monitoring Trump and relevant contemporary events

@McGentrix,

Quote:

Would you say that the US is a Republic with Democratic tendencies, or a Democracy with Republican tendencies?

I vote for a republic with democratic tendencies..

The republic part controls the democratic part. Especially through information control, the framing of what is normal and the presentation of 'choice' which is not really choice at all because what you get is six of one and half a dozen of the other..

0 Replies

@Baldimo,

Baldimo wrote:

That's the problem, you keep comparing us to other countries instead of what you know the US is capable of. You just can't bring yourself to do it because it would mean admitting that Obama didn't do as great a job as you think he did.

I don't know what the US is capable of.

What numbers do you think Trump will bring in? What are we capable of?

1 Reply

@maporsche,

You have got to be kidding me. My mom says that you can't be serious.

1 Reply

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/C1dLdqWW8AIzqm6.jpg

0 Replies

@maporsche,

It's certainly much better then under 3%.

1 Reply

@georgeob1,

Quote:

It is logical to assume their intention was to add to the election turmoil in the U.S. , but beyond that there is only speculation.

Turmoil not the only conclusion. They "used hacking to try to influence the presidential election" and
"The ebullient reaction among high-ranking Russian officials — including some who U.S. officials believe had knowledge of the country’s cyber campaign to interfere in the U.S. election — contributed to the U.S. intelligence community’s assessment that Moscow’s efforts were aimed at least in part at helping Trump win the White House.["/b] link

[quote]Is this a new and outrageous act on the part of a foreign power?

The answer is no - such things have long been common. The extensive propaganda campaign and efforts to influence both politicians and public opinion by the UK was a major factor in getting this country into WWI, something that was objectively not in our national interest. This was repeated in the lead up to WWII. From the late 1920s thru about 1980 the USSR financed the operations of the American Communist party, and the work of numerous writers, and propagandists in this country, plus a few union leaders.[/quote]
Both are inappropriate and non-equivalent comparisons. Britain/US or Russia/US relationships are/were not anywhere near the same (I won't even begin to rebut the notion the US's interests would have been forwarded by not contesting Hitler's advance against Europe and Britain.) And the covert actions of the Soviets to influence writers or unions or others in the US is nothing like this situation where party communications were hacked and information released with the aim of putting one candidate in office and keeping the other one out of office. There were NO releases of information which had the effect of derogation of Trump or of the RNC - an imbalance that in itself tells a story you seem quite unwilling to face.

[quote]I know of no evidence suggesting any material effect on voting patterns, though this will likely remain a disputed matter.[/quote]
Such direct evidence (for almost any electoral factor) is never available. So such absence of evidence cannot be construed as meaningful.

And in all of this, you continue to avoid or distract from what Trump and his people (and others) have said and done to discount Russia's role and intentions:

1) Trump is lying.
2) He has also been absolutely irresponsible in not attending to full and proper intel briefings.
3) You and others ignore Trump's stated admiration of Putin and authoritarian-style leadership
4) You ignore ties between Putin/Russia with Trump and with key people in his team and administration or nominated to join it.

None of this is normal. All of it constitutes a level of threat which does not have precedent.

Edit: sorry not sure how all that bolding in the bottom 2/3s has happened.

0 Replies

@Baldimo,

Baldimo wrote:

It's certainly much better then under 3%.

But no idea on how much better?

That's disappointing....not to mention a bit funny, you criticizing me for not holding Obama accountable to how great the economy could have been, but at the same time, unwilling to provide your estimate as to what that number should be. Or, I'll add, and expectation for your candidate, Trump. Super-predictable though.

I did take a look. Among the top 5 economies, the USA came in at #2 after China. China was at like 7% it looked like. I wonder if Trump thinks we'll get that high...do you Baldimo?

1 Reply

@McGentrix,

Quote:

Would you say that the US is a Republic with Democratic tendencies, or a Democracy with Republican tendencies?

I think it is an entirely unnecessary semantic dispute.

You are saying that you wrote that piece at ThisNation? I can find no notation of authorship anywhere.

1 Reply

@tony5732,

tony5732 wrote:

You have got to be kidding me. My mom says that you can't be serious.

Serious about what?

1 Reply

@maporsche,

c.i.'s link above is useful

US at 2.6% GDP growth in 2015
China at 6.9%
India at 7.6%

Russian Federation at -3.7%

again - looking at the African countries that China has been working with is fascinating. It makes the reports coming out of recent trade meetings in South America even more interesting. The TPP without the US could be a real winner for quite a few countries.

0 Replies

@maporsche,

"Who decides what values go on the petition. Say the petition says something like "do you think the minimum wage should be raised to $10.10?" --- who decided to put $10.10 on there? Why not $11.10 or $12.10? Who are these poltical power brokers that won't let true direct democracy work in your world?"

Whoever cared enough to start the petition and get it signed by enough people. The "political power brokers" are more an outdated system thato puts power into the hands of few representing many, inaccurately.

