Saturday 22 April 2017
The Hermit Kingdom
Sometimes there really is someone who is worse off than you. With all of the saber rattling of North Korea recently I thought it might be interesting to visit this reclusive country. This Frontline film was aired three years ago, but it still gives timely insight into a place that many of us know little about.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
69 comments:
From last thread; Lynnette:
"Maybe not a great day for her, but perhaps it is for France. From what I hear the leader in the race, Macron, is more of a centrist."
Yeah, another Globalist who made his career banking for the Rothshields and is a liberal and pro-EU candidate. Furthermore married his high school teacher, he's now 39 and she's 63. So no children for him - meaning he's living in the moment, meaning he's on board to really fuck us over for the future. A CUCK if ever there was one. And he'll most likely win in 2 weeks hence.
It's sad Lynette. It's just sad. The birthplace of Freedom will bend down to Sharia and ya'll will be next in line. Might as well start sewing those headscarfs Lynnette, because ya gonna need em.
F*ck it. I'm soon done with this shit.
Yo Zeyad, where do I sign up with an ideology where cucks, fags and cat-women aren't in control?
LOL, only joking, I have faith in the white race yet, but as of now it does seem bleak.
It seems like "our" women can't wait for a Talib to put the ino a Burka for instace.
I feel that may be down to too many of our men bahaving like Lee, Like cucked out sissies, and now even our own women are put off by us.
I mean I know they "challenge" us with that feminist bullshit. But our proble is letting them get away with that. It is litteraly a cry for help, a cry for a real male to step in and put them in their place.
And we didn't (collectively) do that so now they feel muslims and Africans might be the wway to go.
BUT - if the worst come to be - I think I'll just grow a beard and become a "muslim" myself. Then be part of the vengeace of all them libs who brought us to this stage by, say, tossing them from tall buildings.
The birthplace of Freedom will bend down to Sharia and ya'll will be next in line. Might as well start sewing those headscarfs Lynnette, because ya gonna need em.
What's sad, Marcus, is that you have so little faith in the strength of the freedom and human rights that western countries have worked so hard to build. You think that a headscarf can undo all of that?
I mean I know they "challenge" us with that feminist bullshit. But our proble is letting them get away with that. It is litteraly a cry for help, a cry for a real male to step in and put them in their place.
Only someone who has no confidence in himself feels threatened by strong willed confident women.
I think I'll just grow a beard and become a "muslim" myself. Then be part of the vengeace of all them libs who brought us to this stage by, say, tossing them from tall buildings.
Extremist behavior only encourages extremist behavior. You would fall into the trap being set by those who seek to tear apart the fabric of our society. Not to mention committing acts that are morally reprehensible.
Lynnette: that second post of mine was so obviously a troll post I didn't think you'd take it seriously.
That said, I am VERY dissapointed that Le Pen came in only second in the first round of voting. That more or less guarantees she won't be President of France. It was always a long shot but if she could have won the first round with 4-5% there might have been some hope. No there's almost none.
And Macron. It would've been far better if Fillon was the opponent. Hell, maybe even that Commie (Mechelon or what's his name - can't be bothered to look it up) would have been a better outcome in the long round (giving him a chance to discredit Communism utterly - which he would've done for sure if he won).
Now we most likely get another "centrist". A liberal bought and paid for by Big Money from the get go. I can't even...
Well, as for the film in this here post. North Korea is one of the most repressive hellholes on earth. Most likely the worst. There are a few of the old Soviet regimes that are almost on par with NK. They all have one thing in common - communism.
On another note, have you ever heard of a more repulsive person than Chelsea Clinton (not counting dictators ane warlords - but counting "normal" people)?
http://www.vanityfair.com/news/2017/04/please-god-stop-chelsea-clinton-from-whatever-she-is-doing
"I wrote a letter to President Reagan when I was five to voice my opposition to his visit to the Bitburg cemetery in Germany, because Nazis were buried there. I didn’t think an American president should honor a group of soldiers that included Nazis. President Reagan still went, but at least I had tried in my own small way."
Yeah you did Chelsea. Because at age 5 you had a good grasp on history and was well informed on Nazi atrocities. Modestly you don't claim to have made a major impact on world politics at age 5 but you "tried in your own small way". What a hero you are!
