[RedSpawn]

Winstonm, on 2017-December-31, 11:12, said:

Who are you going to invite to dinner, the lady who smells bad or Hannibal Lecter?

This political story is not as simple as the choices you present. The road to character is not built overnight. It is built over many years and paved with plenty of good intentions. But the road to hell is also paved with plenty of good intentions.

Clinton versus Trump is not an easy choice if issues of Character are very important to you. Voters weren't given a fair ballot.

[barmar]

ldrews, on 2017-December-31, 09:59, said:

We should praise the voters for a much needed change in direction of our government. Under Trump's watch we have seen an improved economy, more jobs, less unemployment, higher consumer confidence, record stock market, reduced regulations, reduced taxes for 80% of the taxpayers. That is in just one year.

You keep repeating these points, despite the fact that they're all just continuations of trends that were already under way for most of Obama's term as well. How is that "a much needed change"?

Did you forget that Obama took office just after the 2008 financial crisis (caused in some part by GOP policies from the Bush years), and he got us out of it? Trump, on the other hand, took office after years of economic improvement, and his "achievement" is that he didn't do anything that slowed it down.

Trump's policies are clearly pro-business (at the expense of poor people, the economy, etc.) so it's hardly surprising that the stock market has reacted favorably. That mainly benefits the top 10% of the wealth spectrum who own most of the stocks.

[ldrews]

barmar, on 2017-December-31, 12:26, said:

You keep repeating these points, despite the fact that they're all just continuations of trends that were already under way for most of Obama's term as well. How is that "a much needed change"?

Did you forget that Obama took office just after the 2008 financial crisis (caused in some part by GOP policies from the Bush years), and he got us out of it? Trump, on the other hand, took office after years of economic improvement, and his "achievement" is that he didn't do anything that slowed it down.

Trump's policies are clearly pro-business (at the expense of poor people, the economy, etc.) so it's hardly surprising that the stock market has reacted favorably. That mainly benefits the top 10% of the wealth spectrum who own most of the stocks.

If I read the charts correctly, the last 3 quarters GDP growth under Obama's direct influence were declining, finishing up at 1.2% in the 1st quarter of 2017. Immediately after Trump's inauguration the GDP growth rate jumped dramatically to 3.1% then 3.2%, and the 4th quarter looks to come in at 4+%. This is not a continuation pattern by any stretch. Downward trend followed by dramatic reversal after a key event smacks of causality.

I know you would like Trump to look bad or ineffective, but really, the data does not support you.

[ldrews]

barmar, on 2017-December-31, 12:26, said:

You keep repeating these points, despite the fact that they're all just continuations of trends that were already under way for most of Obama's term as well. How is that "a much needed change"?

I am a libertarian. I strongly favor limited government. What we have is not limited government, and over my lifetime has become more and more intrusive. The push to reduce regulation, reduce staff in agencies, and reduce taxes are all actions that I support and believe to be much needed. The performance of the economy, while important in its own right, is a separate discussion.

[Winstonm]

Quote

"Radical movements in capitalist societies," as Milton Friedman patiently explained, "have typically been supported by a few wealthy individuals."

This explains the neo-libertarian.

[cherdano]

Thousands of jobs created by the US economy per month:
2014: 249
2015: 226
2016: 187
2017: 174

[Winstonm]

cherdano, on 2017-December-31, 13:43, said:

Thousands of jobs created by the US economy per month:
2014: 249
2015: 226
2016: 187
2017: 174

Surely your chart is upside down! Don't you realize who is in charge - the Great Pumpkin!?!

[RedSpawn]

barmar, on 2017-December-31, 12:26, said:

You keep repeating these points, despite the fact that they're all just continuations of trends that were already under way for most of Obama's term as well. How is that "a much needed change"?

Did you forget that Obama took office just after the 2008 financial crisis (caused in some part by GOP policies from the Bush years), and he got us out of it? Trump, on the other hand, took office after years of economic improvement, and his "achievement" is that he didn't do anything that slowed it down....