"what makes you think it's much more complicated than something like business regulation? Does the average Joe understand the downstream implications of removing regulation for say how dynamite is transported on the highway? Or proper storage toxic waste? Or how about the worldwide economic impact of loosening lending restrictions between financial institutions (see economic collapse of 2008).
Forums » monitoring Trump and relevant
"
Well, the "average joe" lives in this. Yes, we understand it. If we don't, oh well. It's OUR country. We can mess it up just as good as the next guy. There's NOTHING saying one person in charge is any smarter or dumber than the collective group, expecially when the group is living in this and working in it and depending on this stuff to work. Let's at least make these decisions together.

Democracy, and how the US can push to become one.

I started that thread because this subject doesn't have much to do with trump

1 Reply

Another mass shooting in the US with many killed. This is truly insane.

0 Replies

@maporsche,

"My brother in particular didn't vote for Hillary because the it was proven that the DNC preferred her over Sanders. If the hacking did not occur, this information would not have been made public. Hillary would have gotten at least 1 more vote.

It's anecdotal, but true. This is how the release of specifically hacked data can influence an election."

This isn't really any sort of anything.

1 Reply

@tony5732,

tony5732 wrote:

"what makes you think it's much more complicated than something like business regulation? Does the average Joe understand the downstream implications of removing regulation for say how dynamite is transported on the highway? Or proper storage toxic waste? Or how about the worldwide economic impact of loosening lending restrictions between financial institutions (see economic collapse of 2008).

"
Well, the "average joe" lives in this. Yes, we understand it. If we don't, oh well. It's OUR country. We can mess it up just as good as the next guy. There's NOTHING saying one person in charge is any smarter or dumber than the collective group, expecially when the group is living in this and working in it and depending on this stuff to work. Let's at least make these decisions together.

Sorry Tony; I'd much rather the job go to people who're paid to understand it and have staffs of people helping them understand it. I don't want my plumber deciding how to regulate how much mercury is allowed in our drinking water.

And as you know, there are over 500 members of our federal government responsible for deciding the laws, plus many thousands on their staffs. Plus many thousands in our states.

For better or worse, I trust them more than I do the collective group.

0 Replies

@tony5732,

tony5732 wrote:

"My brother in particular didn't vote for Hillary because the it was proven that the DNC preferred her over Sanders. If the hacking did not occur, this information would not have been made public. Hillary would have gotten at least 1 more vote.

It's anecdotal, but true. This is how the release of specifically hacked data can influence an election."

This isn't really any sort of anything.

No it's not. I specifically said it was anecdotal. Anecdotal literally means "not necessarily true or reliable, because based on personal accounts rather than facts or research."

It was an example use to help answer CI's last question in his post.

0 Replies

@blatham,

No, I said the stuff in that post I wrote. I know that you like to know who wrote things so you can pre-judge them. I should have said "these" instead of "those". My bad in that.

1 Reply

@McGentrix,

Pre-judge? Sourcing is important and often entirely relevant. I quote and link more conservative writers here than probably anyone but do so because I have found them to reasonable and knowledgeable in the subject areas under discussion. Likewise my quotes/links from people on the left. Expertise matters. Relevant experience/education matters. Prior behaviors and good faith efforts and honesty matter.

0 Replies

@maporsche,

It's below what the typical average is for a "good economy". He is also below what Bush had for growth in GDP. He's so great but doing less than Bush who you think sucked.

2 Replies

@Baldimo,

Baldimo wrote:

It's below what the typical average is for a "good economy". He is also below what Bush had for growth in GDP. He's so great but doing less than Bush who you think sucked.

So...a number? What's a "good economy" number? I'm seeing numbers online that 2.5-3.5% is ideal. 2.6% falls into that range.
http://www.investopedia.com/university/releases/gdp.asp

I'd guess you'd be able to conclude that Obama has been ideal.

But I don't know...maybe you have a different number you could provide me.

2 Replies

@Baldimo,

Quote:

It's below what the typical average is for a "good economy". He is also below what Bush had for growth in GDP. He's so great but doing less than Bush who you think sucked.

I don't know all the details on this issue, but it seems to me that what we should be looking at, if we are judging administrations, is how much better/worse the economy is doing, using when the new administration started and its associated metrics as our starting point?

If I start a race at a disadvantage of 200 meters compared to another guy who was to eventually beat me in the race by a meter, then, all things being equal between the racers, I think I did pretty good.

So, if our economy started at -6 and now we are at +2, then that really is a difference of '8', not just +2..?

I'm not arguing that someone else couldn't have done better than Obama, just for perspective in that argument. Make the case. Were we at -6 or some such and now we are at +2? I don't know.

Folks seem to get their sources from different places. Trump gets a 42% unemployment rate from somewhere ('some say') and in doing so, radically changes the discussion because now he has thrown into (crazy!) doubt the validity of all sources..It drags all possible information points down which is what I think Blatham is trying to say when he says sources are important.

'Some Say' is not a source that I know of - it just appears to be a blatant attempt to make matters worse because that's how folks like Trump have to paint the world in order to get elected. It also has the side effect of obfuscation of other more reliable sources of 'facts'..

What do you think?

1 Reply

monitoring Trump and relevant contemporary events

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know