Chelsea: "They told me that my father had learned to read when he was three. So, of course, I thought I had to too. The first thing I learned to read was the newspaper.”
Of course, Chelsea, you were reading the NYT at age three. No one thinks that's strange at all but we're just marvelling at your excellence.
I remember when I was three and they told me my father was welding ships at the docks when he was just two and I was so sad that I wasn't as good as him. But then when I designed my first Submarime at age four I got my own back! I mean fur realz!
Lynnette: that second post of mine was so obviously a troll post I didn't think you'd take it seriously.
You wanted to make a point, as did I. It worked out fine. :)
And Macron.
I don't know enough about his ideas to really hazard a guess on whether or not he would be good for France. I just know that I don't like Le Pen.
I don't think there is anything wrong in being a centrist. At the moment I think ratcheting down the extreme rhetoric might not be a bad thing for the world.
Lynnette: "I don't know enough about his [Macons] ideas to really hazard a guess on whether or not he would be good for France. I just know that I don't like Le Pen."
Why though? What do you really know of Le Pen?
I challenge you to write down which policies of Le Pen trouble you precisely. And not to go to your go-to media for talking points to do it.
Without research Lynnete (you're prolly gonna cheat on that, but it'd be more instructive if you didn't) WHY and on WHAT GROUNDS do you personally oppose Le Pen?
I would venture a guess here Lynnette. And that's that you've been TOLD by media Le Pen is "bad", and you believe it because you believe media. You probably have VERY little insight into the french elections, but you go by what CNN tells you.
Lemming is what we usually call that. And lemmings, sooner or later, are led off a cliff.
Hop to it Lynnette: which policies on Marine Le Pen are bad? Why are they bad? Explain yourself.
.... no answer... she's researcing...
OK, let's hear not Lynettes view but CNN´s view channelled by Lynnette. Why Is Le Pen bad?
...still trying to find an argument... Lynette's taking her time. CNN didn't pan out now she's onto MSNBC, frantically looking for a coherent agument agsinst Le Pen...
Lynette's taking her time.
lol! No, Lynnette's eating lunch and compiling data for someone else. However, when I get a chance I'll take a peak at Le Pen's statements for you.
Why Is Le Pen bad?
I will ignore her association with a far right party, since she has apparently been trying to distance herself from those positions. At least from what little I have heard. But she does support protectionism, the breakup of NATO and closer ties with Russia. I do not agree with any of those.
Marine Le Pen
While I an not an expert on economics her idea of withdrawing France from the Euro seems to me to be something that could very well lead to instability in Europe. A vote in anger without some consideration for future consequences does not seem a wise choice. I understand the anger of those who feel left out of the system, but throwing away everything that has helped Europe remain a stable region would seem shortsighted. It would also pay into the hands of those who wish the region harm.
Ok, that was a fair answer I guess. But there are a few issues.
She does not really advocate the "breakup" of NATO, but a possible french withdrawal from it. Those are different - as in a withdrawal is in a Nationalistic scope but a breakup would mean imposing your will on other countries meaning an internationalistic scope.
But sure - I can accept that that would be a valid reason for you to oppose Le Pen.
As for scrapping the Euro and returning to the Franc, or exiting the EU, I find that to be a GREAT possible development. Because I absolutely hate how we are guided now by an extremely costly bureacracy in Brussels. And if the french followed the UK to exit this whole mess maybe we could bring it all down.
But even then Le Pen is not running on actually exiting, merely on giving the people of France a VOTE on wether to exit or remain.
As for closer ties to Russia, that is one of the areas that I myself see huge benefits and a limited downside. Sure, you in the US can afford to have Russia as a villain and perpetual enemy, but I think we in Europe would be way better off if we could have normal relations with Russia.
Then of course there's the immigration-issue where Le Pen takes the hardest stance, which is the best stance also, for obvious reasons.
But sadly she's not likely to win. I don't know what the French are really rooting for, they seem to be splintered and disillusioned en masse, so a populist without even a populace will win. Not because people are voting FOR him, but because people are voting AGAINST the alternatives.
