rkbabang

So much for that: http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/n-kkk-group-hold-victory-parade-donald-trump-article-1.2868491 I know this week has been dragging on slowly, but four years has yet to pass. lol, And the latest. PE apparently likes to sleep in his own bed at night. During the campaign he would fly home at night so he could wake up in his own bed in Trump tower, hence the evening rallies. He wants to know how many days per week he has to stay in the Whitehouse. I know alot of 70 year olds who are like that. Oh, the laws of unintended consequences..... I like to sleep in my own bed at night too, that is why whenever I move I bring my bed with me to my new home.

I know. It makes me want to weep. In the past, you've implied that humanity needs to evolve socially to reach a better place for everyone, and I'm right there with you. Human nature is broken. We need to get beyond the "us" and the "them". I wrote that when still in horror after clicking on that link. I'd like to rephrase that to "some people suck". I agree with you the "us" and "them" needs to go, we are all human beings, but I do believe that most people at least mean well and that the worst racists and bigots are a small and shrinking percentage of our society. At least that is what I want to believe. But the bottom of the barrel is really awful to behold.

So much for that: http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/n-kkk-group-hold-victory-parade-donald-trump-article-1.2868491 I know this week has been dragging on slowly, but four years has yet to pass.

Just keep on whacking that straw man. Nobody's wanted equality since Lenin. What people want is low enough inequality that the poor don't rise up and shoot the rich, but instead have the income mobility to rise up and become the rich. If an ideal means the violation of rights and destruction when consistently implemented, why would you want to implement it to any degree at all? It's silly to think that people will rise up if there's inequality. They will rise up if they perceive inequality as unjust. They will be happy with inequality if they think it's just. And earned inequality that results from freedom is just. I agree. Of course there will always be some who think they are entitled to what other people have worked hard for simply because they have been born and draw breath, people who let envy get the best of them, and those who play on the envy of others to obtain political power, but hopefully those will always be the minority. Envious people don't scare me as much as those who wish to use them as a base for power.

Let me help you with this. Electing an openly racist and sexist president matters. It changes the culture of the nation. That might not impact white males, but it can make a real difference in the day-to-day life of minorities and women. This twitter feed has a few (well, fifty), examples. To me, this is very worrisome. People suck.

Yes I love this year. First Brexit now this. Next up Europe please? I'm hoping for the secession movements to really pick up some steam. The US: CA: http://www.yescalifornia.org/ NH: http://nhindependence.org/ TX: https://www.texassecede.com/ VT: http://vermontrepublic.org/ AK: http://www.akip.org/ Canada: Alberta: http://www.republicofalberta.com/ Quebec: http://www.mlnq.org/ Scotland and a bunch of other movements in Europe: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_active_separatist_movements_in_Europe Oregon & Washington state: http://www.kiro7.com/news/local/after-trump-victory-oregonians-submit-petition-to-secede/466091749

There is no law of nature that says you need to like who is president. That doesn't mean you can't get on with your life and do what needs doing. That doesn't mean you should go around butt kissing though. There isn't any reason for Buffett to say anything at all.

If I could proactively plan out my life and the entire world around me I would too. The best-laid plans of mice and men often go awry

I'm still hoping he's a closet Democrat and did all this simply to win. You gave up German beer! :( Cheers! I don't think he is a closet Democrat, I don't think he is a politician in the usual sense. He's pretty much doing this for publicity and his own ego. Unlike someone like Hillary, I doubt he is obsessed with political power for its own sake. I think he is closer to being a liberal than he let on in his campaign. What is truly amazing to me is how the left is reacting. There are people who are completely out of control, with no sense of proportion. He's the president not the dictator, with the possible exception of foreign policy he really doesn't have all that much unilateral power. He needs congress to get anything done, and his own party isn't crazy about him. That too. His own party is him, not the republicans. This chart says it all. Republicans did not particularly like Trump, he got less votes than either Romney in 2012 or McCain in 2008. The best way to describe this election isn't "Trump won", but rather "Hillary lost". Trump doesn't exactly have overwhelming support and the Republican Party leadership is not happy at all. My point is that he won't be able to do anything crazy.