Barmar,
I don't understand why you expect someone to see beyond their cognitive bias. This is a clear example of halo effect. There are negative attributes and biases heaped upon African-American men solely based on their melanin content. Before Obama even opened up his mouth, his loyalty to this country and citizenship was questioned.

Trump had at least two Russian wives and where were the fervent calls for him to substantiate his citizenship? As a general rule, you don't question the citizenship of rich white men. And Trump became the oldest and wealthiest person to assume the Office of the Presidency. Source: https://en.m.wikiped...ki/Donald_Trump

We were on the precipice of a failing economy when President G.W. Bush left office. After the housing bubble collapse of late 2008, almost every American was walking on eggshells. The consumer confidence index was at an all-time low on 10/28/2008. Many of us wondered if we would still have a job to pay for these homes we couldn't afford. Everyone drank the Kool-Aid about deregulation of the derivatives capital market. Source http://money.cnn.com...mer_confidence/

Under Obama, the unemployment rate went from a high of 7+% down to 4.6% when Trump ascended. That's nothing! Let's praise Trump when he moves unemployment from 4.6% to 4.1% and proclaim that Trump has generated the lowest unemployment in years. It's not a lie; it's just window dressing to support our team and whitewash how we even got to 4.1% in the 1st place. It colors history how we like to see it. Let Trump ride on Obama's sweat equity which is an American favorite pastime.

So, when the unemployment rate was a low 4.6%, why weren't we singing Obama's praises then? Because we had and still have a very divisive nation and Obama wasn't on our tribal team. His ACTUAL results didn't fit the narrative we wanted to peddle to the masses to support our agenda.

I am not suggesting that Obama is a hero. He is far from it. He doubled our national debt in 8 years just like President G.W. Bush. What I am suggesting, however is that Americans have very bad memories and tendencies of revisionist history to support their cognitive biases. Facts be damned.

EXAMPLE:
President Obama was labeled a Muslim even though he had attended Jeremiah Wright's Trinity United Church of Christ of Chicago for 20 years! Hmmm. You can't trust those Muslims and you can't trust those Black men. So an African-American man who is allegedly a Muslim is a DOUBLE WHAMMY.

I presume we are to believe that Obama was conducting reconnaissance over those 20 years in a Chicago Christian church? Or that one day he just woke up and decided to renounce decades of Christianity indoctrination and accept Islam into his life?

My point being, "Don't trust that black man (Obama) over there. He is not our brother and never has been. He is not loyal. His purported interests are not our interests. He is not an American citizen. In fact, he is a Muslim and an enemy combatant and a terrorist in disguise." NOTE: Kitchen sink is included with this cognitive bias.

We create our own reality and whitewash our memories to support our beliefs and fears. And as the corporate media complex peddles more and more disinformation, it is only going to get worse.

[Winstonm]

For those behind the times trying to blame Hillary and the Steele dossier, here is the actual reason for the start of the Russia-Trump investigation: https://www.nytimes....oulos.html?_r=0

Quote

WASHINGTON — During a night of heavy drinking at an upscale London bar in May 2016, George Papadopoulos, a young foreign policy adviser to the Trump campaign, made a startling revelation to Australia’s top diplomat in Britain: Russia had political dirt on Hillary Clinton.

About three weeks earlier, Mr. Papadopoulos had been told that Moscow had thousands of emails that would embarrass Mrs. Clinton, apparently stolen in an effort to try to damage her campaign.

Exactly how much Mr. Papadopoulos said that night at the Kensington Wine Rooms with the Australian, Alexander Downer, is unclear. But two months later, when leaked Democratic emails began appearing online, Australian officials passed the information about Mr. Papadopoulos to their American counterparts, according to four current and former American and foreign officials with direct knowledge of the Australians’ role.

The hacking and the revelation that a member of the Trump campaign may have had inside information about it were driving factors that led the F.B.I. to open an investigation in July 2016 into Russia’s attempts to disrupt the election and whether any of President Trump’s associates conspired.