Now they get 5 years with a Rothshield banker, neo-liberal to his core. This means lower taxes on the 1%, privatisation of public assets where banksters make a killing and services fail, lax immigration policies, a crackdown on unions and wellfare-systems, and a ramped up involvent in foreign wars.
It's the worst that could afflict France. Of all optios Macron was the very worst. And he'll most likely be their pick.
But hey! Their stockmarket will do well, short term, before the inevitable crash!
I don't know what the French are really rooting for, they seem to be splintered and disillusioned en masse, so a populist without even a populace will win.
I can't say either. But at least it does appear that they may steer clear of a candidate that is intent on throwing the baby out with the bathwater, unlike in my country. I hope they end up in a better place than we have.
Lynnette: "... unlike in my country. I hope they end up in a better place than we have."
Why do YOU complain. Trump is currently busy reneging every promise he was elected on. No withdrawal from NAFTA, the combat against Sanctuary Cities is lost, attacks in Syria because Ivanka was sad when she saw a picture on the Internet, even the wall is dead as Trump won't make it's funding a make or break deal in his budget.
The only thing you're gonna be left with is is a huge tax break for the wealthiest, and probably more and/or ramped up wars.
Hell, even Wolfowitz and his camp are on the Trump Train these days:
http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/04/24/paul-wolfowitz-donald-trump-iraq-middle-east-215065
"“I am like the happiest dude in America right now,” Senator Lindsey Graham said the other day, citing Trump’s Syria strike as well as his tough rhetoric against Iran and nuclear-armed North Korea; this winter, Graham and his close ally Senator John McCain were issuing near-daily warnings about Trump’s foreign policy. Now, he says, “we have got a president and a national security team that I’ve been dreaming of for eight years.”"
Haven't you wondered Lynnnette about how quickly the "Trump-Russia" angle vanished from one day to the next in basically all media?
One day it was front coverage in every newspaper. The next day it just vanished. All it took was for Trump to launch a few missiles at Syria and then get onboard with the War Party.
Right now he's no more than a more intelligent, but equally pliable, version of Dubya.
Which goes to show your "vote" is actually meaningless.
Insanity in the post political western world:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/inspired-life/wp/2016/04/05/dont-laugh-i-have-a-serious-reason-for-raising-my-cats-gender-neutral/?utm_term=.1d0cac79919a
A cat lady debates the genders of her cats, given space in the #2 most powerful news outlet in the world.
Newsflash! A fucking cat is a male or a female, just like humans are male or female. Deal with it!
We are SOOOO fucked! Probably need WW3 as soon as possible to get back to reality.
Trump is currently busy reneging every promise he was elected on.
The only bright spot in an otherwise bleak scenario.
Why do YOU complain.
Because there is the chance, however small, that the Republicans with their shortsighted policy ideas will actually coalesce and pass legislation that could do serious damage to our environment, our debt level, and our security.
But underlying it all is the thought that I believed we were intelligent enough to avoid the missteps of other powerful nations of the past and not become our own worst enemy. It will be a very sad day for us, and the world, if that belief is shattered upon Donald Trump's ego trip and the greed of his cohorts.
Which goes to show your "vote" is actually meaningless.
Voting is never meaningless. It is at the heart of our system of governance. It is what gives me the right to complain. It is an act of freedom that is not found in many countries around the world.
Just because we lost in this last round doesn't mean we always will. To give up and never try means certain failure. It is better to give your all, no matter what you do. At least we can say we tried.
Newsflash! A fucking cat is a male or a female, just like humans are male or female. Deal with it!
But there are those who are confused about their place and the whole point of that article was to simply let them be and give them the respect due any human being.
People are coming to understand that not all of us fit into the “girl” box or the “boy” box. Those who don’t are claiming space to be who they are. We all need to find ways to acknowledge and respect that. My way of respecting it just happens to be raising my cats gender neutral. You can choose your own.
As long as someone isn't harming anyone else their choices should be their own.
Lynnette: "Voting is never meaningless. It is at the heart of our system of governance. It is what gives me the right to complain. It is an act of freedom that is not found in many countries around the world."
