Page 9 of 11 FirstFirst ... 7891011 LastLast
Results 81 to 90 of 101

Thread: Ulysses Trump

  1. #81
    Join Date
    Tuesday, October 1st, 2013
    Last Online
    Today @ 9:56 AM
    Location
    Nashville, Tennessee
    Posts
    12,182
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by gary m View Post
    Why? read this...

    How much existing automotive industry and supply base is located in Pratt, Kansas or Valentine, Nebraska?
    I highly doubt that fast internet is more than a minor consideration, if at all.
    It's not. It's an utterly idiotic claim.

    Does any sane person (note: emphasis on "sane") actually believe that if some major manufacturer came to town and said "gosh, we would build a multi-billion-dollar facility here providing many hundreds of jobs, but we just can't get our porn downloaded fast enough for our liking here" that said town wouldn't mow down every old lady in the county to bring terabyte-per-second internet service to that company's front door?

    Good grief, what a stupid premise. Limestone County has good infrastructure for building cars there because we used to build rockets there. They already have a shit-ton of good roads and the like, ready-made for a factory that might need to build cars or perhaps test Saturn V rockets.

    Sheesh.
    Now more than two weeks, and the Left still remain incapable of saying that Leftist violence is bad.

  2. #82
    Join Date
    Tuesday, October 1st, 2013
    Last Online
    Yesterday @ 11:21 PM
    Location
    LA (Lower Alabama)
    Posts
    4,693
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Newman View Post
    You're describing people one car breakdown away from disaster. Maybe one traffic fine away from calamity. I know it well, and the bleak truth is that a 25 yr old car will break down.

    The solution as I see it is a growing economy, where jobs closer to home compete with $12/hr 50 miles away. It happens where I live and even in Bumfuck.
    I agree. But I happen to think that a growing economy needs fast, reliable internet service, too. Even Trump agrees that infrastructure is important, and that we've neglected ours for too long.

    Quote Originally Posted by Newman View Post
    Maybe I wasn't clear. My point is to contest your suggestion that a desire exists among progressive Democrats, who support "net neutrality," to help rural America.

    Past behavior indicates otherwise.
    And my point is that it doesn't matter what their endgame is, the concept is good for America and good for freedom.

    Quote Originally Posted by Newman View Post
    I agree with you about the importance of the internet in Bumfuck, but I don't agree that we need the broadminded regulations of the feds to reform us into Shangri-La.
    I don't think we need federal regulations either. But we shouldn't stand in the way of small towns or counties from incentivizing companies to build faster, more reliable internet. Or doing it themselves when the companies won't take the risk.

    Quote Originally Posted by gary m View Post
    How is it that immigrants (legal and otherwise) can get to this country with little more than spare change in their pockets without a social network or language skills to support them and get to any and every part of the country yet multi-generational citizens somehow can't get to where there are better employment opportunities than they currently have?
    They pool family resources, hire illegal coyotes to smuggle them into the country, then hook up with family already here or join a work commune on a farm. And they don't have burdens like a car, rent payments and cellphones to worry about. They often come with a bare minimum of clothing and money. It's not anything like moving from one hellhole to a better place. A lot of poor people are deep in debt, something foreigners don't usually have to worry about (although many become indentured to their coyotes). With debt, it's really hard to pick up and move on to a better opportunity. I couldn't just pick up and move on to a better place if I needed to work a job in another state. I have too many family obligations here. People who need to be taken care of (when they're not taking care of me.)

    The other thing is that where the jobs are, the cost of living is usually a lot higher, which is a big burden for people coming from low wage, low cost states like Alabama and Mississippi. It may seem appealing to leave the $13/hr job on the factory line in Greenwood for a $25/hr job in some better environment in, say, California… until you factor in the cost of living. That $13/hr job in Mississippi is enough for a single person to live on their own in an apartment in many communities. $25/hr in Riverside County barely gets you bus fare, much less a place to live. Single folks like me can shack up with others to spread out the cost of rentals or what have you, but not many apartment dwellers are going to be willing to take on a high school dropout black woman with three kids.

    I've generally been a proponent of "move to where the jobs are", too. It's just I also recognize the hardships that keep certain classes of people from being able to achieve that easily.

