[mike777]

"The conversation seems to have drifted off into the weeds (imo.) I appreciate barmar's gracious reply to my last post.

I'll just summarize my own position on immigration, which I think is close to Trump's (for those who pretend Trump's position is incoherent. It's only 2 pages long and summarizes ALL of his priorities for his first 100 days, maybe give it a read?)

A nation has the right to enforce its borders and the duty to enforce its laws. A nation's immigration law should serve the national interest of that nation and the best interest of that nation's citizens. A nation has the right to deport people who snuck across its borders (or overstayed visas) and live there illegally. A nation has the right to deny social services to people living within its borders illegally. A nation has the right to force its large employers to ensure the legal status of its employees.''''''"



OK Ok OK Again not sure anyone here is arguing nations dont have a "right" to do again whatever they can get away with...rights are tricky things. Now if you advocate that your home country of Canada do the above things...ok good luck


------------------


btw saw an article on how the government of China is imposing a "social credit score" with punishments for low scores on its citizens.....WOW! SCARY!

https://en.wikipedia...l_Credit_System

[mike777]

Winstonm, on 2016-November-29, 15:28, said:

I found this opinion piece from an educated white woman who voted for Trump to be quite demoralizing.



It is clear from the woman's words that both Julian Assange and James Comey affected the outcome of the election, meaning, in the case of Assange, that Russia affected the outcome. It also means the the opinion page of the WSJ, a literary form of Fox News, is being listened to as if it were non-biased and valid. And finally, it means that the Right Wing propaganda has been repeated long enough and hard enough to be assumed "truth" by many casual observers.

I think the U.S.A. is screwed. The attack on the New Deal and the Great Society has begun with Ayn Randians in charge of the outcome. Things are indeed bleak.

R-E-L-A-X WINSTON

NOTHING LASTS FOREVER

[mike777]

"What Canada currently allows doesn't mean it ought to be allowed. Before the 1960's we had a very sensible immigration policy. And yet they changed that policy. Without a theocracy, or robots or AI even!"


ok BUT AGAIN , please check out China's social credit score AI/robot program....SCARY stuff

[billw55]

Winstonm, on 2016-November-29, 15:28, said:

I think the U.S.A. is screwed. The attack on the New Deal and the Great Society has begun with Ayn Randians in charge of the outcome. Things are indeed bleak.

Ah, but this risk was always known, event to the founders. They were wise enough to plan for this, to construct a nation organized in such a way that it cannot be destroyed by a bad executive. This has been demonstrated in the past, and now will be put to the test again. I have confidence.

[kenberg]

Winstonm, on 2016-November-29, 15:28, said:

I found this opinion piece from an educated white woman who voted for Trump to be quite demoralizing.



It is clear from the woman's words that both Julian Assange and James Comey affected the outcome of the election, meaning, in the case of Assange, that Russia affected the outcome. It also means the the opinion page of the WSJ, a literary form of Fox News, is being listened to as if it were non-biased and valid. And finally, it means that the Right Wing propaganda has been repeated long enough and hard enough to be assumed "truth" by many casual observers.

I think the U.S.A. is screwed. The attack on the New Deal and the Great Society has begun with Ayn Randians in charge of the outcome. Things are indeed bleak.

There is no reason to bring up Ayn Rand. The Democratic Party needs to think hard about how to get her vote in 2020, or in 2018 for that matter, and they should start by listening to what she has to say.

Humans are not entirely rational beings. That includes me, but that is hardly a confession since I believe that it includes everyone. But people listen, at least some do.

i had to look up what it meant that she holds a terminal degree. It sounded ominous.

[mikeh]

billw55, on 2016-November-29, 15:55, said:

Ah, but this risk was always known, event to the founders. They were wise enough to plan for this, to construct a nation organized in such a way that it cannot be destroyed by a bad executive. This has been demonstrated in the past, and now will be put to the test again. I have confidence.

Go have a read of the Constitution of the Russian Federation. It espouses freedoms and rights in what is (in translation) modern language and seems perfectly reasonable and indeed easier to understand and more freedom oriented than the US Constitution. Then look at how the country is run...with 'free elections' of course.

It couldn't happen here. The claim of so many over so long.

Look at the McCarthy era. With Hoover in charge of the FBI and Eisenhower sitting on the sidelines, the US Congress treated the Constitution with contempt.

Look at the Japanese internment or the Dredd decision of the SCOTUS.

Your country has the profoundly bizarre, in my opinion, practice of selecting justices to your SCOTUS explicitly on the basis of political affiliation. Now Trump gets to pick at least one and possibly up to 4 more Justices.

When it is permissible to make sure that your appointments will rule as you want, before appointing them, the check afforded by the SCOTUS is illusory.

When major media, including online and mainstream media, fawn over Trump and legitimize the most abhorrent raving white nationalists, as Bannon has done for years, why do you think that anyone in power will protect your rights?

Police officers and military personnel are generally selected, and self-selected, to be amenable to hierarchical control. Indeed, boot camp and police academies, to a less fearsome extent, are intended to break down the personality of the recruit and to rebuild it to be obedient.

This has real value when it comes to preparing people to kill other people. Most of us recoil from the idea of killing others. Most of us are terrified of getting into a fight against people armed with lethal weapons. Military commanders need to know that their orders will be obeyed, so recruits are rigorously conditioned to obey.

Police officers are generally psychologically assessed: at least in the larger departments that can afford it. There is considerable self-selection in the hiring process but screening isn't just to weed out psychopaths: it is also intended to maximize the likelihood that the recruit will be a good, which means obedient, police officer, for the same, but diluted, reasoning as applies to the military.

So Trump will appoint 'law and order' and aggressive law enforcement and armed forces leaders, while stacking the SCOTUS with those who see the world his way. Meanwhile Congress may be tempted by the same rationalizations as the von Pappen deputies in the Reichstag in the 1930's.

I don't think for one moment that Trump is Hitler. I don't think he has any kind of agenda beyond 'winning' and getting sycophantic adulation.

But those around him are far more sinister, especially Bannon, and they know how to play him. Putin does as well, and you can be sure that many around the world are paying attention to how successful the Russians have been. There can be little doubt but that Putin, through Assange but also through a very careful and now increasingly documented fake news campaign on FB and elsewhere, swung enough votes to get his useful idiot in the White House.

Trump loves to listen to praise, and he listens to it avidly from all accounts. This is a man who, according to his ghostwriter, starts each day reading the 'good' stuff printed or published about him: he has staff whose main job is to find this stuff and have it ready for him.

At the same time he personally watches shows such as Good Morning America and SNL and then spends hours tweeting when his feelings are hurt.

He is going to be a pawn in the hands of some very nasty people who do not have the interests of American democracy in their hearts, and there is NO institutional power capable of resistance unless by some miracle enough republicans grow a sense of decency.

Look at how the leading lights of the republican party have reacted since the election. Ryan is groveling, because he is terrified that Trump will seek his revenge, and there goes both his status as Speaker and any chance of being President in the next 8-12 years. If Trump and his handlers destroy democracy in the next 4 years, then Trump or his anointed successor will defeat Ryan for the republican candidacy while if Trump crashes and burns, and the electorate swings against him decisively, no republican who licked his boots has any chance.

So the calculus for republican politicians now is simple. If one wants to cling to power and privilege, and ensure a lucrative career as a lobbyist later, one has to kneel before the Leader and do whatever he wants. Look at Romney, sucking up to him. Look at the way Christie sold out. Look at Cruz....look what Trump did to him and his wife, and see how Cruz knuckled under.

A Constitution is a political instrument of no value whatsoever unless people with power want it to have value. For all of the foregoing reasons, I am not the least bit optimistic. In fact, I am terrified, since the US is an example for many nations. Plus, the trump depression, which seems entirely probable but not in the next couple of years, will wreak havoc.

[Kaitlyn S]

jonottawa, on 2016-November-29, 12:37, said:

Now, as for Islam. I read this article last night and I found it fascinating. Particularly the section that begins about half-way down: A Personal View of Sharia. I can see why the religion is so appealing and successful. I personally find many aspects of the religion appealing.

That's because you're not a woman. Any woman that finds Sharia the least bit appealing should have her head examined.

[Winstonm]

kenberg, on 2016-November-29, 16:53, said:

There is no reason to bring up Ayn Rand. The Democratic Party needs to think hard about how to get her vote in 2020, or in 2018 for that matter, and they should start by listening to what she has to say.

Humans are not entirely rational beings. That includes me, but that is hardly a confession since I believe that it includes everyone. But people listen, at least some do.

i had to look up what it meant that she holds a terminal degree. It sounded ominous.

I bring up Ayn Rand because Paul Ryan, current Speaker of the House, is an Ayn Rand Acolyte. With Trump's appointees hard line right wingers, Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security and all other social safety net programs are now in danger of funding reductions.

Quote

But Ryan made no bones about his philosophical influences just a few years ago. He told the Weekly Standard in 2003 that he gave his staffers copies of “Atlas Shrugged” as Christmas presents. Speaking to a group of Rand acolytes in 2005, Ryan said, “The reason I got involved in public service, by and large, if I had to credit one thinker, one person, it would be Ayn Rand. And the fight we are in here, make no mistake about it, is a fight of individualism versus collectivism.”

Even three years ago, Tim Mak of Politico noted, Ryan channeled Rand. “What’s unique about what’s happening today in government, in the world, in America, is that it’s as if we’re living in an Ayn Rand novel right now,” Ryan said. “I think Ayn Rand did the best job of anybody to build a moral case of capitalism, and that morality of capitalism is under assault.”

I think it is important to know that a politician in a position of power thinks Atlas Shrugged is his personal Mein Kampf.

[y66]

Winstonm, on 2016-November-29, 15:28, said:

I found this opinion piece from an educated white woman who voted for Trump to be quite demoralizing.

It is clear from the woman's words that both Julian Assange and James Comey affected the outcome of the election, meaning, in the case of Assange, that Russia affected the outcome. It also means the the opinion page of the WSJ, a literary form of Fox News, is being listened to as if it were non-biased and valid. And finally, it means that the Right Wing propaganda has been repeated long enough and hard enough to be assumed "truth" by many casual observers.

I think the U.S.A. is screwed. The attack on the New Deal and the Great Society has begun with Ayn Randians in charge of the outcome. Things are indeed bleak.

I think you're still in shock and reading too much into that story. The woman was a fan of Peggy Noonan for Chrissake.

[y66]

Winstonm, on 2016-November-29, 19:35, said:

I bring up Ayn Rand because Paul Ryan, current Speaker of the House, is an Ayn Rand Acolyte. With Trump's appointees hard line right wingers, Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security and all other social safety net programs are now in danger of funding reductions.

I think it is important to know that a politician in a position of power thinks Atlas Shrugged is his personal Mein Kampf.

The Ayn Rand thing is old news bordering on necro. I think it's more relevant to point out, as Jon Stewart pointed out on Charlie Rose two weeks ago, that "Trump is not draining the swamp. Ryan and McConnell are the swamp."

[kenberg]

Winstonm, on 2016-November-29, 19:35, said:

I bring up Ayn Rand because Paul Ryan, current Speaker of the House, is an Ayn Rand Acolyte. With Trump's appointees hard line right wingers, Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security and all other social safety net programs are now in danger of funding reductions.



I think it is important to know that a politician in a position of power thinks Atlas Shrugged is his personal Mein Kampf.

You posted an article, and you mentioned Ayn rand

I said there is no reason to bring up Ayn Rand. I was responding to your post about the article.

So you say you bring up Ayn Rand because of Paul Ryan.

And, speaking of Ryan, let us not forget Mein Kampf.

As Lucrezia Borgia would say...Well, I forget what she said. And I haven't read Mein Kampf. Well, I read some of it. And a little Ayn Rand. Some Karl Marx also. And Wonder Woman.

Anyway, what I meant was that in the context of the article by Dr. Chew there is no reason to bring up Ayn Rand. Nothing in that article suggests that she is an Ayn fan.

[onoway]

So, what happens when the jobs that Trump promised don't materialize, when people lose whatever medical coverage they have except via private insurers, when things don't get in any way better for those people who voted for Trump, trusting in the verbal diarrhea of a con man? Who will they blame? Surely not themselves, that's not something people generally do, regarding their misfortunes, and especially not in an exuberantly litigious society such as the U.S. appears to be, it's always someone else's fault. So what's next, when the con is clear?

just as an aside, my new favorite weekly half hour show is out of London, called No Such Thing As The News. ( on You Tube). One item they mentioned was the proliferation of not only fake news but fake newspapers, noting that two newspapers published a grumpy plea for people to stop quoting newspapers that either didn't exist at all ever ( Denver) or hadn't existed since 1860 or so ( maybe Milwaukee? They said but I don't remember the name). They also said that according to researchers ( they said who but don't remember that group either) fake news got shared considerably more often than real news ... also using the bus tweet as an example..and possibly the most interesting thing, that over half the people didn't read all or even most of the article or news item they were sharing. It would be interesting to know how they knew this, though, possibly assuming that x amount of time is needed to read something and over 50% of the people took less time. That would be relatively easy to track, internet marketers have been doing it for ages.

[barmar]

jonottawa, on 2016-November-29, 15:29, said:

This sort of appalling abuse of Canada's generosity (and naiveté and narcissistic Trudeauian virtue signaling) is what makes my blood boil. And it's entirely predictable. These aren't the immigrants of old, willing to sacrifice and work hard to create a brighter future in a sparsely populated New World teeming with (incredibly arduous and low-paying) jobs, these are opportunistic people looking for free stuff. Enough already!

Where do you get this idea? These are refugees trying to escape a barbaric regime.

Are they any more "opportunistic" than the Irish who came to America in the 19th century to escape the potato famine? They just want to find a better place to raise their families. This has been the American Dream for centuries.

[cherdano]

kenberg, on 2016-November-29, 21:11, said:

You posted an article, and you mentioned Ayn rand

I said there is no reason to bring up Ayn Rand. I was responding to your post about the article.

Would you find it less offensive to point out that the people who are now in power (thanks, in part, to the vote by the author of that article) want to end Medicare (replacing it by an exchange-style market place, i.e. the part of Obamacare that has worked the worst), and want to take away health insurance from about 20 million people?

[kenberg]

cherdano, on 2016-November-30, 04:46, said:

Would you find it less offensive to point out that the people who are now in power (thanks, in part, to the vote by the author of that article) want to end Medicare (replacing it by an exchange-style market place, i.e. the part of Obamacare that has worked the worst), and want to take away health insurance from about 20 million people?

I did not indicate in any way that I was offended. I wasn't.

I said a few words about what I thought the Democratic Party should be doing. And, by implication, some things that I think it has been doing wrong. The short version is that too often the Dems are very quick to write people off.

I don't know Dr. Chew at all. I have known people with whom there is absolutely no point in discussing politics, often no point in discussing much of anything. They are right, that's that. But I saw no reason to believe that Dr. Chew is such a person. I feel a little uncomfortable discussing her at any length since I doubt she is all that political, but she did write an article on politics so there we are.

As mentioned, I have read a little Ayn Rand. Long ago. My reaction was that a person would have to be very devoted to her politics to wade through her awful writing. But I have no idea what Dr. Chew thinks about Ayn Rand, I have no idea if she has ever read her, maybe she has never heard of her. There are, as we know, many people I have never heard of.

I have a number of objections to Donald Trump. Some have to do with policy, but as I have said I also simply object to Trump the person. I would not want Donald Trump as president regardless of the party he belonged to or the policies that he espoused. I think some of my objections to Trump the person would make a lot of sense to a middle of the road person, say one who voted for Obama in 2008 and Romney in 2012. As Dr. Chew says she did.

So I think the Dems should consider having discussions with people like her. I think she is representative of a large number of people who did vote for Trump, but were not at all beyond reach. If, as soon as she speaks up, someone starts speaking of Ayn Rand and Mein Kampf, this will not get her to rethink her vote.
To be clear, I am not suggesting that Dems learn to fake an interest i what she has to say. I am suggesting that they look within themselves and see if they really can have such an interest. If they cannot, then that's all there is to that. It very much appears that this is the place we are at right now.

If you think that I believe the dismissive attitude of people on the left toward anyone who disagrees with them had a big role in electing Donald Trump president, you are reading me right. That's exactly what I think.

[y66]

From After Democrats’ Losses, Nancy Pelosi Becomes a Symbol of What Went Wrong:

Quote

WASHINGTON — In the aftermath of Democrats’ demoralizing election defeat, Representative Nancy Pelosi’s bid to return as minority leader has been transformed into a larger debate about what has gone wrong with a party that eight years ago controlled Congress and the White House.

Ms. Pelosi, a 76-year-old San Francisco progressive, is expected to easily win re-election when her colleagues vote on Wednesday. But she has become a stand-in for complaints that Democrats have failed to offer a compelling, broad-based economic message to the working-class voters in the Midwest and South who helped them capture the House 10 years ago and made Ms. Pelosi the first woman speaker.

Representative Tim Ryan, who represents a blue-collar district in northeastern Ohio, has mounted an unexpected challenge to Ms. Pelosi and given voice to the message that House Democrats must broaden their appeal beyond the three liberal states — California, Massachusetts and New York — that now account for a third of their members.

Mr. Ryan argues that his party can only rebuild if it re-establishes itself as the party of the working class.

“We’ve lost that brand, and that’s the brand that gets you elected,” said Mr. Ryan, who is also thought by colleagues to be considering running for governor of Ohio in 2018.

In an interview, Ms. Pelosi brushed off his challenge. “I haven’t noticed it,” she said when asked if Mr. Ryan had won appreciable support. She added that she had spent last weekend reaching out to the party’s losing candidates rather than rounding up support from her colleagues.

Ms. Pelosi has her share of detractors. She retains a tight grip on important decisions such as who controls the party’s campaign arm, and, more to the point, she and the two other highest-ranking House Democrats are septuagenarians who have stood in the way of younger, ambitious lawmakers for over a decade now.

But the criticism of her tenure is as much a vehicle for airing broader complaints about the condition of a party that just lost the presidency, failed to regain the Senate and picked up only six House seats as it is an attempt to oust her from her post.

“This is not just on Nancy Pelosi,” said Representative Debbie Dingell of Michigan, who is supporting her. “Our entire party has to figure out how we appeal to everybody, how we reconnect with the working class.”

Our entire party has to figure out how we reconnect with the working class? Surely everyone agrees with this.

[Winstonm]

A word about my use of the Ayn Rand reference.

Perhaps I worded it wrongly, but it is clear to me when I re-read my post that I meant that the Paul Ryan's of Congress are now in charge. I certainly did not mean to (nor did I, I don't think) imply that all conservative voters or even all Trump voters are Ayn Rand acolytes - but I did mean to point out that the result of their collective votes has given Rand acolytes (Paul Ryan, et al) the collective power to take our country in that direction and away from a country that takes care of each other.

Perhaps I should have used Gordon Gekko instead of Ayn Rand - but my idea when I write is to used a type of shorthand (Rand) to evoke an generalized idea about a group of people (Far right in Congress).

If I were speaking face-to-face with a Trump voter, I would not call them a Rand acolyte, but I would point out that their vote helped increase the power of Rand acolytes like Paul Ryan, that Paul Ryan has long proposed eliminating Medicare and replacing it with market-based vouchers, and now, with a Republican Congress and Trump in the White House, his goal of eliminating Medicare could happen. How a person responds to that would be more telling to me than anything they might volunteer about themselves.

And, like most Trump-supporting posters here on the WC who don't appear to have considered any specific potential results of their vote, I cannot think the information as to what their vote really did should be construed as an insult.

[Al_U_Card]

Winstonm, on 2016-November-30, 08:49, said:

A word about my use of the Ayn Rand reference.

Perhaps I worded it wrongly, but it is clear to me when I re-read my post that I meant that the Paul Ryan's of Congress are now in charge. I certainly did not mean to (nor did I, I don't think) that all conservative voters or even all Trump voters are Ayn Rand acolytes - but I did mean to point out that the results of their collective votes has given Rand acolytes (Paul Ryan, et al) the collective power to take our country in that direction and away from a country that takes care of each other.

Perhaps I should have used Gordon Gekko instead of Ayn Rand - but my idea when I write is to used a type of shorthand (Rand) to evoke an generalized idea about a group of people (Far right in Congress).

Upthread, Ken brought up Ben Bernanke as a brilliant economic mind. Was he not, also, an acolyte of Ms. Rand? Peoples' opinions are based on the synthesis of their experiences and the result of their cognitive abilities. That the Dems are now searching for a re-branding to get support back from the common man speaks volumes to their mind-set. Perhaps they might just determine an ideology that would fix the most serious issues and allow the electorate their due in the decision-making process? Trump was clever enough to confound the pundits and the established parties. Perhaps that cleverness could also be of use for the common weal no matter where he sits in the pantheon of despicable individuals that happened to be presidents.

[PassedOut]

Al_U_Card, on 2016-November-30, 09:11, said:

Upthread, Ken brought up Ben Bernanke as a brilliant economic mind. Was he not, also, an acolyte of Ms. Rand?

No.

[Winstonm]

PassedOut, on 2016-November-30, 09:23, said:

No.

Alan Greenspan was a Rand acolyte.