This pleases me.
“…Plaintiffs suffered no less than hundreds of millions of dollars in damages.”
This pleases me.
“…Plaintiffs suffered no less than hundreds of millions of dollars in damages.”
Not at all. I don’t care what or how much other people have. That’s their business, not mine. It doesn’t affect me, and quite frankly, it doesn’t affect you either. The whole idea that we should care what others have reeks of jealousy.
The fact that some people have nothing, isn’t because someone else has more. It’s much more complicated than that, and taking from the rich isn’t going to solve the situation. It a situation that doesn’t need a solution.
There are things that the Federal Government is supposed to provide. One of those requirements are security. I don’t have a problem with the wall. That’s part of their Constitutionally approved jobs.
But, let’s offset spending anyway, by cutting programs not specifically named by the Constitution, for example, close the Department of Education, cut off all federal funding to colleges, and end government backed student loans and grants.
Yesterday was National Haiku Day. This year I wrote several. Enjoy.
The sound of spring nights!
It’s not the crickets chirping,
But the frogs croaking
I like Donald Trump
He makes them liberals cry
Who could ask for more?
Oh, Oh, look at me
I am on a Haiku roll
Get out of my way!
I am a poet,
But I did not know it. Yeah.
It is time to stop.
Last year I wrote one:
The fog, it is gray
It makes for a dreary day
Today is that way
And for fun, the lune version:
The fog’s gray
Makes for a dreary day
Today’s that way
Honestly, I don’t know much about Bannon. What I do know is that a lot of the hatred and fear directed at Bannon seems to mirror that directed at Trump, as well as Jeff Sessions, Rex Tillerson, Betsy DeVos, etc. Remember, everyone who voted for Trump is a racist, and everyone he works with is a racist.
I have, quite honestly, ignored the complaints and figured I’ll wait and see. If I need to be angry, I’ll save it for when the time is necessary.
Hmm. Let me ask a question. Why do D’s only trust media that flattered the past admin much like state run median, and disparages the current admin much like fascist propaganda?
Like John Hawkins says, there are essentially two versions of the media: the left bias and the right bias. I’d like to find a news organization that tells me the facts, and moves on. Don’t tell me how to interpret the facts. If I don’t understand, I look it up. I’ll interpret the facts.
There are varying degrees of flattery that conservatives will put up with. Personally, my favorite news site is Hot Air. They will call out the Trump administration for doing stupid things, but they’re a lot more reasonable about it. They don’t start riots. They don’t call for impeachment. They also point out the positives, unlike leftist media, who twists the administration’s words and actions with misleading narratives, i.e., fake news. They play loose with the facts. You want an example?
The MSM portrays the deportation of illegal immigrants as simply an immigration problem. That’s not the way Trump or his supporters see it. Immigrants are fine, and welcome, when they do it legally. It is those who do it illegally that we have a problem with. The Left’s systematic failure to differentiate between the two appears to be a deliberate effort to mislead the public on the true nature of the narrative. This is one of the reasons they have earned the label “fake news.”
People aren’t opposed to a free press, but they want the press to be responsible. The mainstream media has shown itself to be irresponsible.
Trump essentially gave his kids his businesses, so if he’s involved, his involvement is limited. I also think the fact that he doesn’t have businesses there is a coincidence.
The issue at stake is vetting, something that is difficult to do with citizens of these countries because of their lack of effective government. The ban was put in place, temporarily, while the United States works to improve a process that will, most likely, remain difficult even after the ban is lifted. The ban makes sense.
It’s also not a Muslim ban. Just because the majority of citizens from those countries are Muslim, doesn’t mean it was a Muslim ban. If it was a Muslim ban, there would have been other countries listed, and it would have said, “Muslim ban.”
12a. Where is the line for you? what action could Trump take that would ensure you’d fight against him and his supporters?
12b. Where is your red line? What won’t you sign off on?
12c. I’ll bite. What would have to happen to make meaningful conservative opposition to Trump occur?
This is a stupid question. Really. There really isn’t one thing that would have to happen because I’m not a single issue voter. I can, and will, oppose stances on some issues, because the only President I would agree with 100% of the time would be me. But opposition, such as the left currently wants? I can’t see him crossing any line that would make me oppose him as as a whole?
Obviously some issues are more important than others, but for the sake of conversation here, what would it take? He would have to:
I suppose he could break the law. In that case, I would call for his impeachment, but I don’t see that happening. And it’s certainly not like the liberal hysteria where they see him breaking the law at every turn. Seriously. It seems like all he has to do is sneeze, and they object.
Anyway, I could keep going, but you get the idea. He would have to turn into a liberal.
11. What is the conservative view of Trump’s infrastructure plan? Good, bad, socialism?
I don’t know about all conservatives, but I’m not a fan of it. Basically, I am opposed to all federal government stimulus plans and federal government bailouts. I’m also opposed to subsidies.
When it comes to infrastructure, I believe that is the realm of the states working with the utilities to make sure things aren’t crumbling. Roads, bridges, power lines, etc. are the things states should be involved with, although not necessarily paying for. If a business wants to make money, competition is king. Look at the cellular companies. They’re continuously trying to improve their services, and they’re continuously upgrading their hardware. Government’s not involved. The only thing the government needs to do to protect the consumer is ensure that competition is taking place; no price-fixing please.
As a side note: sports arenas are not infrastructure.
No business is too big to fail. If it’s poorly run, too bad.
Want to stimulate the economy? Cut taxes. Let people keep more of their money. Sure, some people will invest, but a lot of people will spend it. People will spend money at the local level and that money will work it’s way up. Everybody will get a piece of the stimulus instead of a few rich corporations.
Want to stimulate the economy? Lower the cost of living. Remove government red tape and business taxes. Red tape increases the cost of doing business, which gets passed to the consumer. Eliminate business taxes. Businesses don’t pay taxes; they get passed on to the consumer. Both of these items raise the cost of living, which, by the way, hurts the poor. But liberals don’t care about that; regulations and taxes are more important.
Sorry. I’m ranting. I don’t see Trump’s infrastructure plan as socialist in nature, but I’m still opposed to it. Like I said, infrastructure belongs in the hands of the individual states. Just as it’s not the government’s job to bail out failing businesses, it’s not the federal government’s job to bail out failing states.
10a. Why don’t conservatives seem to give a damn about climate change?
10b. Why are conservatives so into climate denial when their future is also at stake?
There seem to be a few different reasons that people deny climate change. John Hawkins summed it up nicely:
“Put simply, we’re dubious of the evidence that says it’s occurring and believe much of it is driven by government grants, as opposed to real science. Moreover, many of the plans to fix it seem incredibly expensive, inconvenient or unworkable. Personally, I think we should certainly keep investigating global warming, but it would take much stronger scientific evidence to convince me that it was a problem we need to make major changes to address.”
I agree with him completely, but I have more to add regarding my personal view.
Science says that there have been at least five major ice ages1. The basic assumption is that in order for an ice age to occur, significant global cooling has to take place. In order to separate them, significant global warming has to take place.
Science also says that humans didn’t show up until the end of the last ice age and the earth has been on a warming trend ever since.
What can we learn based on these two pieces of scientific evidence?
First, we can say that the climate has been changing for millions of years and there’s no evidence that it has stopped.
Second, there were no humans around for the first four periods of global warming, therefore, they were not man made. I suspect that if you figure out what caused the first three, you’ll figure out what’s causing this one. Hint: it isn’t man. I’m not saying we haven’t contributed; I’m just saying we didn’t cause it.
Third, since we didn’t cause it, we aren’t going to stop it. Whatever process God put in place is going to keep going this time, just like it did the first four times. There’s no sense in putting trillions of dollars into programs that are only going to succeed in destroying economies, and hurting the poor. Ever hear of Green Energy Poverty?
This conservative thinks it would be much cheaper and more fruitful to work towards adaptation instead. I know, I know. You’re worried about how climate change is going to affect future generations of polar bears. I have an answer for that, too. It’s called a zoo.