    Quote Originally Posted by Adam View Post
    Does any sane person (note: emphasis on "sane") actually believe that if some major manufacturer came to town and said "gosh, we would build a multi-billion-dollar facility here providing many hundreds of jobs, but we just can't get our porn downloaded fast enough for our liking here" that said town wouldn't mow down every old lady in the county to bring terabyte-per-second internet service to that company's front door?
    A disingenuous response if there ever was one. Maybe your job is all porn, but most companies do actual work online. Could you run a travel agency on dial-up in this day and age and be successful as you are now?

    But the answer is more complex. How exactly do you convince Frontier to install fiber to a site on the outskirts of town for one customer, even if that customer is going to be huge? Yeah they might do it, but they might not. It's $20,000 a mile for Comcast to run cable to unserved homes in some parts of the country. If the work site is three miles out, who eats that $60k? The company ain't. The city won't want to. They'll pass it on to the taxpayers. Or the prospective company will choose another small town that's already got the infrastructure in place. It's no coincidence that Airbus picked Brookley Field in Mobile to build their A380 plant, because guess what — there was already airport infrastructure there. It beat out locations that would have had to create one from scratch. Internet is the same way. One of the sites in contention for that Mazda-Toyota plant was here in Baldwin County, north of Bay Minette. It had power, rail and interstate access. The land was even cheaper than Limestone County. The workforce is willing and educated. But it lost out despite having the same state incentives. Lack of any internet at all was almost certainly a factor. Maybe not a major one, but one nonetheless.

    Quote Originally Posted by Adam View Post
    Good grief, what a stupid premise. Limestone County has good infrastructure for building cars there because we used to build rockets there. They already have a shit-ton of good roads and the like, ready-made for a factory that might need to build cars or perhaps test Saturn V rockets.
    Thanks for making my point for me. Internet is, whether you like it or not, critical infrastructure to companies in the 21st Century. It's as important as roads, rail and workforce development. To believe otherwise (while using said infrastructure) is the real stupid premise.
    Ever stop to think, then forget to start again?

  3. #83
    Join Date
    Friday, November 1st, 2013
    Last Online
    Today @ 11:23 AM
    Posts
    5,881
    Post Thanks / Like
    I was amused to see the conceit of this thread show up elsewhere: Playing McClellan to Trump's Grant: The NeverTrump Traitors
    [T]he anti-Trump Republicans hector us about "comity," "collegiality," and "conduct," as they continue to play McClellan to Trump's Grant.

    Establishment Republicans insist that our president is poisonous to discourse, yet they offer nothing more than spittle-flecked denunciations of the man personally while failing to recognize the invaluable work he is doing to thwart the steady degeneration of our form of government.

    Mind you, this work has been long avoided by those same Republicans who now strike at the president's knees as he takes up the cause of national restoration, harassing him for putting bold action behind the very principles these neglectful Republicans have themselves espoused in countless campaigns but apparently never actually believed.

    Conservatives and other constitutionally respectful constituencies have spent the better part of a century following the advice of such Republicans and have achieved nothing beyond bare survival.

    Under their leadership, we now have a world where our children know precious little about the form of government intended for them by our framers and are consequently eager to trade their inherent liberty for trinkets of socialist Utopiana.

    Our Republican leaders talk of conservative principles yet govern from an agenda essentially homogenous to that of the Democrats – only slower, at lower cost.

    We hold election after election and get the same result, because none will shoulder the mantle of champion longer than a moment, invariably shrugging it off and running away at the first sign of political danger.

    The American people understand this collaborative cowardice intuitively, recognizing that each passing year of "bipartisanship" and "compromise" only further limits our avenues of resistance to outrageous government overreach.
    I might have said this author's prose is a bit over the top, but I do believe the GOP establishment proved itself feckless and "spittle-flecked" with its clown show on Repeal & Replace.

    Writer Joe Herring concludes,
    As Lincoln noted after relieving George McClellan of command, "George knew where the enemy was. He was just unwilling to meet him."

    These obsessive anti-Trump Republicans are the "McClellan wing" of the party. It's past time for them to get over their resentment and get back in the fight.

    There's a war on!
    Even so, "traitor" is too strong a word for most NeverTrumpers. Bret Stephens, however, deserves the tag.

    Stephens would install a famously venal, corrupt and by most accounts, poorly skilled autocrat in the person of Hillary Clinton to continue the progressive deterioration of the country, portrayed in the article just above, rather than Donald Trump. He maintains his obtuse nonsense in the face of a solid record of conservative accomplishment by Trump that Stephens himself acknowledges. Stephens, and the very few like him (David French, e.g.) would knowingly trade this country's future for their own vanity. They are traitors.