[rmnka447]

RedSpawn, on 2017-December-31, 20:12, said:

Trump had at least two Russian wives and where were the fervent calls for him to substantiate his citizenship? As a general rule, you don't question the citizenship of rich white men. And Trump became the oldest and wealthiest person to assume the Office of the Presidency. Source: https://en.m.wikiped...ki/Donald_Trump

Sorry, but "two Russian wives" is blatantly incorrect.

Ivanka (Zelnickova) Trump is a Czech and definitely not Russian at all. She hails from what is now the Czech Republic. It is the western 2/3 of what was Czechoslovakia and is located south of Germany, southeast of Poland, and north of Austria. Prior to Czechoslovakia, Bohemia and Moravia which form the bulk of the Czech Republic were both part of the Austro-Hungarian empire and never any part of Russia.

Melania (Knauss) Trump is Slovenian and again definitely not Russian at all. Slovenia is on the Balkan Peninsula and once was part of Yugoslavia. It is directly across Adriatic Sea from Italy. Likewise, prior to Yugoslavia, it was also part of the Austro-Hungarian Empire.

But, hey, those people with the funny names without vowels and sometimes with -ova at the end are all the same right? Um...No! His wives are definitely of the Slavic race, but they are from distinct non-Russian groups of Slavs (who BTW are very anti-Russian, if anything). The -ova at the end of woman's surnames is a linguistic addition that is common in many different Slavic languages to distinguish women from men.

[RedSpawn]

cherdano, on 2017-December-31, 13:43, said:

Thousands of jobs created by the US economy per month:
2014: 249
2015: 226
2016: 187
2017: 174

This is what I want to see. You can't soundbite job growth. We need to add Trump's figures for the calendar year 2017. This is how I like to see partisan data. Sunshine is the best form of disinfectant.

[RedSpawn]

Winstonm, on 2017-December-31, 21:40, said:

For those behind the times trying to blame Hillary and the Steele dossier, here is the actual reason for the start of the Russia-Trump investigation: https://www.nytimes....oulos.html?_r=0

https://www.dhs.gov/...rector-national

Should the computer networks of the Republican National Committee and the Democratic National Committee and any other emerging parties meet certain certification and firewall standards to be outlined by the Department of Homeland Security since their hacking could lead to a foreign agent hacking their systems and releasing a trove of e-mails that may have a material impact on the outcome of a federal election?

We are in the era of Hackathons and have rolled up state and local information technology election systems under Homeland Security's jurisdiction but left the RNC and DNC to fend on their own in terms of network security protection. We deem this a private matter with a public domain spillover effect should a hack occur.

Is 2018 the time we change this?

[RedSpawn]

rmnka447, on 2017-December-31, 21:52, said:

Sorry, but "two Russian wives" is blatantly incorrect.

Ivanka (Zelnickova) Trump is a Czech and definitely not Russian at all. She hails from what is now the Czech Republic. It is the western 2/3 of what was Czechoslovakia and is located south of Germany, southeast of Poland, and north of Austria. Prior to Czechoslovakia, Bohemia and Moravia which form the bulk of the Czech Republic were both part of the Austro-Hungarian empire and never any part of Russia.

Melania (Knauss) Trump is Slovenian and again definitely not Russian at all. Slovenia is on the Balkan Peninsula and once was part of Yugoslavia. It is directly across Adriatic Sea from Italy. Likewise, prior to Yugoslavia, it was also part of the Austro-Hungarian Empire.

But, hey, those people with the funny names without vowels and sometimes with -ova at the end are all the same right? Um...No! His wives are definitely of the Slavic race, but they are from distinct non-Russian groups of Slavs (who BTW are very anti-Russian, if anything). The -ova at the end of woman's surnames is a linguistic addition that is common in many different Slavic languages to distinguish women from men.

I concede here. I didn't differentiate between Russia (formerly USSR) and the Eastern block. Let's look at this world map below:



Czechslovakia used to be a former USSR satellite-state but it was technically its own country. It no longer exists as a unit and is now Czech Republic and Slovakia.

Also, when I said two Russian wives I should have gone in for the jugular and intimated two Russian mail-order brides which typically includes pure Russian women and women of former Eastern block origin like Czech or Slovakia.

