monitoring Trump and relevant contemporary events

I'm in the wait and see mode on Trump. He's an unknown factor until he takes office and see the results.

Me too. I will bet there things I like and there will definitely be things I don't.

Quote McGentrix:

Statistics illustrating that the annual number of black murder victims rose 31% in the five years before Bill Clinton took office, and declined by 37% during Bill's two terms, speak for themselves. I present the facts-if you choose to turn a cold shoulder to the truth, that's your business.

Quote McGentrix:

When crime and murder has spiralled out of control like it did in the period before Bill Clinton took office, (New York City had over 2,000 murders one year), then clearly some people have to go to jail, and fast. You have to get the drug gangs which shoot through the locked front doors of housing project apartments (killing women and babies in the living room) off the streets. That's why Clinton signed a tough anti-crime bill, which turned out to be too tough and unfair in some cases.

But if you take a look at the chart you posted, you'll notice that incarcerations were already increasing drastically in the five years before Bill Clinton took office, (1988-1992), even though violent crime and murders were going going through the roof during the same period. Clearly, Clinton's term had to offer something besides incarceration to stem the tide of murder, and it did: A huge increase in Full Time jobs for everybody, but especially for minorities. While Full Time jobs for the general population increased an excellent 17% under Bill Clinton, African-American Full Time jobs increased an amazing 30%. That's the main reason the murder rate declined. As the people even in the early 1900s knew, the most dangerous thing possible is to have young men out of school with no job,because that's where the street crime problem is. Under Bill Clinton, they got jobs. And the murder rate dropped precipitously. No question-we need more presidents like Bill Clinton.

Unfortunately, the incarceration rates includes possession of drugs, which in some states are now legal.

http://medicalmarijuana.procon.org/view.resource.php?resourceID=000881

http://www.drugpolicy.org/drug-war-statistics

Your use of big words to underscore your apparent disdain of big words and their supposed 'misuse' by academics does not come across as ironic. You use big words, so do other people, so what? If it more accurately describes something, then that's the goal..who cares how you get there unless you are conversing with 3rd graders..oh wait..

Regarding this discussion of corruption. You are right about those that have money are less likely to steal in general, however, if money made is on the X axis and crime is on the Y, the curve is probably more accurately described as U shaped. But since there's much less people making the big bucks at the right tail end of that chart, the absolute number is small..The idea here is that power (read: with money comes power) corrupts.

btw, I think all Presidents have engaged in corruption of some form or another and with varying degrees of destructiveness - whether direct or in collusion with some other entity - internal or external to the US - but corrupt by our own laws. So to me Trump's corruption is a forgone conclusion. And being the kind, generous, forgiving, gentle, giving, Ghandi-like personality he possesses, I'm sure that his corruption will be far worse than preceding presidents..

I agree completely.

george
Increasingly, you're having trouble responding to a post of mine without insulting me personally. I'm not going to play that game with you. Where you write something here that avoids this, I'll continue reading it.

Here's some more of that carefully selected propaganda where clearly the left wing media is out to get Trump, after his recent tweet that nbc news didn't include his full statement about nuclear weapons.

Despite the below linked article clearly stating that his full quote was in fact included, there is clearly undue biased reporting from the left. How dare anyone presume to think that its important that our president-elect actually get his facts straight?

http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/trump-tweets-apparent-call-more-us-nuclear-weapons-n699221

And Blatham is correct to call you on your attempted mitigation of his views simply because he is not American. Either you believe he has a point, views that are consonant with your beliefs or you don't. And for his study commemt, as far as I can see he hasn't belabored the point about this, (though if he did would then make me suspicious that perhaps he doth proclaim too much..)

And him not being an American shouldn't enter into this either. In fact being a foreigner makes him privy to viewpoints many citizens wouldn't see. The converse is true, making this a wash.

LINK
What? Not only was the vote unanimous (outside of America's abstention) I don't believe there is a single other nation in the world that has expressed disagreement with that vote condemning Israel re settlements. Rubio's statement is asinine because the exact reverse of his statement is the case.

If you go to Ha'aretz, Israel's oldest newspaper, and read the reporting and opinion there, you'll find that Britain appears to be a key player in supporting New Zealand's role and the vote. You'll find editorials like this:
LINK

So what is Rubio up to? First, he's just promoting the Trump position regardless of whether he's making any sense at all or truthfully painting the opinion of the world's nations re the moral equation. Second, he's just pandering to the religious right and to the powerful AIPAC lobby (which commonly supports the extremist views of the Israeli right). If there's some other motivation in the mix, I'm not sure what it would be.

Edit: On second thought, there is the real possibility here that Rubio is reflecting right wing notions that the UN is not merely an ineffective body but that it is an entity which stands in the way of a particular right wing notion. That notion is that the US ought to work to disempower and delegitimize any entity that might stand in the way of US expressions of power. That, of course, is a key notion held by the neoconservative camp which was ascendant under Bush 2.