    Most conservative critics of Trump more closely resemble this author:

    I wasn’t a Trump supporter. I am now.
    This may seem like an odd moment for saying so, but a year into the presidency of Donald Trump, I’m elated.

    Trump was not my first or even second choice for president, but a full two years ago I predicted he would win. I also predicted he’d be a progressive president, which explained why I was not among his supporters and why I am so pleased now.

    Expecting Progressive Trump was a reasonable assumption. Trump supported the 2009 stimulus, the auto bailouts and the bank bailouts. He’d recently left the Democratic Party and had raised a ton of money for the Clintons, Nancy Pelosi and Charles E. Schumer. He’d supported single-payer health coverage, tax increases and even Planned Parenthood.

    He was a New York liberal who had conquered the Republican Party in part by promising a good Supreme Court nomination. That was the most I allowed myself to hope for when he won.
    Trump critics, particularly those on the right, like to mock Trump voters with the phrase “But Gorsuch!” It’s their way of saying that Gorsuch is the only good thing Trump has done and that a Trump presidency is not worth the rest. Except Gorsuch is not even close to the only good thing Trump has done.
    The writer, Mollie Hemingway, finishes:
    Like most people, I don’t particularly like Trump’s rhetorical style, juvenile insults and intemperate disposition — on full display in recent days. At the same time, having followed his career for decades, I am not surprised that he wakes up each morning as Donald Trump.

    And that boorish attitude has come in handy after decades of media bullying of conservatives. Ironically, the very lack of conservative bona fides that worried me two years ago means he’s less beholden to a conservative establishment that had grown alienated from the people it is supposed to serve and from the principles it ostensibly exists to promote. His surprising conservatism might also be the result of the absolutism and extremism of his critics, whether among the media, traditional Democratic activists or the anti-Trump right. If Trump were ever inclined to indulge his liberal tendencies after winning the election, the stridency and spite of his opponents have provided him with no incentives to do so.

    My expectations were low — so low that he could have met them by simply not being President Hillary Clinton. But a year into this presidency, he’s exceeded those expectations by quite a bit. I’m thrilled.

  4. Likes 80zephyr liked this post
  5. #84
    Join Date
    Saturday, October 5th, 2013
    Last Online
    @
    Location
    In the mainstream of American life.
    Posts
    12,230
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Newman View Post
    Writer Joe Herring concludes,

    Even so, "traitor" is too strong a word for most NeverTrumpers. Bret Stephens, however, deserves the tag.

    Stephens would install a famously venal, corrupt and by most accounts, poorly skilled autocrat in the person of Hillary Clinton to continue the progressive deterioration of the country, portrayed in the article just above, rather than Donald Trump. He maintains his obtuse nonsense in the face of a solid record of conservative accomplishment by Trump that Stephens himself acknowledges. Stephens, and the very few like him (David French, e.g.) would knowingly trade this country's future for their own vanity. They are traitors.
    And you agree with this??? What about that pesky Constitution saying, "Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort."?

    There's a war on!
    Well, I guess that takes care of it. Only...what war? Supporting a candidate other than the incumbent is now war, and therefore treason? If you believe that, you and those who agree with you are a real danger to the country.
    No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. This offer VALID in 35 34 33 32 31 26 20 17 15 14 13 ALL 50 states.

    The new 13 original states to stand up for freedom: CA, CT, IA, MA, DE, MN, NH, NY, RI, VT, ME, MD, NJ (plus DC).

  6. #85
    Join Date
    Friday, November 1st, 2013
    Last Online
    Today @ 11:23 AM
    Posts
    5,881
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Celeste Chalfonte View Post
    And you agree with this??? What about that pesky Constitution saying, "Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort."?
    Agree with it? Those are my own words.

    Stephens has committed himself to traitorism and needs to be called on it.

    (Please don't stumble into thinking I'm calling supporters of Hillary Clinton traitors. I'm not. Stephens must be judged by his own words.)

    Edit to add: Look at it this way, Celeste. Stephens says, "This candidate and the policies of this candidate will destroy this country. I support this candidate." I count that as traitorism. Most supporters of Hillary apparently believe her ideas, whatever they are, are good for the country. They may be blithering idiots, or even public school teachers, but they are not traitors.

    Edit to add further: I also believe nascent fascists and campus communists are potential traitors, in that they want to overthrow our governments in favor of the miracle of pipedreams. Most of these erstwhile revolutionaries grow up. (Some don't, sadly.) Stephens is in league with them.
    Last edited by Newman; Saturday, January 20th, 2018 at 10:18 PM.