I'm still hoping he's a closet Democrat and did all this simply to win. You gave up German beer! :( Cheers! I don't think he is a closet Democrat, I don't think he is a politician in the usual sense. He's pretty much doing this for publicity and his own ego. Unlike someone like Hillary, I doubt he is obsessed with political power for its own sake. I think he is closer to being a liberal than he let on in his campaign. What is truly amazing to me is how the left is reacting. There are people who are completely out of control, with no sense of proportion. He's the president not the dictator, with the possible exception of foreign policy he really doesn't have all that much unilateral power. He needs congress to get anything done, and his own party isn't crazy about him.

Too many conflicts of interest operating here. Impeachment is a real possiblity. If/When his scandals and mouth become a national embarassment R. Reps will be trying to save their own skins and will start an impeachment process. At the very least within short order they will firewall him. Its all just sowing the seeds for a needed democratic renewal. I hope he isn't impeached (or one of the crazy liberals we see crying or defecating on the sidewalk doesn't flip out and kill him). Trump is unlikely to be that bad a president, but Pence would be awful. Trump is basically a New York liberal pretending to be a conservative. Pence however is the real deal. Pence is a big time religious nut conservative. When he says anti-gay things, or anti-abortion things, unlike Trump, he really means it.

Taxation and regulation obviously do destroy wealth. And inequality is one fantastic aspect of a free society. People are different and they deserve different amounts of wealth. Exactly, word for word. Inequality is a feature not a bug. Especially in a world (like ours) where the bottom keeps moving up too. http://money.cnn.com/2015/10/05/news/economy/poverty-world-bank/ https://fee.org/articles/the-world-is-getting-better-and-nobody-knows-it/ Unequally wealthy is far superior to equally poor.

Speaking of dystopian fiction this was the best quote I saw yesterday: "It seems that the American people are rather hesitant to elect a woman who both looks and acts like the shadowy dictator in every dystopian young adult novel ever written. When given a choice between a character from reality TV or the villain from the Hunger Games, the American people chose the former." From: http://www.theblaze.com/contributions/matt-walsh-liberals-this-is-very-simple-you-lost-because-hillary-clinton-is-objectively-terrible/

I don't know what others mean, but when I say "elites", I am not talking about the super rich. I'm talking about political elites: people who's money and power derive not from serving humanity in the free and open marketplace, but rather from political pull and influence.

I agree there.

No way, after this you have the Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren Democratic Party. You're not gonna get a center candidate. I was kidding obviously, just her age will probably stop her (if her health problems and/or being in jail don't). But unless Trump does something horrible, the Democrats moving even further left is going to guarantee him another term. The Democrats need to find someone centrist on taxes & guns, who at least talks about peace the way Obama did in 2008, and of course doesn't have the Clinton baggage. Then they will have a chance of unseating him.

Just think. In four years Hillary will run against Trump again and we can have a repeat of this whole election season! What fun.

I don't think they are rigged, but I think their methodology must be flawed in some systematic way in order for them to have been so universally wrong. If the goal is to create a "scientific" poll that accurately predicts how people will vote, then you would think that this proves that however it is being done it is not working so methods need to be adjusted next time. When your methodology doesn't produce results that turn out to be true, it is time to look at your methodology because it is flawed. I don't know why, but I do have some theories. Are they calling only landlines? Maybe Hillary won overwhelmingly with people who not only still have landlines but answer them when they don't recognize the caller ID. Even with cellphones I would never answer a call from a number I didn't recognize, if it were important they could leave a message and I'd call back. Therefore I would never be able to take part in any of these polls. Also what time of day are they calling? If during the day, they are selecting for housewives, elderly women, and the unemployed. Who is answering these calls and how can you extrapolate the answers they give to all of society? I suspect the answer is "you can't". And then there is always the question are people being honest with the pollsters? I'm not sure you can ever adjust for that, because you have no idea how the person you talked to ended up voting.

He saw something I didn't. I'm am going to go back and re-read his prediction from August of 2015 and see if I can understand what he saw and why it was so important. Michael Moore also predicted that Trump was going to win when the newspapers were saying his chances "are approaching zero". And it is obvious, but worth pointing out, that neither Michael Moore nor Scott Adams are Trump supporters.

Yes I love this year. First Brexit now this. Next up Europe please? I'm hoping for the secession movements to really pick up some steam. The US: CA: http://www.yescalifornia.org/ NH: http://nhindependence.org/ TX: https://www.texassecede.com/ VT: http://vermontrepublic.org/ AK: http://www.akip.org/ Canada: Alberta: http://www.republicofalberta.com/ Quebec: http://www.mlnq.org/ Scotland and a bunch of other movements in Europe: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_active_separatist_movements_in_Europe

Annnnnnd .... no reaction at all from the markets. Not only was my prediction that Hillary would win wrong, but my prediction that the market would crash on a Trump win was also wrong. That Yogi Berra really knew what he was talking about.

The Democrats made a huge mistake nominating Hillary. First, like you said, she is a mean, condescending, unlikeable person. Second, she is seen as the establishment candidate. There are millions of people who voted for both Obama and Trump. Why do you think that is? I think Obama was seen as the "change" candidate and Trump is seen as the non-establishment candidate who will change things as well. These people want things in Washington to change. Third, she has a history of saying racist and homophobic things. Yes I know she claims she has changed her views, but I put that in the same category as Robert Bird the former KKK leader claiming to no longer be racist. Obama got way more black votes than Hillary did. Fourth, you simply do not win the Presidency of the United States by telling Americans that you are going to take their guns away. Enough said. This was a huge tactical error on her part and I think she just thought that she was so far ahead in the polls that she could get away with it. Turns out she couldn't. Fifth, she is seen as the war candidate. Obama (regardless of what he actually did) was seen as the peace candidate. That made all the difference. I think people want peace and change, and Hillary represented neither. And lastly she is just so obviously power hungry and corrupt that all of the conspiracy theories going around about her seem almost plausible. I don't think people wanted someone like that in the Oval Office. That's my analysis of the results for what it is worth. I think almost anyone else could have beat Trump. He wasn't a good candidate by any means, it is just that Hillary is so awful.

Damn, damn, damn! No I have just under 20% in cash, I was expecting a Hillary victory and a rally as the Trump fears subsided. I was then going to move to 50% cash. If I had even suspected that Trump might win, I'd be holding a lot more cash right now. As the great Yogi Berra said: It's tough to make predictions, especially about the future.

Me as well. I don't think Trump will be half as bad as most people fear and I think Hillary would have been much worse than most could imagine. He can't do most of the nutty things he said without congress. I don't see the "Let's build a wall and get Mexico to pay for it Act" passing anytime soon. But the president can unilaterally do a lot of damage foreign policy wise and I don't think Trump is the warmongering lunatic that Hillary is. So where Trump is insane he doesn't have unilateral power, but where Hillary is insane she would have if she had been elected. Yes the next president is going to be a racist, homophobic, xenophobic, misogynist, bigot, but he won't have the power to roll back civil rights, Hillary would have had the power to implement a no fly zone in Syria and antagonize Russia into war. All and all, I think we dodged a bullet last night. I'm still shocked though, I didn't expect him to win.

I'll try to demonstrate why the theory "if you vote for X it is a vote for Y" is so absurd. Take someone who prefers Johnson, but their 2nd choice would have been Hillary. You can make an ordinal list of such a person's preferences as maybe being: 1) Johnson 2) Hillary 3) Stein 4) Don't vote 5) Trump Your theory is that this person voting for Johnson is really a vote for Trump, because Hillary is who they most prefer out of the two major candidates. My preference list is: 1) Don't vote 2) Johnson 3) Stein 4) Trump 5) Hillary Sure both Hillary and Trump are further down my list than on the lists of many other people, but it is true that I prefer Trump to Hillary, so why doesn't your rule apply to me as well as the person above? You are saying if the person above was forced to choose between the two candidates that person would choose Hillary so a vote for Johnson is a vote for Trump. Well if I were forced to choose between the two candidates I would choose Trump, so by your theory a vote for Johnson, Stein, or no vote at all is a vote for Hillary. I think the whole theory is nuts, because no one is forced to vote for Hillary or Trump. There are multiple other options (at least 3) and one should vote for his or her prefered option. A vote for Johnson therefore is simply a vote for Johnson.