I was thinking of the voters for Trump. The ones that did win, you remember that yeah? And the get basically nothing of what they voted for, or at least very little.
They wanted a wall, that's now off the budget (meaning it's dead). They voted against entaglement in the ME and Syria was attacked just a few months into this new administration, and it seems to be developing. They voted for improved relations with Russia and they are worse than ever. They voted against NAFTA and it will stand.
Now comes this whole North Korea thingy. Sounds like Trump is tough but I imagine it's just a show off. The cost of actually doing anything is just too great.
So, as I said before, what Trump managed was unfunded tax cuts - very little else.
He'll be more or less a lame duck from here on end.
Tragic.
Lynnette: "As long as someone isn't harming anyone else their choices should be their own."
For sure. I agree completely. But when these deviants who are tiny minority start to make demands that society should bend itself to accomodate their fringe viewpoints - then we have a problem.
Live and let live - I'm all for that.
47 different bathrooms in every school that normal people have to pay for just because deviants or wannabe-deviants have an axe to grind - that's something else.
"And the get basically nothing of what they voted for, or at least very
little."
That's not entirely true.
A fair number of the dedicated Trumpkins voted for him with the idea that he could perhaps deliver on some promises that the ‘Establishment’ Republicans weren't too eager to fulfill. (A lot of the so-called ‘Establishment’ Republicans are well aware that their Supply-Side, Trickle-Down economic theory is bullshit off the git. Implementing that theory is an almost certain prescription for losing general elections in the future. But, they've sold their ‘base’, a majority of whom have become dedicated Trumpkins, on the erroneous idea that this stuff works. So, they have to keep on promising their voters (‘base’ and Trumpkins alike) that they'll do things they have absolutely no intention of actually doing.) And then there were the additional promises of bringing back jobs from China and Mexico that had actually been lost to automation, and the faerie tale that Trump was somehow gonna make deep tunnel coal mining profitable again in spite of technology that's made it unprofitable even against open pit mining, to say nothing of its disadvantages vis-à-vis natural gas.
But, and this is important, these dedicated Trumkins were also holding on to the backup position that even if Trump didn't deliver on his promises, then at least voting for Trump was the equivalent of giving a finger to the ‘Establishment’, both Republicans and Democrats. At the very least they thought they could count on Trump to burn the damn thing down around us, if he couldn't otherwise deliver what they wanted.
They've still got that backup position. Even as it begins to appear that Trump is an incompent who will never deliver, nevertheless, that raised middle finger to the rest of America is enough to keep them happy. If that's all they can get, that'll be enough to keep ‘em satisfied. They'll be satisfied with simple destruction. If they can't ‘take [their] country back’, at least they can do some serious damage to it. That will be enough to satisfy a fairly high percentage of them.
So, Trump will maintain his almost 40% support against all foreseeable challenges. The problem is, 40% ain't enough to govern with. He needs more than that to keep his Republican legislators afraid of him. 40% is enough to keep him from being impeached, but it's not enough to make the Republicans in Congress afraid of him again, much less frighten the Democrats. And his only political power was fear. He's lost that now, but he can still do some damage. And that'll be enough to satisfy many of the dedicated Trumpkins.
And yeah - there are apparently 47 (or some say 51) genders nowadays, they say. I say there are two - and some confused people. You don't plan a society based on a slight minority of confused people. Better to help them with drugs or therapy. And if they do not want that then live and let live, but we won't be changhing nuffin' to pander to insane beliefs.
"I say there are two…"
Probably more than two. I had a cat which I had neutered as a kitten, and it grew up thinking it was a puppy. (Rottweiler pup was a few months older than the kitten.)
I have to disagree Lee. I think, to keep his base, he would have had to deliver on at least ONE of his core issues. I think the Wall would've been the best one. If he could have proved to them that he did build a wall (it needent be a complete wall across the whole stretch, but something tangible) then he could've kept most of his base.
The folks you're talking about - the burn it down crowd - for sure are a PORTION of his base. But they are not close to 50% of Americans. A lot of people likely voted for Trump based on his promises, not just to burn it all down.
Then of course a lot will depennd on how the economy fares these next 4 years, which will give Trump a boost if it goes well and sink him if it doesn't - despite the fact that he actually, as any president, has a quite limited impact on it after all.