I also think the UN has outlived its usefulness.
However, the following article claims it's also successful.
http://www.e-ir.info/2013/02/23/is-the-united-nations-an-effective-institution/

Yeah, well, if we're going to vote in the UN based on a poll of other countries, is it one vote per person, one vote per country, or some sort of electoral college scheme?

This has been going on since right after WWII. The planners realized at some point how much power they had after WWII and decided they didn't want to lose it and indeed, to expand it..It has not stopped since..though it is true that the US does not control/influence as much of the world as it did in the 50's..its hegemony has apparently declined significantly. The war in the ME and Bush's doctrines could be seen as an effort to regain some of what was "lost"..?

Interesting paper on post WWII US hegemonic actions (Marshall plan, Truman Doctrine etc.) by some dude named Alan Pronger..
https://ubcatlas.files.wordpress.com/2012/04/2009-pronger.pdf

I won't get into to it here but I'm not on your side in that, ci.

Sorry roger. Not sure what you mean there.

Thanks

Taibbi echoes my sentiment up above

Carmakers eye favorable regulations under Trump

Keith Laing | Detroit News Washington Bureau
3:37 p.m. ET Nov. 10, 2016
Washington — Stock prices for U.S. automakers rose sharply Thursday amid signs that fuel economy standards could be weakened under the administration of President Donald Trump.

A noted climate-change skeptic is seen as a likely choice to lead the Environmental Protection Agency under Trump. And an industry group on Thursday already was urging the president-elect to roll back mandates that automakers achieve a fleet-wide average of 54.5 miles-per-gallon for cars and light-duty trucks by 2025. Those requirement were put in place by President Barack Obama’s administration.
On the day of Trump’s first visit to Washington, D.C., as president-elect, General Motors Co. stock rose 5.7 percent to $32.73 per share. Ford stock closed up 3.1 percent to $11.94. And shares of Fiat Chrysler Automobiles NV — which has the largest proportion of pickups and SUVs, and the fewest resources to invest in fuel-saving technology — rocketed up 9.7 percent to close at $7.69.
The Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers, which lobbies for U.S. automakers in Washington, said in a Thursday memo to Trump’s transition team that Trump should move quickly to “harmonize and adjust” the stringent gas mileage rules because they “pose a substantial challenge to the auto sector due to the steeper compliance requirements for model years 2017-2025.”

The group said Trump should roll back mileage rules, which are beginning to take effect with model-year 2017 vehicles that are already in showrooms, because reports on the emission standards that have been released by federal regulators “over-projects technology efficiencies and inadequately accounts for consumer acceptance and marketplace realities.”
The auto alliance wrote, “The combination of low gas prices and the existing fuel-efficiency gains from the early years of the program is undercutting consumer willingness to buy the vehicles with more expensive alternative powertrains that are necessary for the sector to comply with the more stringent standards in out-years.”
The group represents Fiat Chrysler, Ford, GM, BMW Group, Jaguar Land Rover, Mazda, Mercedes-Benz USA, Mitsubishi Motors, Porsche, Toyota, Volkswagen Group of America and Volvo Car USA.
Trump is likely to appoint an EPA administrator who is a lot more skeptical of the need to fight climate change than the Obama administration has been. Myron Ebell, director of the Center for Energy and Environment at the conservative think tank Competitive Enterprise Institute, leads Trump’s EPA transition team. Ebell is now seen as a likely choice to lead the EPA.

Jack Nerad, executive market analyst for Kelley Blue Book, said automakers are probably right to expect more favorable regulations than they have received from the outgoing Obama administration.
“One can expect that the Trump administration and the Republican-controlled Congress will take a new look at regulations that affect the auto industry and industry in general,” he said. “One obvious candidate are the current CAFE (Corporate Average Fuel Economy) regulations. In light of lower fuel prices and increased supplies of domestically produced fuel, we are likely to see a relaxation of the CAFE regulations.”
The gas-mileage rules that were put in place by the Obama administration are beginning to take effect with the 2017 model year. The rules, which are locked in for the model years between 2017 and 2021, call for ramping up from the current fleet-wide average of about 34 mpg for cars and trucks that were required in 2016, to the eventual goal of more than 50 mpg by 2025. Automakers have a chance to argue for reductions for the model years between 2022 and 2025 during a review that is set to take place April 2018.
Auto companies that do not meet the higher emission standards will be fined $5.50 for each one-tenth of a mile-per-gallon their average fuel economy falls short of the standard for a model year, multiplied by the total volume of vehicles that are in the fleet that fail to meet the new requirements. They will be allowed to purchase credits from other auto companies that have come in under the mileage requirements.

The push to get Trump to roll back the mpg rules follows a projection from federal regulators, which stated automakers may only be able to achieve a fleet-wide average of between 50 and 52.6 mpg by the deadline. Auto companies have seized upon the projection to argue that federal regulators should consider scaling back the stringent mileage rules when they come up for a mid-term review in 2018.

UAW President Dennis Williams told reporters Thursday in Detroit that while he had not reviewed the alliance’s letter, the union has raised concerns with the EPA and others about how fast the mileage standards come.
“Corporations have got to be very careful in the auto industry. There is a public out there that purchases and that public is very conscious of the environment and they’re very focused, especially millennials and others, they’re very focused on what the future of this country’s environment is,” Williams said. “I’d be very careful if I was them about not investing in futures. We’ve seen what happened when GM, Ford and Chrysler didn’t do that before. I would caution auto companies from repeating sins of the past.”
Andrew Linhardt, the Sierra Club’s associate director for federal advocacy, said it is not surprising that automakers are trying to convince Trump to ease the gas mileage rules.

“This is nothing new. They’ve been pushing this for the last year,” he said, although he acknowledged carmakers will likely have a more friendly ear in Trump.
“Trump pretty much ran on tearing down President Obama’s climate legacy, and this is a pretty big part of it.


Foul Mouthed Journalist Uses Fake News Story to Attack Ivanka Trump and President-elect…

Posted by sundance

U.S. Media outlets wonder why the average American is indifferent to their pearl-clutching anxiety over lost credibility. With that in mind, perhaps this example is apropos on many levels. There’s a few layers to this story.

The “reporter/journalist” is Julia Ioffe. A now fired writer for Politico, a frequent CNN guest and contributor, and a journalist recently hired by the Atlantic.



Yeah, suffice to say this representative exhibition of modern journalism does little to advance the cause of professional credibility. However, the layers of irony only begin with the vulgarity.

The actual point of Ioffe’s contention, as described within The Hill link as the basis for her point of reference, is a report from Sara Murray of CNN claiming Ivanka Trump was moving into a White House office traditionally used by the First Lady.

So, essentially, Julia Ioffe for Politico, was using vulgarity to opine on a report from The Hill, who were reporting on a report from CNN. Sounds like the concentric circles of media again.

However, the originating CNN report was completely false. ie. “Fake News“.

Politico, via Ioffe, was commenting on a fake news story from The Hill, which was based on a fake news story from Sara Murray at CNN.

Yeah, what was that about credibility again? And yet the White House Correspondents Association is fraught with angst about possible Trump Administration changes to the current status of media operations in/around the White House? Meanwhile, journalists tweeting “President Trump is ******* his daughter“, notwithstanding…. or something. I digress.


Ms. Julia Ioffe was already leaving Politico, so when they said they fired her, it was no biggie. Ioffe is headed to The Atlantic for her new job in Journalism.

So here’s the way Ioffe’s new boss at The Atlantic looks at it, per Emily Lenzner (Senior Vice-President of Communications):

Oh, Ms. Ioffe “made a mistake” when she promoted a fake news story and said: “Trump is ******* his daughter“. A mistake, like putting on two of the wrong colored socks, or something. She made a “mistake“, and she “apologized“. Well, alrighty then.

I guess we, the media consuming public, are to believe the mistake didn’t actually outline the ideology, tone, perspective or internal sensibility of Ms. Ioffe, toward the President.

A person has to wonder what would happen to a reporter who publicly said President Obama was having sex with his daughters. Just wondering…

http://mobile.reuters.com/article/idUSKBN0MC1N320150316
Edit: I should have pointed out that this comment from Netanyahu was from 2015 to avoid confusion. But what it does demonstrate is that he will say X on one day and -X the next depending on how he deems that statement might aid his quest for power in Israel. He's always done this.

THE WASHINGTON TIMES


51% of voters now view Donald Trump favorably, Rasmussen poll says

By Jennifer Harper - The Washington Times - Tuesday, December 27, 2016
Multiple national polls revealed this week that American optimism and good feeling is on a marked upswing as the nation heads for 2017. Now voters appear to be warming to President-elect Donald Trump as well.

A new Rasmussen Reports survey released Tuesday finds that 51 percent of likely U.S. voters have a favorable opinion of Mr. Trump — a number which includes 29 percent who view him “very” favorably. The landmark finding follows weeks of rising poll numbers for the incoming president. His favorability numbers among all voters have increased on average from the low-30 percentage point range to the mid-40s. None have gone over 50 percent in recent days.


There are still hold-outs. The poll also found that 47 percent of voters view him unfavorably.

Still, a Rasmussen analysis of recent survey data released earlier this week also found that 61 percent of voters believe American society is “fair and decent,” and that the nation was experiencing the “highest level of confidence in three-and-a-half years.”

A new Associated Press poll finds that 55 percent of Americans believe things will be better for them in the coming year — up 12 percentage points in the last year, with Republicans are “especially likely” to feel such optimism, the poll said.


And yes, Americans have more confidence in the power of their wallets. A CNBC economic survey covering the fourth quarter of the year found that 42 percent of Americans believe the economy will get better in the next year, an “unprecedented jump” of 17 points following the election, and the highest level since President Obama won the White House in 2008.

Donald Trump announces Sprint to move 5,000 jobs back to U.S.