Let's fire Trump

All we need is for you to stay out of things. You put a serious hitch in the get along of intelligent conversation.

That you are a frustrated troll.

"Head shrink" is a joke term for a psychologist/psychiatrist.

The witch hunting that went on during the time of the Salem Witch Trials turned out to be a scam to wrest property away from its owners at a time when economic conditions were trying and a change of regimes in England made it easier to get away with the hysteria-provocation antics.

The problem is that regardless of how bad you or anyone else says he is, I can't see anything worse in these negative depictions than anything I would expect of the Democratic party or the deep state, so until there is something good to support in government, all the negative depictions are either:
1) true and then the person in office is no better than the rest of the establishment; or
2) false, and then the accusations are just more evidence of a corrupt establishment/media

Either way, it is just a question of waiting until the people are ready to change their ways to reform industrial-consumerism to something that is sustainable and restorative of natural ecology and other live-carbon land cover.

Do you realize that if the people simply choose to continue with staying home and minimizing economic activity that has been going on for the COVID19 situation, that it could initiate meaningful longer-term reforms for sustainability? All we have to do is keep at it and come up with ways to be productive and maintain supply chains that provide us with the things we need, maybe developing some good delivery services that eliminate the need for frequent shopping so we only have to go to the store once a month or less to stock up on things that will last a month or longer at home.

You missed the 'headshrinker' joke??? You need a bigger net!

You make two points: Both sides are equally bad.

I can't even name a another GOP administration this screwed up, why don't you name a Democratic one?

And: that somehow a multi-trillion dollar economy can't sustain fighting Covid19.

We've fought bigger and worse enemies and survived. I'm more of a Capitalist than you are. I believe in a market driven economy. When we get out of this - and we will in spite of what even you admit is monumental mismanagement and mishandling of this pandemic - we will get our lives back to normal. There's still huge piles of personal wealth in this country and it will find its way into the pipeline. Because this is what we do so so well in this America we both claim to love: we get over it, we get better and we thrive.

We've had any number of financial panics after a disastrous civil war that brought absolute devastation to the South and they came back. We had a disastrous Great Depression for ten years and we came back, we fought a huge World War and not only brought back the US but brought back a devastated Europe including the USSR and Japan and we all prospered.

We've survived 30+ years of disaster and death out of the last 100 or so years -world wide some of it, and we survived. Why do you believe these last three months have put us at the edge of the apocalypse? Aren't we made of sterner stuff? Aren't we made in America?

Sacrificing more elderly, children, productive adults to make it easier for you to find TP just is not good sense and its un-American as Hell.

Being willing to sacrifice makes us Americans. You have it ass backwards.

That's not quite right. We will sacrifice to save lives. We do not sacrifice our lives keep the rich wealthy. Three months of this has not brought us to our economic knees regardless of what its done to Trump Inc's bottom line.

You want to die or throw your granma under the bus to keep Trumps Ponzi scheme going, well have at it. I'm staying home now and making hay when this disaster of Trump's making is over.

My grandmothers have been dead a long time. Family is off limits here. It is not keeping people wealthy it is about people earning a living. It is about kids going to school. You are not thinking things through, but hey.

The cartoon characters would have performed better if they had been recognizable.

The names are there to help the visually impaired.

The names are there because the person passing themselves off as a cartoonist is totally inept at the task they were presented with!

I guess he has fooled everyone else, he is a successful cartoonist.

Well, he didn't fool you....though that might be did to having the names shown.

And so is mine, maybe this circumstance might make you realize we're closer than you think once the politics are taken out of the way.

But dead or alive I wouldn't throw anyone's figurative granma figuratively under the bus to line my or anyone else's pockets. And you wouldn't either, right?

But you did understand I was using granma figuratively, right? And you were just clouding my point.



I am very sorry for your loss. My granma Bessie passed in '75 and I still am not completely over it. My granma Churley passed in 2002 and I think about her every day. Of course I can't begin to understand your grief but I morn your loss with you.

pinky is quite adept at reversing the focus or diverting the point . He and Ollie are different arms of the same sock puppet.

I got in trouble swapping their names on them. Of course I would never say it out loud again, but ... you know.

It's not a question of how screwed up any administration is. It is a question of how impossible it is for an economy to evolve toward greater resource conservatism when fiscal growth stimulus prevents people and businesses from adapting to tighter budgets and stimulates them to keep doing everything they do to make as much money or more as they ever have in the past.

In more tangible terms, the Democrats subsidize things like renewable energy, rail projects, low-income housing etc. and by doing so, they pump up the costs of such projects to levels that pay people to go on consuming energy at wasteful levels, buying and driving cars instead of using transit, and the cost of low-income housing remains high for people who don't qualify for subsidies.