I can understand how a mail-order bride salivating over American citizenship would entertain marrying Trump despite his huge character flaws.

Source: http://www.planetrom...-russian-women/

[Winstonm]

RedSpawn, on 2018-January-01, 03:19, said:

https://www.dhs.gov/...rector-national

Should the computer networks of the Republican National Committee and the Democratic National Committee and any other emerging parties meet certain certification and firewall standards to be outlined by the Department of Homeland Security since their hacking could lead to a foreign agent hacking their systems and releasing a trove of e-mails that may have a material impact on the outcome of a federal election?

We are in the era of Hackathons and have rolled up state and local information technology election systems under Homeland Security's jurisdiction but left the RNC and DNC to fend on their own in terms of network security protection. We deem this a private matter with a public domain spillover effect should a hack occur.

Is 2018 the time we change this?

How do you get a party and president who control all aspects of government and who benefited from Russian hacking to act to protect from future hacks, though?

[hrothgar]

Winstonm, on 2018-January-01, 08:41, said:

How do you get a party and president who control all aspects of government and who benefited from Russian hacking to act to protect from future hacks, though?

More important, the DNC penetration was based on spear-phishing.

Improving your firewall standards ain't gonna help.

A strong 2FA scheme might be a bit more useful, however, most of the end users of these systems are technologically illiterate. (And I am specifically talking about people like Trump, Clinton, Podesta, etc. who absolutely require access to the systems in question)

From my perspective, the most important areas to clean up are

1. Voting machines
2. Voter registration

On the voting machine front, I would strongly prefer to see systems based on

A. Auditable open source software
B. Computer terminals that end users use to select their choices, but then generate physical ballots
C. A second set of machines that counts ballots

This would seem to provide the best flexibility wrt ballot design accompanied with paper ballots that voters can use to validate that the voting terminal recorded their votes, a vote counting system that can be audited for accuracy, and actual physical records.

With respect to voter registration:

A. I think that this needs to be federalized
B. I suspect that we need to adopt some kind of Federal ID card that is issued to all citizens

The crack pot state by state systems that we have today have very real problems regarding voter suppression.

[diana_eva]

RedSpawn, on 2018-January-01, 03:51, said:

I concede here. I didn't differentiate between Russia (formerly USSR) and the Eastern block.

Most of the "Eastern block" hated and still hates Russia. Having Russia nearby is not fun at all, and that includes the ex-communist countries. Those naive dreamers who fantasize about a world of peace where USA and Russia fraternize are out of touch with reality. Russia lies, that's the problem with them. They can't be trusted.

[Winstonm]

diana_eva, on 2018-January-01, 10:14, said:

Most of the "Eastern block" hated and still hates Russia. Having Russia nearby is not fun at all, and that includes the ex-communist countries. Those naive dreamers who fantasize about a world of peace where USA and Russia fraternize are out of touch with reality. Russia lies, that's the problem with them. They can't be trusted.

I think the big issue regarding Russia is that both Tillerson and Trump look at Russia through a business lens, with Trump in particular ignoring any Russian criminality that might interfere with Trump profit. In fact, Trump has said he believes U.S. companies should be free to use bribes and payoffs when necessary in foreign markets.

The pendulum of the U.S. has swung too far toward business interests - it is time for it to swing back toward labor and social issues.

[diana_eva]

Winstonm, on 2018-January-01, 10:34, said:

I think the big issue regarding Russia is that both Tillerson and Trump both look at Russia through a business lens, with Trump in particular ignoring any Russian criminality that might interfere with Trump profit. In fact, Trump has said he believes U.S. companies should be free to use bribes and payoffs when necessary in foreign markets.

The pendulum of the U.S. has swung too far toward business interests - it is time for it to swing back toward labor and social issues.

Yeah from a business point of view there's lots of potential especially if he won't let ethics get in the way of making money.

[ldrews]

diana_eva, on 2018-January-01, 10:39, said:

Yeah from a business point of view there's lots of potential especially if he won't let ethics get in the way of making money.