Lee: "Probably more than two. I had a cat which I had neutered as a kitten, and it grew up thinking it was a puppy. (Rottweiler pup was a few months older than the kitten.)"
Well, if you had a boy you snipped as a baby and he grew up thinking he was a goldfish I still say he's a boy. Just like your kitten grew into a cat, regardless of what it thought it was. (BTW - you could have tried by tossing it into a pen with other Rottweilers just to see how that would have played out. I am not conviced they would have seen that de facto cat as one of their own).
"But they are not close to 50% of Americans."
I believe I mentioned that, if you'd just bothered to look. He'll keep his almost 40%, which is not enough to govern, but is enough to keep him from being impeached. And the ‘burn the damn thing down’ was "Plan B", for in case Plan A doesn't work, which it is not. But, ‘Plan B’ will be enough to keep his almost 40%.
The cat learned early, when in danger or in doubt, to go stand between the front legs of her Rottweiler. That seemed to solve most problems that came at the cat.
And, just for a closing point. You might want to remember that Trump has always been a minority President. He lost the popular vote to Hillary. He's never come close to having 50% support, and never will.
Doubt that cat then really thought it was a Rottweiler. I don't think many Rottweilers have the emergency strategy to go stand between the front legs of another Rottweiler.
Nah, I guess that cat still knew it was a cat and got protection because it was friends with a dog - not because it thought it was a dog.
Lee: "He's never come close to having 50% support, and never will."
Depends on the definition of "close". I say he got pretty close. 48% or so is pretty close to 50%.
Plus, as you well know when you're busy building your strawman, the electorate college works in other ways than "most total votes".
You wanna attack that you'd be wise to attack the electorate system first, not bitch 'bout an outcome that's decided.
Return to the pack is generally the dominant strategy for a dog under duress, any dog (even if the rest of the ‘pack’ consists only of the single human)
He didn't get 48% or so either; Hillary is the one who got on the high side of 48%. He got barely 46% and only got that much because Democratic turnout was way down (considering it was a Presidential election).
So did your Rottweiler on occation take shelter between the front legs of that cat? I mean since they both apparently thought the cat was another Rottweiler?
The Rottweiler came to me when threatened; I was pack leader. The pack is fiercely hierarchical.
Still pretty close to 50%. I can't think of anything swaying the recent US elections 4-5% in a single turn myself, but it isn't inconceivable. A major terror attack perhaps. Although it's not clear at all that that wouldv'e favoured Trump. Might have, might not have. Still, 46 is pretty close to 50.
Did the cat also come to you when threatened? I mean because you claimed the cat thought it was another Rottweiler?
"Plus, as you well know when you're busy building your strawman…"
I'm not the one building the strawman. This is not about the electoral system. This is about your apparent misconception that Trump was ever close to having 50% support, or that I ever hinted that he did. Neither of those things are true. Your diversion into a discussion of the electoral system doesn't make either of those things any closer to being true.
I'm not the one building a strawman here.
That 46% of the vote that Trump got was 46% of the people who turned out to vote. This was a low-turnout election. Trump wouldn't have won otherwise. (Democrats do tend to lose low turnout elections--it's a firmly established pattern.)
"Did the cat also come to you when threatened?"
Hierarchical, first go to the rottweiler. (Rottweiler was usually closer anyway; they were best buds.)
But if the cat thought he was a Rottweiler, why did he go to the other (real) Rottweiler first and not to you who was the "pack leader"?
Heirarchy. (Also, the rottweiler was usually closer; they grew up together and hung out together, also the rottweiler thought she had status on the cat, which means she got the favored position nearest the pack leader; cat got the fringe position.)
Lee, I have to hand it to you. Sorry 'bout this 'an all. But I really don't think your neutured cat lived out his life believeing he was a Rottweiler.
You weren't that guy with two Rottweilers, you were the guy with a Rottweiler and a strange-assed cat who was friends with a dog. That's all.
One cat and one dog. That's all there's to that.
And for that matter, even IF a cat thinks it's a dog it clearly isn't. We can all agree on that, right?