  7. #86
    Join Date
    Saturday, October 5th, 2013
    Last Online
    @
    Location
    In the mainstream of American life.
    Posts
    12,230
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Newman View Post
    Agree with it? Those are my own words.

    Stephens has committed himself to traitorism and needs to be called on it.

    (Please don't stumble into thinking I'm calling supporters of Hillary Clinton traitors. I'm not. Stephens must be judged by his own words.)

    Edit to add: Look at it this way, Celeste. Stephens says, "This candidate and the policies of this candidate will destroy this country. I support this candidate." I count that as traitorism. Most supporters of Hillary apparently believe her ideas, whatever they are, are good for the country. They may be blithering idiots, or even public school teachers, but they are not traitors.

    Edit to add further: I also believe nascent fascists and campus communists are potential traitors, in that they want to overthrow our governments in favor of the miracle of pipedreams. Most of these erstwhile revolutionaries grow up. (Some don't, sadly.) Stephens is in league with them.
    So you're using "traitor" loosely, in the sense of stupid phrases like "race traitor" or "a traitor to his class/party/other non-citizenship designation," not in the sense of "one who has committed treason and should be prosecuted for it." OK. Hyperbole abounds.
    No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. This offer VALID in 35 34 33 32 31 26 20 17 15 14 13 ALL 50 states.

    The new 13 original states to stand up for freedom: CA, CT, IA, MA, DE, MN, NH, NY, RI, VT, ME, MD, NJ (plus DC).

  8. #87
    Join Date
    Friday, November 1st, 2013
    Last Online
    Today @ 11:23 AM
    Posts
    5,881
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Celeste Chalfonte View Post
    So you're using "traitor" loosely, in the sense of stupid phrases like "race traitor" or "a traitor to his class/party/other non-citizenship designation," not in the sense of "one who has committed treason and should be prosecuted for it." OK. Hyperbole abounds.
    I'm certainly describing character and not criminal statutory violations. That's understood; does that make my remarks hyperbole, merely? Do I concede your point? I certainly oppose conviction on account of public speech.

    However, I don't concede merely. I don't consider his essay stupid, or my hyperbole in response stupid. Almost any adjective can be construed as hyperbole,

  9. #88
    Join Date
    Friday, November 1st, 2013
    Last Online
    Today @ 11:23 AM
    Posts
    5,881
    Post Thanks / Like

    ah, the unfinished post

    but not all charges are equal, per your own post, Celeste. To call Stephens a traitor is intended to be caustic, more that a charge of being a fraud, say. It was intended to be so when Trump called Chelsea Manning a traitor, when Cher called Trump a traitor, or when marchers in yesterday's "Women's Marches" called Trump a traitor.

    Yet I notice Mad Maxine Waters has NOT called 45 a "traitor" to my knowledge, nor did Robert Reich, though he tiptoed up to it in a charming essay last March.*

    Maybe I should thread that needle by calling Bret Stephens a traitorous fraud. I'll take that thought under advisement.

    *Reich swings for a trifecta of T words:
    Three Terrifying Reasons for Trump’s Latest Rant
    March 7, 2017.

    A little "tabloid psychiatry":
    Early Saturday morning, March 4, the 45th president of the United States alleged in a series of tweets that former president Barack Obama orchestrated a “Nixon/Watergate” plot to tap Trump’s phones at his Trump Tower headquarters last fall in the run-up to the election. Trump concluded that the former president is a “Bad (or sick) guy!”

    Sunday morning, Trump called for a congressional investigation.

    Trump cited no evidence for his accusation.

    Folks, we’ve got a huge problem on our hands. Either:

    1. Trump is more nuts than we suspected – a true delusional paranoid. Trump’s outburst was triggered by commentary in the “alt-right” publication, Breitbart News, on Friday, which reported an assertion made Thursday night by right-wing talk-radio host Mark Levin suggesting Obama and his administration used “police state” tactics last fall to monitor the Trump team’s dealings with Russian operatives.

    If this is what triggered Trump’s tantrum, we’ve got a president willing to put the prestige and power of his office behind baseless claims emanating from well-known right-wing purveyors of lies.