And it seems to me that very few people allow ethics to influence their business or political lives. It seems to be a universal constant.

[y66]

From The case for optimism in 2018 by Gideon Rachman at FT:

Quote

The year 2018 is beginning with economic and geopolitical indicators pointing in very different directions. Global stock markets are at record highs and economic confidence is growing across most of the developed world. But while investors are bullish, followers of international politics are very nervous.

In recent years, it has tended to be the Middle East that delivers bad news, and Asia that specialises in optimism. This year could reverse that pattern. The biggest geopolitical risk is a war on the Korean peninsula. If the US carries through on President Donald Trump’s threat to use “fire and fury” to disarm North Korea it will be the first time that America has gone to war with another nuclear-armed state. The risks are literally incalculable.

By contrast, there are several big things that could finally go right in the Middle East. The combination of turmoil in Iran, liberalising reforms in Saudi Arabia and the final defeat of Islamic State on the battlefield would all be serious setbacks for the most fundamentalist and confrontational forms of Islamism.

Investors and economists seem to be discounting the risk of war in North Korea. But national security experts are much less sanguine. Many say that the atmosphere in Washington now is uncomfortably reminiscent of the mood before the invasion of Iraq in 2003 — when the US foreign policy establishment talked itself into believing that a pre-emptive war against Saddam Hussein was a good idea. In a similar manner, war with North Korea is moving from the unthinkable into the thinkable column.

These uncompromising statements need to be weighed against the factors that have always deterred an American attack — above all the threat that North Korean retaliation could cause hundreds of thousands of casualties in neighbouring South Korea.

One possibility is that the US military has told the White House that it can keep casualties in South Korea to an acceptable level — by pre-emptive strikes that target the North Korean missiles aimed at Seoul, the South Korean capital. But, even if that worked, it would leave open the question of how to find and secure the regime’s nuclear weapons — a mission that would probably have to involve ground troops.

It still sounds too dangerous to contemplate, particularly given that America’s closest Asian allies — Japan, South Korea and Australia — would be very unlikely to back a pre-emptive strike. A New Year’s message from Kim Jong Un, the North Korean leader, played upon this division — threatening the US with nuclear weapons, while offering dialogue with South Korea.

So my starting assumption for 2018 is that there will not, in the end, be a war on the Korean peninsula. A conventional president would worry deeply that US “credibility” would be compromised by a failure to deliver on his solemn promise to stop North Korea’s nuclear programme. But President Trump invents his own reality, so is much less likely to be concerned by appearances.

In any case, one good rule about geopolitical predictions is that the truly world-changing events — from the fall of the Berlin Wall to the terrorist attacks of 9/11 — are the ones that the experts had not foreseen. This week’s unanticipated outbreak of demonstrations on the streets of Iran is a useful reminder of that fact.

Pessimism is usually the best bet in the Middle East. From the Iraq war to the Arab spring to the Israeli-Palestinian peace process, the most gloomy assessments are often vindicated. So it should be acknowledged that in Iran, the likeliest outcome is that the current rash of protests will fizzle out or be crushed, as they were in 2009.

On the other hand, Islamist fundamentalism is an economic and social dead-end — and people stuck in a dead-end eventually try to reverse their way out. Something of the sort may already be under way in Saudi Arabia, where the impetuous crown prince Mohammed bin Salman seems genuinely determined to take on the Wahhabi establishment. If the rivalrous groups of Islamist hardliners lose ground in Riyadh and Tehran — and on the battlefields of Syria and Iraq — then 2018 could go down as a year of historic setbacks for Islamist fundamentalism.

After a dismal run in world politics, it is certainly time to be reminded that there can be good, as well as bad, surprises. My own new year’s resolution is to try to snap out of Trump and Brexit-induced gloom.

In that spirit, I will predict that most of the big risks that currently worry pundits will not happen. There will not be a war on the Korean peninsula, nor will there be one in the South China Sea or in eastern Europe. The EU will not fall apart, Brexit negotiations will not break down and markets will not crash. By contrast, there will be big and positive change in the Middle East. And England will win the World Cup.