If a jellyfish thinks it's a rhinosaurous it clearly isn't. Right?
It was Lee who brought a species argument into a gender argument so don't blame me.
But fact is, any human being is born with either XX chromosones making them Female; or XY chromosones making them male.
Those are the facts. There are but two genders.
Feelings, as in 51 different gender mutilations are just that - feelings. Or trends.
We can, as I said before, live and let live when it come down to deviants whose minds conflict with reality. But we shouldn't waste energy on this.
"But fact is, any human being is born with either XX chromosones
making them Female; or XY chromosones making them male."
That happens to not be true either. I believe the Trumpkins would call that an ‘alternative fact’, as in, one which happens to not be true.
Challenge!
XYY chromosomes
XXY chromosomes
Now comes this whole North Korea thingy. Sounds like Trump is tough but I imagine it's just a show off. The cost of actually doing anything is just too great.
What does a dictator like to do best when he wants to consolidate power? He finds an enemy to beat up on. For Saddam Hussein it was Israel, for Kim Jong Un it is the US. What does someone who is copying the playbook of a dictator do? I wouldn't guarantee Trump to see beyond his desire to get a win.
So, as I said before, what Trump managed was unfunded tax cuts - very little else.
Actually he hasn't managed that yet, either. The only thing of substance that he has accomplished is nominating and seating another conservative Justice to the Supreme Court.
"I wouldn't guarantee Trump to see beyond his desire to get a win."
I think even Trump knows that getting Seoul reduced to rubble will create an unfavorable backlash.
He's probably gonna talk tough for awhile (the dedicated Trumpkins will like that). Then he'll find a way to back down while pretending he's not backing down. (The dedicated Trumpkins will like that too.) ‘Course, with Trump ya never know fer shure.
"The only thing of substance that he has accomplished is nominating
and seating another conservative Justice to the Supreme Court."
I think ya gotta give that one to Mitch McConnell (something the Trumpkins will notice if they ever give up trying hard to find reasons to stick with Trump).
"The only thing you're gonna be left with is is a huge tax break for the
wealthiest…"
"…what Trump managed was unfunded tax cuts - very little else."
I've noticed that these tax cuts have been embraced by the ‘Establishment’ Republicans. That's to be expected, of course. This is Republican economic orthodoxy after all--tax cuts for the rich at any cost.
However, one of the things the ‘Establishment’ Republicans have had to try to deal with in the coming of Trump is the realization that their voting ‘base’ is much less enamoured of their Republican orthodox economic policy than the Paul Ryans of the Party would have hoped. Turns out the rank and file ‘base’ Republicans are much more attracted to the nativism and bigotry elements and even to the social conservatism than they are to the faerie tale economic theories. This does not stop the Paul Ryans and Mitch McConnells and the rest from pushing their Republican faerie tale economic theory, but it does worry them, as it well should.
So, the question now arises. Trump has embraced the faerie tale economic theory and issued a one-page, so-called tax ‘plan’ which managed to keep itself to one page by not containing a plan at all--just a call for tax cuts for the rich, no plan other than that.
Quaere then: Will the dedicated Trumpkins go along again? They've shown an amazing willingness to embrace whatever lunacy Trump advocates. Will they go along with the faerie tale economic theory one more time just because Trump found it expedient to court the Wall Street wing of the Republican Party one more time?
I'm not sure how this will work out.
If I had to bet, I'd bet they go along with it one more time. But I'm not sure.
"…but I think we in Europe would be way better off if we could have
normal relations with Russia."
Putin is a bully and a thug whose popularity at home is founded upon his ability to successfully and publicly abuse foreigners and thereby prove that Russia is a great power once again. (The similarity here among Putin, Erdogan and Shorthands, The Incredible Dancing Bear has been observed by others--AlMonitor; this thought is not original to me.) Putin's idea of what would constitute ‘normal’ relations between Sweden and Russia is a relationship where Sweden grovels and Russia struts, and if you happen to come up with anything of interest to the Russians they just move in and take it and laugh at you. For Putin, that would be ‘normal relations’ between Sweden and Russia.
I understand what's in such a ‘normal relationship’ for Russia and for Putin.
Why you would desire that same thing is beyond my ken. Obviously you do desire that, but the ‘why’ escapes me.
You make it real hard to not laugh out loud at your repeated protestations that your political enemies are ‘cucks, fags and cat-women’ and the like.
Methinks thou doth protest too much.
Nevertheless, I have managed to not have to laugh out loud…yet….
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
"No withdrawal from NAFTA…"
You been rethinking your previously favorable inclinations towards free-trade policies, have ya? Perhaps you been educating yourself on traditional fascist economic theory and getting yourself into alignment with same? Or, maybe this wins your support only because it's good for Putin and bad for the west, and we should consider your current dismay over continued free trade to be a one-shot deal?
I notice that Trump has chosen to avoid...er...skip the White House Correspondents dinner for instead a campaign style event of his choosing. Perhaps sitting through what Woodward and Bernstein, of Watergate fame, might have to say was not something he would find too pleasant. I can certainly understand that.
Will they go along with the faerie tale economic theory one more time just because Trump found it expedient to court the Wall Street wing of the Republican Party one more time?
I watched a couple from Appalachia who now have access to health care because of the ACA ( Obamacare) still adamant about their support for Donald Trump, despite the fact that his efforts to overturn the ACA might put their healthcare in jeopardy. They said if he brought jobs back they would be happy even if it put their healthcare at risk. So, I think perhaps the tipping point for supporters of Trump will be if he cannot deliver on that jobs promise.
Others have also thought of the dementia possibility when it comes to Trump.
"So, I think perhaps the tipping point for supporters of Trump will be if
he cannot deliver on that jobs promise."
I have made that argument before, on these pages. Had you not noticed?
However, I think it may be more accurate to call that an inflection point. I think he'll likely lose the last of the persuadables over that, but I don't think the truly dedicated Trumpkins can be persuaded. I think giving the middle finger to the rest of America is too important to them for anything to cause them to give it up. I think Shorthands likely has a firm floor of nearly 40% who'll be sufficiently satisfied if he merely inflicts some serious damage on the country.
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
"Others have also thought of the dementia possibility when it comes to
Trump."
Probably inevitable that the idea would occur to other people as well.
TrumpTweets: Appears Shorthands is pissed off this morning that the 100 days has come and gone and he still hasn't managed to put up an alternative for ObamaCare, not even for a vote. Blaming it on the Democrats that he can't corral his Republicans. This will probably work only with the dedicated Trumpkins.
Quaere then: Will the dedicated Trumpkins go along again?
A rhetorical quaere then? Okay. I took you literally.
"A rhetorical quaere then?"
I'm afraid it's even worse than that. I framed the question fairly poorly. I was thinking even shorter term than the jobs-over-time question. I meant to get right at the ‘tax cuts for the rich’ issue itself. Will the dedicated Trumpkins go along with this long enough for Trump and the Republicans to ram these tax cuts through over what I expect will be almost unified Democratic oppostion? (The fact that it won't generate the results they promise is a rather more extended problem than the one I was thinking on.)
(The fact that it won't generate the results they promise is a rather more extended problem than the one I was thinking on.)
The thing is that in the long run it won't generate the results for the rich either. How does the increase in government debt help anyone?
"How does the increase in government debt help anyone?"
They don't intend to pay it, so it doesn't hurt them. Meantime, it allows them to increase the distance between what they own and what's left over for the remaining 99.9%. When the crash comes and the government currency becomes worthless it'll be their other property that carries them through as Masters of the Universe, unblemished by mundane considerations like government debts.
(At their level of income, and most especially and significantly property ownership being rich is a relative measure vis-à-vis other people in the world, not a numerical measure against a standard currency.)
They better hope their other property isn't beach front.
The important property for this analysis is income producing property, specifically that which will still produce income even after the money is ‘adjusted’. Just gotta produce in the new money is all. (If you study up on economics you'll run across the term ‘rent seeking’ now and then--they like income producing property--the beach front stuff can be moved when the beach moves if they've got enough income producing property.)
...-the beach front stuff can be moved when the beach moves if they've got enough income producing property.)
And no one to put up a fuss if they encroach on their turf.
Post a Comment