    Which means Trump shouldn’t be anywhere near the nuclear codes that could obliterate the planet, or near anything else that could determine the fate of America or the world.
    It gets much better:
    2. The second possibility is the Obama administration did in fact tap his phones. But if this was the case, before the tap could occur it’s highly likely Trump committed a very serious crime, including treason.

    No president can order a wiretap on his own. For federal agents to obtain a wiretap on Trump, the Justice Department would first have had to convince a federal judge that it had gathered sufficient evidence of probable cause to believe Trump had committed a serious crime or was an agent of a foreign power, depending on whether it was a criminal or foreign intelligence wiretap.

    In which case we have someone in the White House who shouldn’t be making decisions that could endanger America or the world.

    3. The third possible explanation for Trump’s rant is he was trying to divert public attention from the Jeff Sessions imbroglio and multiple investigations of Trump associates already found to have been in contact with Russian agents during the election, when Russian operatives interfered with the election on Trump’s behalf.

    Maybe he’s trying to build a case that the entire Russian story is a plot concocted by the Obama Administration – along with the intelligence agencies and the mainstream press – to bring Trump down. This way, he can inoculate himself against more damaging evidence to come.

    But if it’s all a big show to divert attention and undermine the credibility of the intelligence agencies and the press, Trump is willing to do anything to keep his job – even if that means further dividing America, undermining trust in our governing institutions, and destroying the fabric of our democracy.

    So there you have it. We have a president who is either a dangerous paranoid who’s making judgments based on right-wing crackpots, or has in all likelihood committed treason, or is willing to sacrifice public trust in our basic institutions to further his selfish goals.
    Of course, "4." is, maybe Trump's terrible tweet was accurate. Wouldn't that be a kick in the pants?



    Edit to add: Reich's essay was republished by Newsweek with the headline, Robert Reich: Is Trump a Traitor or a Paranoid?, which is where I found it.
    Last edited by Newman; Sunday, January 21st, 2018 at 7:33 AM.

  10. Likes 80zephyr liked this post
  11. #89
    Join Date
    Tuesday, October 22nd, 2013
    Last Online
    Today @ 10:55 AM
    Posts
    10,218
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Newman View Post
    Stephens says, "This candidate and the policies of this candidate will destroy this country. I support this candidate." I count that as traitorism.
    Did Stephens actually say that, or is that a Newmangled version of something else Stephens said? Do you understand the function of quotation marks?

    On edit: Here's an actual, not distorted quote from the man.

    Listen, I think that for the United States, Hillary Clinton, as awful as I find her, is a survivable event. I’m not so sure about Donald Trump.
    Maybe you can explain how "survivable event" equates to "destroy this country" in your mind.
    Last edited by Norm dePlume; Sunday, January 21st, 2018 at 9:13 AM.

    And these children that you spit on
    As they try to change their worlds
    Are immune to your consultations
    They're quite aware of what they're going through
    -David Bowie, Changes

  12. #90
    Join Date
    Saturday, January 3rd, 2015
    Last Online
    Today @ 11:27 AM
    Posts
    8,418
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Newman View Post
    but not all charges are equal, per your own post, Celeste. To call Stephens a traitor is intended to be caustic, more that a charge of being a fraud, say. It was intended to be so when Trump called Chelsea Manning a traitor, when Cher called Trump a traitor, or when marchers in yesterday's "Women's Marches" called Trump a traitor.

    Yet I notice Mad Maxine Waters has NOT called 45 a "traitor" to my knowledge, nor did Robert Reich, though he tiptoed up to it in a charming essay last March.*

    Maybe I should thread that needle by calling Bret Stephens a traitorous fraud. I'll take that thought under advisement.

    *Reich swings for a trifecta of T words:
    Three Terrifying Reasons for Trump’s Latest Rant
    March 7, 2017.

    A little "tabloid psychiatry":

    It gets much better:
    Of course, "4." is, maybe Trump's terrible tweet was accurate. Wouldn't that be a kick in the pants?



    Edit to add: Reich's essay was republished by Newsweek with the headline, Robert Reich: Is Trump a Traitor or a Paranoid?, which is where I found it.
    Trumps tweet was accurate. And yet, he is the one still being investigated.

    Mark
    Race Card: A tool of the intellectually weak and lazy when they cannot counter a logical argument or factual data.

    "Liberals have to stop insisting that the world is what they want it to be instead of the way it is." - Bill Maher

    Political correctness is ideological fascism. It’s the antithesis of freedom. Dr. Piper

    Gender is not a "Social Construct", it is an outgrowth of biological reality.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •