and money, and lost.


Who is the real puppeteer can only be speculated in a conspiracy
theory mode of course (I do not think it was the Russians though
they did some of the work, nor do I think it was anyone US based...),
we are unlikely to know the truth in our lifetimes.
I don't think Trump knows that himself either.

He has common sense, a will to win, and luck.

Super smart people I admire have met with Trump privately.
They were blown away. They say the man's brilliant.

Trump is loved here. I've never seen anything like it.
(I'm ~60) I see no such enthusiasm on the left.
And much as I like Joe Rogan, if Bernie was the D nominee..
I'd be hard pressed to vote for either he or T.
I'm amazed at the level of his opposition's ignorance. PBS'
Newshour's Mark Shields and David Gergen, for example.
I try to listen to as little news as possible.
Sports and weather are OK. Except for my below average
hockey team.

I mostly keep up with events on the internet, which makes it easy
to check what is and is not true. For example, I'll read the
news coverage, then watch video of the president making a
statement, and marvel that the coverage isn't anything like
what was actually said. It's amazing. Orwellian.

Easing obnoxious regs and lowering the marginal corporate tax
rate have re-ignited half the country (or more).
Yeah more deficit spending. If you can borrow at ~zero interest
it seems silly not to... but it's not what I would do.

Deficit spending eventually destroys a country. But we can't blame
the president. The president's policies have raised more revenues,
but the House of Representatives sets the spending, and they insist
on spending it all and more.

Revenues are up under the new tax rules, not down. Booming economy
and companies repatriating have added overall revenue. But the Dems
wanted more welfare, and the Repubs weren't averse to spending in
their states, either.

I heard a good piece today pointing out that the president's
budget request promotes fiscal restraint, which the Congress
insists on larding up with gimmedats.

But no one's backed him on it, so there's been no point in the
prez going after the deficit -- it's a losing battle. A second
term sans witch hunts might include that fight.

Which leaves us here: Dems always wanting to spend much more is
a given, so if Repubs won't fight for fiscal sanity, insanity
shall prevail.

America's a pretty nice country, a beacon of hope and freedom.
The world would be a much worse place without it. It sure would
be a shame to have world-wide freedom and self-rule collapse in
a fiscal conflagration, just because some pointy-headed People
Who Know Better couldn't live within our means.

Cheers,
James Arthur

Is there anything worse than a Republican who uses 500 words the only
point of which is to insert a white nationalist dog-whistle like
"gimmedats"?

I probably first saw that term on the National Vanguard
website/Stormfront like two decades ago everyone knows where it comes from.
 

Welcome to EDABoard.com

Sponsor

Back
Top