I could give many more examples of how Democrat policies, subsidies, and regulations do more to support the status quo that they are claiming to want to change than they do to actually achieve change.

You could even say that the Democrat spending projects work the way small-business loans work for the larger economy; i.e. you give a bunch of small business loans to businesses that are going to fail, and they spend the borrowed money on all sorts of things, which stimulates the economy for bigger businesses that are going to prosper from them failing.

It's like creating an artificial estuary to feed lots of little fish, which then get eaten by bigger fish and sharks. The bigger fish and sharks thrive that much more and expect that much more food because their food supply has been artificially built up.

In an unsubsidized free market, prices come down when sellers realize they simply can't sell their products and services at the levels they've come to expect in a growing economy. Decreasing prices is the natural economy's way of giving a break to the poor, but it doesn't happen in an economy where government stimulus and subsidies are used to artificially pump up demand.

So these Democrat subsidies and stimulus projects designed to prevent recession are actually preventing from the economy from adapting to serve the poor so that they can live independently of subsidies and stimulus.

In short, the government is keeping the economy dependent on it instead of allowing it to adapt to become more independent of government.


The way to fight and achieve economically is for consumers and businesses to adapt to recessions. When businesses and consumers find ways to change what they consume and/or how they work to save money, resources, etc. they shrink their footprint as well, which is what is needed for environmental/climate reform to occur. It means things like driving less, building less infrastructure and sprawl, clearing less land, leaving more land unmanaged so it can regrow in a natural way, etc. All these kinds of reforms lower spending and thus create less jobs, but as unemployment increases, you can hire more people for less hours and/or lower wages, if you can get the unions to accept lower wages as a method of allowing people to work more for the same or less pay.

No one wants to make less money, but that is how prices deflate instead of inflating, and deflation is how saved money gains value.


The inflationary economy is what sacrifices people by taxing savings to gradually make debt easier to repay. People, businesses, and investors all spend and invest money more frivolously because they are desperate to keep making money instead of protecting and conserving the money they already have.

Conservative economic behavior means managing resources more carefully, which means more left over for those who need it. Just a simple example is when a restaurant wants to compete for sales in a bull rush, such as a dinner rush, they prepare lots of product so patrons will have lots of options to choose from, but much of it gets thrown away when customers only choose certain options and forego others. The business makes more money this way because the retail price of the prepared food is much higher than the cost of the raw ingredients.

In a more conservative economy where people can't afford to buy prepared food, they automatically waste less because they can't afford to throw away food. That, in turn, brings down the price of ingredients, which means the poor can afford more food and that less food gets thrown away generally. So when the Democrats subsidize the economy so people can afford to buy more prepared food, they are actually stimulating more food waste, so when they say they want there to be less hunger, etc. they are not really creating the policies that would stimulate people to conserve food and other resources and use them more carefully, i.e. because they are always wanting to give the poor and middle class a standard of living more like the richer people who waste more.

That certainly isn't the experience of western Europe. The GOP certainly subsidizes farmers directly, Big oil with all sorts of taxes break that the shrinking middle class covers budget short falls on, subsidizes soda pop, cereals and candy, ethanol production by subsidizing sugar growers: you argument seems to be that socialism is great for big business.

Cities that put homeless and low income people into homes find that at least in the case of the homeless they cost half the price of social services, and begin to re-enter society, get jobs and contribute - look up Salt Lake City's experience with it.

The idea that making sure the least of us get what they need might make what you want more expensive is untrue, but even so - sacrificing a poor kids needs so your big Mac is "affordable (meat fed with subsidized corn - the biggest welfare program on the planet) is un-American and not very Christian.

I'm not sure you're going into euthanasia or what, but having all of them all magically going to church, buying a house, competing for your job will raise your prices and drive down wages, too.



I don't get this one at all. Cite an artificial estuary where this happens. If anything you're describing an unrestricted capitalistic system I don't recognize as ever happening though trickle-downers and Libertarians probably orgasm at the mere thought of it.

Its a false scenario stitched up to prove a false assumption to counter the models of western Europe and the US. Facts and figure would do you better to illustrate that point whatever it was.



It was kinda breath taking to see that you believe welfare for multi-billion dollar corporations builds their character and giving $1500 to the poor depletes their character.

If a corporation cannot make it through this minor disaster (in terms of the major disasters this nation has weathered just since the Civil War) then they deserve to fail. Now that would build some character. I am a capitalist, I believe in the free market. If an airline fails another one will step into its place, the same way when TWA or Trump Airways belly-uped, others stepped in.

Other than for the poor and some small business, I don't get the point of the stimulus package at all. So we pretty much agree. But I will use mine to support small farms that will never be subsidized: I'm spending mine on pot from a legal source.